Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman

“So, it looks like many creationists not only “believe” in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit.”

First, I must admit that I was not familiar with the macroevolution definition you gave: “evolutionary changes at the level of species and above”. Further, you would be correct in saying that we have observed speciation occurring and speciation is macroevolution according to your definition. It is also true that most Creationists would accept that part of the definition.

However, there is a second part of the definition of macroevolution that claims “major structural changes in species”. This is the part of the definition that most Creationists would object to.

I think it is a bit of a scam for some naturalist evolutionists to imply that since we have observed minor species differentiation in the present that this type of speciation accounts for “major structual changes” required for inorganic to organic, lizard to bird, etc.

It seems illegitimate, at least to me, for evolutionists to point to the speciation of fruit flies or mosquitoes as macroevolution as though it accounts for the major evolutionary changes that would have to occur for inorganic matter to become a living cell, or for a lizard to become a bird.

So, while I do agree that on the one level “macroevolution” would be acceptable to creationist, it would not follow that this type of macroevolution accounts for producing the huge structural changes that would be required to fulfill the claims of naturalistic evolution. This type of macroevolution has not been observed.


42 posted on 05/09/2007 10:09:29 AM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Nevadan
So, while I do agree that on the one level “macroevolution” would be acceptable to creationist, it would not follow that this type of macroevolution accounts for producing the huge structural changes that would be required to fulfill the claims of naturalistic evolution. This type of macroevolution has not been observed.

See below:

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (in the upper center).

(This chart is a "best guess" approximation of the macroevolution of hominids over the past 3-4 million years.)

Creationists have had trouble classifying this specimen to either man or ape, with some major figures favoring man and some favoring ape.

Scientists also have disagreed as to its exact taxonomic place. The difficulty in deciding just where to place this specimen (as it shares traits of both earlier and later specimens) is one line of support for its transitional status.



Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33


Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

45 posted on 05/09/2007 10:19:24 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Nevadan; Coyoteman
However, there is a second part of the definition of macroevolution that claims “major structural changes in species”. This is the part of the definition that most Creationists would object to.

Evolutionists object to the that notion also, that "major structural" changes happen within the evolution of a single species, or even consequent with a single speciation event.

We envision -- and more importantly have concrete examples thereto in the fossil record -- "major structural changes" arising over a whole series of species and speciation events. For instance there are fossils showing the migration of the ear ossicles starting out as large bones in the reptilian jaw, one actually functional in the jaw joint, and ending up as tiny bones in the mammalian ear. This is certainly a "major structural change," but it occurred by tiny steps distributed across many different species.

47 posted on 05/09/2007 10:42:07 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Nevadan

nevada- what coyote describes is NOT macro-evolution but micro-evolution plain and simple- the evo crowd desperately needs for the definition of macro-evolution to include any change what-so-ever in order to support the unprovale hypothesis that mutations can create major structural changes that would seperate KINDS (another word they shrink from). s the evos know, mutations have never, ever been shown to create new unique organs which would be required to produce NEW KINDS. Small structural changes in microevolution usually involve either LOSS of information, or a remodling of information already present, and not the needed GAIN of NEW information needed for new unique organs. Pointing out these obvious definitions of NEW information however will illicit an accusation of psuedoscience and ‘Creatyionists trying to redefine science” will come from the evo crowd who beleive any change, no matter how small or no matter the fact that the change only works on information already present amounts to macroevolution.


52 posted on 05/09/2007 11:15:48 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Nevadan

Ramapithecus Widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man Hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw.

Nebraska man A fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man Based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man Traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

And the star of the show...

Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy” Considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus Found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence

Australopithecus africanus and Peking man Presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

The Most Recent Find
In July 2002, anthropologists announced the discovery of a skull in Chad with “an unusual mixture of primitive and humanlike features.” The find was dubbed “Toumai” (the name give to children in Chad born close to the dry season) and was immediately hailed as “the earliest member of the human family found so far.” By October 2002, a number of scientists went on record to criticize the premature claim — declaring that the discovery is merely the fossil of an ape.


54 posted on 05/09/2007 11:34:56 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Nevadan
I think it is a bit of a scam for some naturalist evolutionists to imply that since we have observed minor species differentiation in the present that this type of speciation accounts for “major structual changes” required for inorganic to organic, lizard to bird, etc.

That's an assumption, and you know what happens when one assumes something.

119 posted on 05/10/2007 5:57:15 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson