How do Creationist Explain This?

[BilliardsBall]

It's never going to happen. Nor will you get a clear definition of the cutoff between what is called microevolution and macroevolution. Creationist arguments need to be vague so that they cannot be disagreed with.



Yep, and they accrue over time into larger changes. There is nothing known that can prevent it.



Proof is irrelevant.

Furthermore, there is no burden of proof (or burden to provide compelling evidence) when dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world by faith rather than by the valid application of reason to the relevant evidence. It's simply not possible to convince another person of that which they have a stake in not believing. Teaching in the academic style, which is distinct from indoctrination, requires certain skills and dispositions in the student. It's a cooperative effort when it occurs. The faith-based thinker is not going to cooperate. He will resist.



Irrelevant to the theory of biological evolution, which not only makes no claim that such a thing could happen, but implies that it cannot. Change is always gradual, and offspring resemble their parents, but not necessarily their great-great-great ... great-grandparents.

If we go back enough generations, our ancestors would be marine forms with fins, gills, and scales. Further back, some form of invertebrate worm. Each of these had offspring closely resembling themselves, but a little different. Over deep time and separated by millions of generations, the descendants look a lot different than their distant ancestors.

• "Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step. The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain - a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it. " - Dawkins

Irrelevant again.

If you want to critique the theory, don't you think that you should learn what it says rather than rebutting straw men? What chance do you have to be convincing if you make irrelevant claims such as a lack of proof, or that existing forms don't transform into one another across a generation?

And please explain why we would trade in a useful scientific theory that has already improved the human condition for an idea like creationism that has no practical application even if correct?

I am aware of what the theory says, the theory I critique.

I've said elsewhere that most scholars take the biblical "kind" as what taxonomists call "family". Here, you, me and the Bible agree. A mating pair or single reproducing species will not birth a different family of animal or plant, in one single generation.

The problem we're having, though, is grand generalizations, which we Christians note are just-so stories, like this statement you made:

"If we go back enough generations, our ancestors would be marine forms with fins, gills, and scales."

...Are you saying scientists agree as to the progenitors of apes? You are filling in "Science isn't sure, yet" with your EvolutionDidIt... that shows a spiritual or religious fervor not demanded by the science or rationality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What you call macroevolution is just many microevolutions. Saying "micro evolution happens regularly, but macro evolution is impossible" is exactly like saying "walking across town is common, but walking across the country is impossible".

I'd still like to hear unambiguously what you think "evidence of 'macro' evolution" should look like, if you don't accept what the scientists say is evidence of it.

Perhaps we should explore what "microevolution is," then. For example, if you think the progression is land animal > glider animal > flying animal, I wouldn't say those are micro changes. Flight requires multiple complex changes.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Perhaps we should explore what "microevolution is," then. For example, if you think the progression is land animal > glider animal > flying animal, I wouldn't say those are micro changes. Flight requires multiple complex changes.

No, perhaps you should answer my question first, and then we can explore "what microevolution is".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am aware of what the theory says, the theory I critique.

I've said elsewhere that most scholars take the biblical "kind" as what taxonomists call "family". Here, you, me and the Bible agree. A mating pair or single reproducing species will not birth a different family of animal or plant, in one single generation.

The problem we're having, though, is grand generalizations, which we Christians note are just-so stories, like this statement you made:

"If we go back enough generations, our ancestors would be marine forms with fins, gills, and scales."

...Are you saying scientists agree as to the progenitors of apes? You are filling in "Science isn't sure, yet" with your EvolutionDidIt... that shows a spiritual or religious fervor not demanded by the science or rationality.

The overwhelming evidence (which includes DNA/comparative genomic analysis) indicates that all living things on the planet are related. It's not a random guess and no religious belief is required.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow, way to demonize your debate opponent. I'm happy to discuss with people--who don't demonize me, make ad homs and say ALL I have to say on ANY one subject is "worthless".

If you don't like having your evasiveness point out to you, don't be evasive. Specific to your most recent behavior, when you post a series of assertions into a forum like this, be prepared and willing to discuss them. As long as you duck and dodge follow-up questions and rebuttals, people are going to call you on it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, perhaps you should answer my question first, and then we can explore "what microevolution is".

No.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The overwhelming evidence (which includes DNA/comparative genomic analysis) indicates that all living things on the planet are related. It's not a random guess and no religious belief is required.

All organic and inorganic things in the universe are likewise related, being formed by atoms. It's not a random guess and no just-so story is required, oh wait a minute, that problem of existence...

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you don't like having your evasiveness point out to you, don't be evasive. Specific to your most recent behavior, when you post a series of assertions into a forum like this, be prepared and willing to discuss them. As long as you duck and dodge follow-up questions and rebuttals, people are going to call you on it.

In the future, I will try to be less evasive. After all, it is morally required of Christians that they answer entrapping, never-ending questions from people who say our God doesn't exist and that we're deluded.

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[Jose Fly]

In the future, I will try to be less evasive. After all, it is morally required of Christians that they answer entrapping, never-ending questions from people who say our God doesn't exist and that we're deluded.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Oh brother.....look, it's not "entrapping" to ask follow-up questions after you post a series of assertions into a debate forum. The fact that you see it that way speaks volumes.

 

[gnostic]

I seen a animal show one time. The lions wer hunting the goats. But, they could not catch the young goats, it was too much of a challenge. But, the weak old goat, the lion cought it and killed it.

Then the voice in the show says "the weak must die so the strong can survive".

Also, if i may add, the lions wer still lions and the goats wer still goats, despite one goat being selected out and the rest selected in.

LOL

That’s not what natural selection mean!

 

[Jollybear]

LOL

That’s not what natural selection mean!

What natural selection mean?

 

[gnostic]

I believe in MICRO evolution, not macro.

So, small changes WITHIN a kind, but no big changes where it goes from one kind to another.

So, elephants dont turn to lions. Lol

Again, that’s not how evolution works.

I am referring to your last line.

This level of ignorance only demonstrated how very little you understand the evolutionary process, and in biology in general.

 

[gnostic]

What natural selection mean?

Natural selection, and any other evolutionary mechanisms (eg mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic hitchhiking) all work on the population basis, not individual occurrence, like your lion and old goat example.

And evolution is not about strengths and weaknesses, or preys and predators.

If strengths and weaknesses come to play, then why do something like butterflies continue to exist?

 

[gnostic]

In the future, I will try to be less evasive.

That will be the first.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oh brother.....look, it's not "entrapping" to ask follow-up questions after you post a series of assertions into a debate forum. The fact that you see it that way speaks volumes.

In the future I will try to be less socratic--to make you think--oops, I mean less evasive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All organic and inorganic things in the universe are likewise related, being formed by atoms. It's not a random guess and no just-so story is required, oh wait a minute, that problem of existence...

What?

Could you at least try to address the content of my post instead of trying to jump to something else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In the future, I will try to be less evasive. After all, it is morally required of Christians that they answer entrapping, never-ending questions from people who say our God doesn't exist and that we're deluded.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Who told you your God doesn't exist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You seem to have missed this one, Billiard Balls (from post #157), in regards to your claim about "kind" being equivalent to "Family":

So you do think that, for instance, dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes are all related?
Call me crazy, but those all sound like different "kinds" to me.

 

[Jose Fly]

In the future I will try to be less socratic--to make you think--oops, I mean less evasive.

So are you ready to discuss the material you posted earlier?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the future I will try to be less socratic--to make you think--oops, I mean less evasive.

Actually, you're not being Socratic. The Socratic method entails asking questions to the person making the claims. In this scenario, YOU are the one making claims, and then avoiding the questions of people attempting to investigate those claims.