A question from a Christian

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: OptimusSubprime
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Of the 6 types of evolution, and they are: Cosmic, Stellar and Planetary, Chemical, Organic, Macro, and finally Micro, only Micro Evolution can be, and has been, observed using the scientific method. The other 5 categories of evolution are not observable, nor have they EVER been observed, nor can the scientific method, in totality, be applied to them.

Too bad. Because I can give little Timmy a Walmart telescope for his birthday and he with his own eyes can observe cosmic and stellar evolution, RIGHT THERE. He can see galaxies, nebulas, stars and planets born...and other areas in the sky where stars or galaxies are dying again, just to pick one example.

Your statement cosmic, stellar or planetary evolution "cannot be observed using the scientific method" I can only call utterly ridiculous, as if for example evolution of our own planet or even about other planets like Mars would be a secret.

I would like to know about your qualification in physics, quantum physics, astrophysics so that you're be able to make a statement like "the scientific method cannot be applied"...while for decades thousands of scientists successfully do EXACTLY THAT.

"Successfully" of course also means to constantly develop new, better theories and to revise older ones.

wow, watching a galaxy being born, way cool!
how long does that take?

slap a kodak to timmy's scope and film it.
expect next years nobel prizes in astronomy and cosmetology.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
What predictions has it made that are very convincing to you?

Tiktaalik - The fish which had a similar pattern of bones in their fins as the tetrapods had in their limbs.

In science there is no differentiation between macro and micro-evolution... they are the same thing.

If you admit that "microevolution" happens, then, end of argument.
______________________

There are examples of bacteria and some larger scale organisms that have specifically changed genus through 1000's of generations. This is what creationists call microevolution... they are wrong... they ask for an example of one species "changing" into another, and it has been shown multiple times with multiple species up to some small insects... then the goalposts get moved and they ask for "bigger" (macro) examples.

If recorded history keeps going for another few thousand years, then larger examples will be shown in time, in a natural progression that has been under analysis for hundreds of years already, which is why evolution is the only theory to hold water to date (god did it isn't scientific)... basically ever more examples will be shown as time affords us the ability to see long span generational changes across increasingly long lived and complex creatures... including humans.

As such, the definitions of micro and macro-evolution keep sliding... which is why there is no differentiation in science, because inaccurate definitions can't be relied upon.

Evolution happens... accept it, or remain ignorant.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: OptimusSubprime

The answer is wolves into dogs. We changed the grey wolf into a chihuahua as well as thousands of other dog breeds..... And that was in a few thousand years. Nature has millions of years.

Thats still micro imo. It is also guided evolution as dog breeders were involved.

Wolves and Dogs: Similarities and Differences For years, wolves and dogs were classified under different species names - Canis lupus for the gray wolf (see Table 1. Taxonomy of the Gray Wolf, opposite) and Canis familiaris for the domestic dog. Recently, however, some scientists decided that wolves and dogs are similar enough to belong to the same species and they reclassified domestic dogs as wolf subspecies with the new nomenclature of Canis lupus familiaris . Some large carnivore researchers disagree with this reclassification, arguing that while dogs and wolves may be genetically identical, they have evolved into two distinct animals. The link between the wolf and the dog via common or direct ancestry suggests that the wolf and the dog share similarities in morphology and behavior. For example, both species have the same gestation period, the pups of both are born blind and deaf, the milk teeth appear in the same order and the shedding phenomenon of both is equivalent. Although uncommon in nature, wolves and dogs can mate and produce fertile offspring.

Notice what it says the people argue, while the dog and wolf are "genetically identical", and also notice that dogs and wolves can produce fertile offspring.

spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/
noun
noun: species; plural noun: species; noun: sp.; plural noun: spp.

1.
Biology
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

In biology, a species are any two animals that can produce fertile offspring. Wolves and dogs are capable of doing this, and therefore can be defined as the same species.

So with that in mind, I believe you have simply cited an example of guided microevolution, which I agree has been observed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

These things are vital to an atheistic or even agnostic world view

No it isn't. No more than the belief that noah packed the ark full is vital to being a christian.

My main question is can anyone give me a genetic pathway through which an Ape can evolve into a human

No because the fossil records and genetics say this didn't happen.


Your starting your questioning with information and statements that I'm willing to bet money that you know are wrong. It makes me personally think that this is more a less a troll thread. But if not let me ask a question of you concerning your take on evolution. You say micro happens, so what is your problem exactly with macro. It's been stated so many times this site, in these threads, micro changes building up to eventually having a "macro". Do you not believe that it can go that far or does it go against the bible "kinds" or what exactly. Maybe if you clarify your position and issue you can get more coherent responses.

a reply to: Elton

Its easy? Occam's razor lol

In all seriousness though, you have admitted that everything is simply speculation based on what? Faith.

a reply to: Elton

www.evolutionnews.org...

a reply to: drivers1492

Well I believe Noah's Ark is very vital to Christian belief friend.

No because the fossil records and genetics say this didn't happen.

Evolutionist say the fossil records does exactly that and that evolution does have a genetic pathway within which it can operate, but as far as I know they don't know of one that exist. I didnt start my questioning with information and statements that I know are wrong. I started my questioning with a statement that as far as I know there is no evidence for. That doesn't make it a troll thread. You cannot troll Science. I can only make you question what you thought you knew was fact. How do you do that? By asking questions, and letting people find the answer to those questions on their own rather than telling them the answer. Why did I ask that question? Because I knew people would try to find the answer and realize the answer is no one knows of one, which is not good for evolution....

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Elton

Its easy? Occam's razor lol

In all seriousness though, you have admitted that everything is simply speculation based on what? Faith.

No, based on examining available evidence, forming a hypothesis and doing your best to test and refine the hypotheses (and science welcomes this attempted dis-creditation as it leads to better hypotheses). You know, scientific theory.

a reply to: Elton

Speculation is not Scientific theory.

spec·u·la·tion
ˌspekyəˈlāSHən/
noun
noun: speculation; plural noun: speculations

1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

So what you just speculated had no firm evidence, yet you still believe it occurred. This is faith friend.

a reply to: Elton

The only reason god seems the most logical explination is because it's a one size fits all answer.

Why is something this way? God did it.


It answers all questions without actually answering any questions. Science actually answers questions.


What about the fact most of the medical industry is based off evolution. Gene theropy , stem cells, cloning all prove evolution.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fossil records say nothing of man coming from ape. If you think it does then your starting off wrong. But anyway I asked for a little clarification that I thought might help our interaction.

But if not let me ask a question of you concerning your take on evolution. You say micro happens, so what is your problem exactly with macro. It's been stated so many times this site, in these threads, micro changes building up to eventually having a "macro". Do you not believe that it can go that far or does it go against the bible "kinds" or what exactly. Maybe if you clarify your position and issue you can get more coherent responses.

If you could answer me please I would appreciate it.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Isn't the dog obviously on its way to being a new species? You can't see how another million years of changing it might not make interbreeding impossible?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: Elton

The only reason god seems the most logical explination is because it's a one size fits all answer.

Why is something this way? God did it.


It answers all questions without actually answering any questions. Science actually answers questions.


What about the fact most of the medical industry is based off evolution. Gene theropy , stem cells, cloning all prove evolution.

Micro or Macro? Micro cant turn into Macro without a genetic pathway that it operates within...that is why I asked you to show me one. Gene therapy and stem cells and cloning prove evolution? How exactly do they do that?

I mean i could just say the Universe, Moral law, and Jesus prove Christianity.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Elton

Speculation is not Scientific theory.

spec·u·la·tion
ˌspekyəˈlāSHən/
noun
noun: speculation; plural noun: speculations

1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

So what you just speculated had no firm evidence, yet you still believe it occurred. This is faith friend.

Re-read my response, I was speculating about the mechanism of how one instance could have occured. Now you are trying to say I assumed that evolution is speculation, who's being intellectually dishonest now...? (it's you)

Here is the quote in particular...

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I can only speculate, my first guess would be that mom had more than one baby with the defect and they (heaven forbid) bred with each other. Also we now have evidence of human / neanderthal and human / denisovian breeding so perhaps the differentiation of species is not as hard and fast as we once believed (and early in the mutation process breeding may still very possible).

As you will notice I am speculating in response to your direct question, since my field is not genetics-paleontology you will notice the use of "speculate, my first guess" so no, I am not assuming it is the correct answer or that that specific scenario occurred that way. Feel free to look guess up in the dictionary.

originally posted by: drivers1492
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fossil records say nothing of man coming from ape. If you think it does then your starting off wrong. But anyway I asked for a little clarification that I thought might help our interaction.

But if not let me ask a question of you concerning your take on evolution. You say micro happens, so what is your problem exactly with macro. It's been stated so many times this site, in these threads, micro changes building up to eventually having a "macro". Do you not believe that it can go that far or does it go against the bible "kinds" or what exactly. Maybe if you clarify your position and issue you can get more coherent responses.

If you could answer me please I would appreciate it.

The Fossil record says nothing of Men coming from Apes? I agree, but evolutionist do not. Evolutionist say the fossil record proves that Men and Chimps had a common ancestor. So yea they say it says we came from apes.

You are just saying that micro evolution turns into macro evolution over long periods of time. Now show me evidence of that. Don't say the fossil record because we both just agreed that it doesn't prove the Macro-evolution of Humans from the common ancestor of an ape. You are contradicting yourself though....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The common ancestor referred to is not an ape. But I really see no reason to argue that particular point.

I'm not saying anything. I said

You say micro happens, so what is your problem exactly with macro. It's been stated so many times this site, in these threads, micro changes building up to eventually having a "macro". Do you not believe that it can go that far or does it go against the bible "kinds" or what exactly. Maybe if you clarify your position and issue you can get more coherent responses.

I made no personal statements, as you can see above I referred to what has been stated on this site. Nor did we agree on anything. Since I haven't made any statements the idea I have contradicted myself is unfounded. All I have done is ask you to clarify for me some information.

So since it's late and I am tired, please stop the useless responses and either answer me or say your not going to and we can just call it done and I will go on to bed.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
In science there is no differentiation between macro and micro-evolution... they are the same thing.

If you admit that "microevolution" happens, then, end of argument.
______________________

There are examples of bacteria and some larger scale organisms that have specifically changed genus through 1000's of generations. This is what creationists call microevolution... they are wrong... they ask for an example of one species "changing" into another, and it has been shown multiple times with multiple species up to some small insects... then the goalposts get moved and they ask for "bigger" (macro) examples.

If recorded history keeps going for another few thousand years, then larger examples will be shown in time, in a natural progression that has been under analysis for hundreds of years already, which is why evolution is the only theory to hold water to date (god did it isn't scientific)... basically ever more examples will be shown as time affords us the ability to see long span generational changes across increasingly long lived and complex creatures... including humans.

As such, the definitions of micro and macro-evolution keep sliding... which is why there is no differentiation in science, because inaccurate definitions can't be relied upon.

Evolution happens... accept it, or remain ignorant.

I agree with this user and would like to see you & OptimusSubprime address it. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales

Watch BBC: Planet Earth. You can see how different animals have evolved to be able to survive in their environment.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

The Fossil record says nothing of Men coming from Apes? I agree, but evolutionist do not. Evolutionist say the fossil record proves that Men and Chimps had a common ancestor. So yea they say it says we came from apes.

No. Saying Men and Chimps have a common ancestor doesn't mean they came from apes. Apes are not a common ancestor. The common ancestor is something else entirely.

That would be like saying Poodles and Great Danes share a common ancestor. So Poodles came from Terriers.

They would all share the common ancestor. Apes are apes. Chimps are chimps. Men are Men. All three share a common ancestor in the distant past which would neither be classified as Chimp, Ape nor Man.

a reply to: Margana

i'm wondering,
..if those galaxies & whatevers harbor no actual life..
..can they really be said to be evolving?

as the weird pope-looking alien said in the 5th element movie, "time not important, only life important"
all the time in the world can happen..
forever.. and ever..
..and those galaxies can change & alter all they want
it still wont mean anything

..it's all about *life*


God has apparently dealt with the evolutionist crowd before

Jeremiah 2:26+
…26"As the thief is shamed when he is discovered, So the house of Israel is shamed; They, their kings, their princes And their priests and their prophets, 27Who say to a tree, 'You are my father,' And to a stone, 'You gave me birth.' For they have turned their back to Me, And not their face; But in the time of their trouble they will say, 'Arise and save us.' 28"But where are your gods Which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you In the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah.…

Chimp, Ape nor Man

russ perot?



interesting opposition shaping up here?
the bible tells a story of genetic corruption, destruction of that corrupted stock & preservation of a man and his family (noah) who were supposedly "perfect in their generations genes" ..now throw a TREE OF LIFE (family tree) into the mix..

Q) how is it that we are ALL looking at the same material here, yet have differing opinions?
A) one school of thought puts more emphasis on morals, law, obedience (stuff like that)