Speciation can't be seen in macro-evolution in a lifetime.
Originally posted by Titen-SxullWhen have ID supporters ever said adaptation or small changes from one generation to the next was not a fact? So, no they don't concede the point. They know this as fact. They didn't just one day say, "Oh I get it, now Charles Darwin. I'll concede that but now prove this."
reply to post by addygrace
There is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same process. The perceived difference is merely a matter of TIME. In other words microevolutionary changes can happen with each new generation, if you fast-forward a few thousand generations the species will have undergone so many changes that they might be radically different. Creationists only separate the two because even they cannot deny the existence of small genetic variations between one generation and the next, by conceding that ground, however, they automatically lose.
When have ID supporters ever said adaptation or small changes from one generation to the next was not a fact? So, no they don't concede the point.
Originally posted by Titen-SxullTo concede is to grudgingly admit something, or to admit something that you don't really want to admit. That is the exact opposite of what creationist say about micro evolution.
reply to post by addygrace
I think you're confused about the definition of the word concede. To concede that microevolution occurs is to admit that microevolution does occur
The issue is that creationists separate micro and macro evolution when the only difference is the amount of time or generations that have passed in a population. Microevolutionary changes add up to be the supposedly "macro" evolutionary changes that creationists claim are impossible.Creationists didn't make up 'macroevolution'. Here's the problem. Taking adaptation and small change and adding a long time, isn't a sound way to do science. Even evolutionists notice problems with this. Scientists don't know if small change and adaptation are enough to cause the diversity in life. There are evolutionists who think it should be enough. There are some who don't.
Obviously nature drives evolution there's plenty of evidence for that. Whether something supernatural might also guide evolution is a claim that needs to have some evidence to back it up before science will even take it seriously.Obviously nature drives small change. The problem is we don't know what exactly caused all the diversity of life we see today. What mechanism caused the Cambrian Explosion?
To concede is to grudgingly admit something
What mechanism caused the Cambrian Explosion?
Originally posted by Titen-SxullI grudgingly concede this point for the sake of getting past the intent of the word.
reply to post by addygrace
Not necessarily grudgingly. Ground in a debate can be conceded without any ill will
I agree all evolutionists believe in evolution.
The internal debates you're talking about between Evolutionists are talking primarily about how evolution works, not whether it works.
Some have suggested that evolution can happen faster or that bigger changes can occur in fewer generations than was once thought. None of these finds cast any doubt on the basic process of evolution, merely on what drives it, how fast it can take place, etc.The Cambrian Explosion isn't a gap. On one hand you have the theory of evolution. On the other you have intelligent design. Evolution theory makes the prediction, the fossil record should show all kingdoms having a common ancestor. ID makes the prediction all kingdoms should appear separate from each other. The fossil record shows up to 100 phyla showing up at the same time( within 5 to 10 millions years of one another). That is instantly in geologic terms. Now you can ignore this fact, if you want, but it's still a fact that goes against the theory of evolution. Everybody always says evolution is the best theory we have, but the fossil record says otherwise.
The Cambrian Explosion needs an explanation certainly but a supernatural one, even an extraterrestrial one, would make a poor explanation. Also keep in mind that this "explosion" took place over MILLIONS of years, quickly in terms of evolution but no need to leap to Gods or aliens as an explanation.
Some Creationists keep trying to find a gap, any gap, any area that we haven't quite grasped or where debates among scientists still occur and simply force their God into the mold as a one-size-fits-all answer, it doesn't work that way.
The Cambrian Explosion isn't a gap. On one hand you have the theory of evolution. On the other you have intelligent design. Evolution theory makes the prediction, the fossil record should show all kingdoms having a common ancestor. ID makes the prediction all kingdoms should appear separate from each other. The fossil record shows up to 100 phyla showing up at the same time( within 5 to 10 millions years of one another). That is instantly in geologic terms. Now you can ignore this fact, if you want, but it's still a fact that goes against the theory of evolution. Everybody always says evolution is the best theory we have, but the fossil record says otherwise.
This paradox is too huge to ignore.
Originally posted by Titen-SxullI'm not invoking God because we don't know what happened in the Cambrian. I believe life was designed, if this is true then we should see life arising all at once, and not gradually over time.
reply to post by addygrace
This paradox is too huge to ignore.
But not big enough to abandon evolution and insert God or aliens into the uncomfortable gap in our knowledge. The Cambrian Explosion did take place quickly in context of how we understand evolution currently, but you'll recall I did mention internal debates among scientists arguing over whether evolution might happen much faster than previously understood. We're dealing with a period of over 70 million years, not a few hundred generations, not even a few thousand generations, more like a few million or MORE depending on the reproduction rate of the organisms involved.
The Cambrian Explosion presents no big challenge to evolution, if anything it presents simply a better chance to study evolution. Even if it were entirely unexplained there would still be no reason to invoke a God. Even if the science were completely WRONG, even if evolution were proved false tomorrow, there still wouldn't be cause to throw up our hands in ignorance and declare that
God simply explains it all.
