Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi
Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion. THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure. The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews. I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.
I assumed that "not by chance" was a response to the oft repeated canard that evolution is solely driven by chance, but of course I was wrong.
So has the author published any peer-reviewed articles on the subject as a pop-science publication is unlikely to overturn the central theory of modern biology?
(Bigdakine originally said that an old Noah means less generations. In my haste to contradict, I misspoke. I should have said: No, Noah living longer does not mean less generations.)
If females had longer fertility periods, the chance for mutation would increase. Etc.
The Roman Catholic church finds no conflict between evolution and the Bible. What is your point?
There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.
Well that takes the cake, bigdakine. Now you are telling me that I'm not Jewish and I don't understand my religion.
B: Obviously not. And those people who think they are are annoying to the rest of us who indeed are.
THat is something you can substantiate as well as Darwin's unsubstantiated theory of macro-evolution, I'm sure.
B: All I have to go by is the stuff you write. Not convincing so far. As Jews tend to have enough problems, only a foolish Jew would criticize other Jews in the manner you have. So its a choice, either you're not Jewish or you're Jewish and foolish. For now, I opt for the former.
B: There is plenty of substantiation for Macroevolution. That you don't know about any of it, doesn't mean it does not exist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226071202.htm
Thats for staters. Macroevolution, speciation are observed processes. But if you wish to be at war with reality, thats your business.
The AJC are liberal gun-grabbers and not a group of observant Jews.
B: We can add another subject to the list of things you're ignorant of.
I put zero weight on anything you have to offer at this point.
B: WHich disturbs me not at all.
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird, etc. But, you knew that.
B: More specifically, it will never cease being a dino. Just as human beings haven't ceased being a primate, which haven't ceased being a mammal, which haven't ceased being a vertebrate. Isn't it time you actually learned what the theory of evolution is, or are you too committed to a straw-man version of it?
Your argument is entirely semantic. Someone who believes in micro but not in macro belives in limited variation. IOW, no descendant of a bird will ever not be a bird. A literalist also believes that every descendant of a bacteria is a bacteria. But, you knew that.
There is no theory of macroevolution. Micro and macro are the same process.
Do you know what "semantic argument" means? Whenever there is an overall theory, one may freely name what that theory says about one of its particular subsets "Theory of [process]." For example, there are many theories of microeconomics but, all are part of "economics." It is simply a linguistic shortcut.
Semantics means it is only a matter of words.
You are correct that it is a semantic argument, but it is you that is using it. You are defining macroevolution as something other than it is. That is a rhetorical trick or a false semantic argument.
I simply restate that micro and macroevolution are exactly the same process. I have given you the scientific definitions. Please do not repeat the same semantic argument again in your defense of the cult.
Do you understand the definition of microevolution or not?
There is no theory of macroevolution.
Micro and macro are the same process.
B: Sorry Shubi, but this requires a bit more explanation. It is a source of confusion, not only for creationists, but for scientists as well.
B: Macroevolution is concerned with the splitting of lineages and long term trends in the fossil record. To explain some of these trends, GOuld, Eldrgidge, Stanley and others have proposed processes which operate on top of the microevolutionary processes with which you're familiar. The most often written about one of those is "species selection". Species selection is anologous to the selection that takes place within a population, but on the level of species. Species which are more fecund (in terms of spawning new species) will influence subsequent evolution more, than species which are not prone to splitting. Other things which effect the course of evolution, include macorevolutionary processes like "mass extinction".
B: What it boils down to, to a certain extent, is different levels of abstraction. For example, all chemical processes are ultimately reducible to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is why Physicists often joke that Chemistry is a solved problem. On the other hand to describe a simple chemical process such as dissolution of salt in water on a purely quantum basis would tax even the largest supercomputers. If you want to understand things like that, chemistry is the appropriate level of abstraction. You won't make much headway if you use QM, even though at its most basic level this process is governed by QM.
B: GOuld and others argue (and correctly IMHO, if that has any weight) that trends in the fossil record require a different level of abstraction to be explained rather than using microevolution. Still, one aspect of macroevolution, speciation, is indeed reducible to microevolutionary processes. But macroevolution is more than just *speciation*. Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes. I hope I've been able to illustrate why this is false, and how micro and macro are related, and how they are different.
B: For more information, I suggest "Macroevolution" by Steven Stanley and "Extinction" By David Raup. After reading those, you will certainly be up to speed on this issue.
Good post - the terminology is laid out nicely.
Creationists caricature this difference as meaning micro and macro are completely different and unrelated processes.
I don't know what other Creationists are saying but, as a biblical literalist, I don't find enough historical time for macro.
You know far more about Hitler than I. And look how long it took you to accomplish that. You are almost too stupid to converse with...bye.
Archaeopteryx! OK, now click your heels together 3 times and say, "I wish I was in Kansas." That is an even better fantasy.
Look back in one of my previous posts for MY evolutionary professor who disagrees...kay, you guys boor me.
I think I understand macroevolution better than you do.
Besides being a minister, I am also a biologist.
Micro and macro are the same process. It is allele frequency changes in populations over time. Macro is simply the result of accumulations of micro changes.
IT IS THE SAME PROCESS!!! SAME!!!!!!!
What Bible college is your evolutionary professor in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.