Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I interpret it as metaphorical and you interpret it as literal. That's just going to have to be the difference between us.
That isn't the point of that particular example. The point is that there can be gradation between two different things without any hard lines. There was no one exact point when you definitely stopped having a wild wolf and started having a tame dog.
Humans must not be able to go to Mars because we have never been. Please do tell me what the mechanism is that prevents macro-evolution? If it can't happen, there has to be a mechanism. Something must be keeping certain genes from mutating. What is the mechanism?
I've already explained why we can't do it: we can't make generation times speed up arbitrarily quickly. If you can find a way to do that, let me know. Just because humans are smart doesn't mean we can break the laws of physics and biology and do whatever we want to.
It would have taken many, many steps and not just one jump.
We can't do it because we don't have the genetic engineering expertise yet. We can already swap genes around. Given time, we'll likely figure out how to completely change organisms on the genetic scale. That still would not be evolution.
I can see that all of this hinges on the validity of radiometric dating. Do you understand how it works? Please give me a brief overview of what you think the process involved is. Please also tell me what makes it flawed.
A lack of any mechanism that will keep cat-specific genes from mutating, for one. Also, the bulk of evidence for macro-evolution comes from radiological dating of the fossil record. I will wait for your response to the dating questions I've posted above. We must get past that before we can proceed further.
That is true in the short term, and the existence of micro-evolution is not at odds with macro-evolution.
Not anymore than you will get a genetic code for a non-life form.
No, nor does evolutionary theory say that it can. If you think it does, then you don't understand evolution as well as you might think you do.
I have herd doctors refer to evolution as "The Great Creator." As in scientist realizing there is no greater creator than evolution itself. Evolution is like the foundation needed to "make the products and create stuff from scratch" as you so eloquently put it.
It may be a canid, but it is not a domestic dog in the same sense that a chihuahua is.
I already have. All genes are made of DNA (or RNA, in the sense of some viruses). All DNA/RNA is subject to mutation because the replication process is not perfect. This means that any aspect of the genetic code can be changed by mutation. If any of it can change, then potentially all of it can change. The only way that this can not be true is if there is a perfect replication mechanism somewhere somehow that keeps mutations from happening in specific genes (specifically those genes which make each "kind" unique).
Checking the chronological and geographic order of fossils provides the test. If macro-evolution is true, then we should expect to find certain patterns in the fossil record while other patterns are absent. However, that is part of the dating thing that we are talking about.
No, because the organism has not evolved in the Darwinian sense. In this genetic engineering example, there is no random mutation, there is no reproduction, there are no selection pressures. Without those, there is no Darwinian evolution. If you think that genetic engineering is the same as evolution, then that simply reinforces the fact that you do not fully understand what evolution is. Darwinian evolution is not the same as the broad definition of evolution (which is simply "change over time"). It is very specific.
Unfortunately, I cannot watch that video right now due to bandwidth limitations. I can say, however, that the vast majority of the fossil record is not dated using carbon dating. You need something like uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating for things millions of years old. Those processes work slightly differently than carbon dating does. As a matter of fact, potassium-argon dating will not work on a rock unless it is millions of years old. If it is younger, not enough argon will have accumulated to be detectable. If the Earth was only 6,000-10,000 years old, potassum-argon dating would always give back a null result (which it does not in practice).
Macro-evolution requires micro-evolution. You have to take small steps before you take large ones. One does not disprove the other.
Which would include fossil organisms. But, once again, that's back to the dating question.
The problem would be the assumption that a cat can somehow generate all of the exact same genes as a human through mutation and selection. It's the same reason that you can't take a modern wolf and breed it until you get a chihuahua. You might get something like a chihuahua, but it would be genetically different because the mutations are never going to be exactly the same. Likewise, you could potentially get a cat population to evolve into something similar to a human over a massive span of time, but it won't be identical because the mutations will not be identical. You can't expect to roll a die 100 times and then expect a second bout of 100 rolls to give the same numbers as the first round did. Evolution just makes the best of what mutations it is given to work with.
From a Gnostic perspective, perhaps like the universe itself god is also imperfect and fallible. Maybe just like like his/her/it's creation, it's all a work in progress. Works for me
