 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| joman wrote: |
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time. |
Wikipedia is generally very good, and I agree that this is by and large a fair presentation.
However I would take issue with this opening statement. It would be more accurate to say that macro-evolution is the result of the accumulation of small-scale changes over time. The end result is large-scale change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution." |
Would you not agree that there is a distinct difference between implies and proves?
What I continue to see is that TOE supporters assert that microevolution proves macroevolution when in fact, it does not. Implications are not proof, they are pointers to possibility, without consideration of the variables which may preclude the implied outcome. |
No you don't. Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence. What you have heard, no doubt, is that micro-evolution is evidence that macro-evolution can occur.
But that's a minor point. Much stronger evidence is the conformity of present and past species to the predictions made by the hypothesis of macro-evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gbunty wrote: | | RevJP wrote: | | What I continue to see is that TOE supporters assert that microevolution proves macroevolution |
No you don't. Science does not deal in proof. |
Actually I do. I have seen it on this board and our sister board numerous times. Remember G, I said that I continue to see TOE supporters assert... I said nothing about science.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | What I continue to see is that TOE supporters assert that microevolution proves macroevolution
No you don't. Science does not deal in proof. |
Actually I do. I have seen it on this board and our sister board numerous times. Remember G, I said that I continue to see TOE supporters assert... I said nothing about science. |
I'd still double-check. I have seen "evidence" morphed into "proof" many times.
Theories are never "proven". If a ToE supporter is talking "proof" s/he is relatively unschooled in the scientific concept of theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I think that is the point isn't it?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 823
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes are Gbunty's.
| Quote: | | So what you are saying is that when the horses left the ark, there was no boundary that prevented them from interbreeding. |
Yes.
| Quote: | | As they mated and reproduced they used their natural capacity for variation to generated different varieties of horses. e.g. Arabians, quarter-horses, Clydesdales, etc. |
Yes.
| Quote: | | But these are all still the same species as the horses Noah had on the ark. |
They are breeds of horses.
| Quote: | | But that species that Noah had on the ark also generated other varieties of horse kind--varieties which we now call zebras and donkeys. |
Yes. A horse is a horse of course.
| Quote: | | But these varieties are no longer just varieties--they are separate species. |
No. They are breeds not species.
| Quote: | | How do we know they are separate species? |
They aren’t separate species…they are breeds.
| Quote: | | Because they no longer interbreed freely with each other, and on the occasions that they do, they have difficulty producing a fertile hybrid. |
Wrong. They are the same kind/species if under any condition they can breed.
A Panda in captivity cannot easily reproduce even with it’s closest relative. There are many factors preventing reproduction.
| Quote: | Now if I have painted that history correctly, explain this.
At some point the difference between the ark horse species and the descendant varieties which ended up as zebras or donkeys must have been less distinct than it is now. |
True.
| Quote: | | At some point, the ancestors of today's zebras and donkeys must have been the same species as other horses, just as Arabian, quarter-horses, Clydesdales, etc. are all varieties of today's species of horses. |
No. They aren’t species they are breeds of horses. Breed being variation within the same kind/species.
| Quote: | | How did a species boundary grow up between horses and zebras and donkeys when it didn't exist in the first place? |
Probably enviromental factors mostly. Same as with Pandas. Also as gene pools become isolated the tendency of the animal is to not want to breed with others outside it’s breed. Also, to much interbreeding produces weaknesses which nature seeks to select out of existence.
| Quote: | | What produced this boundary between horses, zebras and donkeys when they are all descendants of the same pair of horses that stepped off of Noah's ark? |
Same question.
| Quote: | | Notice, that I am not speaking of a boundary between kinds. |
Are you using the word kind the same as you use the word species?
| Quote: | | I am speaking of a boundary that now exists within the horse kind that was not there originally |
.
Then you are using kind in the way the Bible does?
| Quote: | | How did it come about, since it is not part of the original creation? |
The boundary comes about due to enviromental factors, and the tendency of creatures to resist wanting to mate with creatures outside their isolated group even though they can be often made to do so.
I would like to point out that a mule can reproduce in one out of ten thousand cases. It’s not an impossibility.
| Quote: | | Evolution is descent with modification. |
| Quote: | | It implies that all creatures are related, and all extant creatures are modifications of creatures of the past. |
| Quote: | | Evolution forbids the appearance of a new creature with no ties to its predecessors. |
So, it would be more accurate to say that, “Evolution is descent from a common anscestor with modifications that lead to all extant creatures”
And saying otherwise is simply misleading.
It breaks Mendel’s laws in that if a less dominant trait is introduced into a true parent line the offspring will always have the trait in the genes from then on. Therefore, all creatures would of necessity possess all traits previously manifested in their ancestral line, which isn’t true.
Nevertheless, if you believe it so you must admit that the zebra is related to the horses you mentioned.
And so, the question you asked about the arising of reproductive boundaries is for yourself also.
| Quote: | | So, if that is the sort of creature you are looking for, you are looking for something evolution does not even propose--in fact the sort of creature that would prove special creation rather than evolution. |
I suppose that is so. I’m asking to much of evolution. It can’t produce the evidence required to become anything more than a hypothesis.
If birds came from reptiles then the birds should manifest reptillian characteristics from time to time. And, the transitional forms should be tremendous in number and fill the fossil record with the proof of the transitions. The evolutionisn in house debates concerning punctuation would never have arisen since no sudden leap in evolution resembling a creative event would ever be evidenced. There would never have been a Cambrian explosion as the fossil record reveals. There would be a continual record of minute evolutionary changes for the arrival of all species.
Well anyway, no matter how you slice it there are enormous numbers of distinct species of cratures, with no association between plants, animals, and insects. There exists no explaination for how information grows not in amount, but it complexity. And, you cannot provide a few examples to establish some supposed transition from one kind to another. Instead you must show a steady and clear step by step transiton from every kind to every other kind. Or at the very least…every transitional step from one kind to another. Instead of the mollusk becoming a mollusk on it’s way to becoming a mollusk ad nauseum. Or, the fly that changes and changes until it becomes a fly.
You cannot scientifically show the interrelationship of all creatures which you should have no problem doing if it were true. Why would it be hard to show?
| Quote: | | I would take issue with this opening statement. It would be more accurate to say that macro-evolution is the result of the accumulation of small-scale changes over time. The end result is large-scale change. |
Sounds great! Got any examples?
Again... | Quote: | | So if that is the sort of creature you are looking for, you are looking for something evolution does not even propose--in fact the sort of creature that would prove special creation rather than evolution. |
Yes I’am looking for evolution to produce evidence of being able to develop creatures that seem to be the product of the creative power and mind of God.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | | I would like to point out that a mule can reproduce in one out of ten thousand cases. It’s not an impossibility. |
We have a term for species whose fertility rate is 0.0001. Extinct. Mules wouldn't exist except for the ability of two other species to interbreed.
| joman wrote: | | ...all creatures would of necessity possess all traits previously manifested in their ancestral line, which isn’t true. |
This actually is more problematic for creationism than evolution. For example, as they left the ark, one of the people must have had the AIDS virus. How did it go undetected for so long? How did these organisms manifest themselves "in their ancestral line" until the 1970s? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 823
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes by Ed.
| Quote: | | We have a term for species whose fertility rate is 0.0001. Extinct. Mules wouldn't exist except for the ability of two other species to interbreed. |
Mules exist. The two animals that can interbreed proves that they are the same kind of animal. The mule is evidence of a reproductive boundary line. Even is a mule cannot ever breed offspring it is documented as being a kind of horse.
| Quote: | | This actually is more problematic for creationism than evolution. For example, as they left the ark, one of the people must have had the AIDS virus. How did it go undetected for so long? How did these organisms manifest themselves "in their ancestral line" until the 1970s? |
There isn't any proof that a virus is a living thing.
My personal thought concerning viruses is that they are machines that have gone awry due to misplacement in the macro structure of biological systems. God sets boundaries and estabishes laws governing biological systems. When boundaries are crossed and laws are broken then unlawful effects can occur.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | God sets boundaries and estabishes laws governing biological systems. When boundaries are crossed and laws are broken then unlawful effects can occur.
Joman. |
So, it is possible to cross a boundary that God created? What literal interpretation of the bible permits THIS?
Do you have other examples of physical laws that God created and that ended up being not a law?
And if that's the case, then why couldn't evolution exist, even if God didn't plan it that way?
You're now talking in circles, joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
