Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
So you now saying you accept one species of fish turning into another species of fish? I wish you anti-evos would determine what you believe before you ask questions.
We were all created. Many of us devolve.
This is a big change in your position. A brief read of your post history sees you have often implied, or directly stated, that one species cannot turn into another.
Now you are saying a species can give rise to another similar species, and earlier in another post you defined macroevolution as species changing into another species. So you have implicitly said macroevolution is possible, you just disagree with the level of change that is possible.
However, this line of argument is not logically correct. Just because I can jump an inch does not mean I can jump to the moon. Just because I can walk an inch does not mean I can walk around the world.
When you jump, you are using muscle energy to raise your body against gravity. Furthermore, the energy is stored as increased gravitational potential, which is why you come down when you jump. When you walk, you use muscle energy which is thereby depleted. Evolution isn't much like either thing, unless the walker is 1) allowed to rest and feed, and 2) not limited by oceans. Then walking can be like evolution.
Evolutionary drift has no energy cost and no stored return force. Once two populations drift a little bit apart, they can just as easily drift a little bit more apart as go back the other way. At any given point, they can do anything in response to the pressures they're under.
Here's an honest analogy. Your position is like claiming a hydrogen balloon released at spot A must forever bob and float about spot A, never getting far away. That's one behavior it almost certainly won't do.
The dishonesty of your analogy is instantly obvious and pathetic. That's your science and it's pitiful.
Relentless, loony-tunes strawmanning. BTW, when you cut and paste relentless, loony-tunes creationist strawmanning on stupid models of DNA jumping together all at once, you have to go into the HTML and superscript the numbers like 10 100 to say 10 100. That makes a base with an exponent and gives the text some meaning even if the logic is spurious.
Anyway, only creationists think DNA or a man jumped together all at once one day, which is what your model is modeling. You've just debunked the Genesis account. Way to go!
Nobody but you thinks you get a man from dirt in one day, OK? Nobody but you. You're the one. Got it?
The model is everything. Strawman model: garbage out.
At least my model makes sense.
The only question is which is the impossible model, God creating everything, or it just happening.
Come to the wrong conclusion and you will have 'billions and billions' of years to regret it.
So it means you can jump as high as you want?
Clearly there are limits to high one can jump based on the physical anatomy, not just gravity.
Evolutionary drift has no energy cost and no stored return force. Once two populations drift a little bit apart, they can just as easily drift a little bit more apart as go back the other way. At any given point, they can do anything in response to the pressures they're under.
They cannot 'jump' genetically to another species.
Your fantasy thinking is showing.
Here's an honest analogy. Your position is like claiming a hydrogen balloon released at spot A must forever bob and float about spot A, never getting far away. That's one behavior it almost certainly won't do.
The reality is that there are limits on everything, including hydrogen balloons.
Stop trying to talk away the facts, they are what they are.
The dishonesty of your analogy is instantly obvious and pathetic. That's your science and it's pitiful.
Actually, the only thing that is pitiful is your lack of science, which cannot come up with an answer to the facts that Macro evolution is impossible.
Every example you gave was that of Micro not Macro evolution.
Alchemy is more likely then Macro evolution.
But when the 2nd Law of Thermodynmics kicks in on your body and you find yourself looking into the face of your Creator, you can give your analogies to Him.
I am sure He is going to find them very amusing.
So the real science is being dumb as dirt? Anyone reading the paragraph you quote and the question to phrase in "response" can see you've sunk to complete brazen dishonesty.
They cannot 'jump' genetically to another species.
No creationist has ever identified a plausible mechanism why not. It has nothing to do with how high white men can jump.
The reality is that there are limits on everything, including hydrogen balloons.
You have not identified a limiting factor on "microevolution." We have the evidence for common descent. The mechanism is understandable. We see it happening. There are no more limits to evolution than there are to continental drift.
Actually, the only thing that is pitiful is your lack of science, which cannot come up with an answer to the facts that Macro evolution is impossible.
More unsupported shouting. This is your science? Lying about what you just pasted, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming your mantra over and over?
You're not exactly the best advertisement faith in things unseen has ever had.
Should have looked more closely. Actually, the quoted paragraph is fortheDeclaration's original nonsense and my rebuttal, run seamlessly together. As such, it makes no sense at all.
Still, the question ignores the rebuttal. Not even Twist and Shout.
No, no change in my position (which you understand), only in the definition of the words.
What we are discussing is showing the change of species to another species in a Macro way.
In the examples that you gave the birds were still considered birds and the reptiles considered reptiles.
When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution.
Oh, you understand very well what we are saying.
When the fish becomes a reptile, or a reptile a mammal, then you have Macro-evolution which is the fantasy evolution is attempting to sell.
Ofcourse, to sell it they have to appeal to what happens within the limits of species and then say, 'well if that happened, then it is possible for the fish to change to a reptile also'
Macro-evolution (species changing into another species)
Now if you accept that species can change into another species (ie one species of salamander changing into another species of salamander), then you accept macroevolution.
You asked: You have any species in the process of becoming another species while we speak?
I replied with the salamander example. You answered "salamanders are still amphibeans". Yes that is true, but beside the point. You specifically asked for change from one species to another, not change across higher categories like amphibeans to something else.
When the bird becomes a reptile, then you have proof of Macro evolution.
But you could just shift the goalposts again and claim "but they're still vertebrates"
Oh, you understand very well what we are saying.
Each anti-evolutionist seems to have their own definitions for things, and a different set of things they accept and deny. The anti-evolutionist position shifts from person to person, and even from thread to thread.
No, the evolutionist wants to pretend that micro-evolution is Macro-evolution.
When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution.
Is the Salamander still a reptile?
If so, then evolution that attempts to explain life moving from a single cell to man has not been shown.
And that is the evolution we are talking about. (as you well know)
The Observed Instances FAQ
As for the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ (the reading of which is encouraged by this writer), after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the speciation examples given fall into one of two categories:
new species that are new to man, but whose newness remains equivocal in light of observed genetic variation vs. genetic change (as discussed above), and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
new species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new species remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally new trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciationthey are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian macro-evolution, which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of species and (therefore) speciation remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as speciation eventsyet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Nope. Micro-evolution is change below the species level, macro-evolution is change above. It is clearly defined.
When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution.
And also when one species of reptile turns into another species of reptile you also have macro-evolution.
Is the Salamander still a reptile?
There are about 500 species of salamander. In fact there are 10 different families of salamander.
So do you believe one species of salamander turning into another species of salamander is possible? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?
Is one family of salamander turning into another family of salamander possible in your opinion? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?
Do you accept that all salamanders could share a common ancestor and can be derived by darwinian evolution?
Can you tell me what serious problems are 'overlooked' with a belief in creation?
I would like a list;
If you don't mind.
Incest.
Incest? Interesting. Explain what point your a trying to make, if you would please, concerning creation.
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.