Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
''Micro and macro are two completely different things. Micro has been observed and can be created, macro has never been observed and cannot be created.
There is absolutely no reason to assume micro grades into macro.
And we can't even say all the changes leading to micro are entirely random.''
You cannot say that ''there is absolutely no reason to assume micro grades into macro'' and then claim that you believe in all kinds of evolution when you've already said that you don't.
Go4No accepts that 'Macro' evolution happened, but does not accept that the mechanism for 'Micro' (within a recognisable "Kind") is what causes that evolution. It is the same objection as Creationists who do deny 'Macro' evolution.
It's a bit odd as she evidently accepts the evidence of change so much in the past that one species evolved into one that looked quite different, but denies the genetic mutation that causes this to happen either in the past or now. Essentially, we have a theistic evolutionist here rather than an evolution -denier (1). Although the theistic evolutionists i have heard of accept genetic mutation as the method that God uses to make it happen. Just like the automobile -gnomes don't drive the engine, they use internal combustion to do it.
(1) though she has never mentioned a god doing it so far as I can remember, I would bet my last penny that is what is behind all this denial.
Variations within the existing potential of a species is what has been observed, and created. Nothing new, nothing not already within the potential of a species, has been created in this way.
So variation occurs in a man made distinction that does not actually exist in nature (the species), but for some unexplained reason will stop at a man made distinction that does not actually exist in nature (the genus)?
Without this alleged mechanism, all you are doing is saying you can walk to the supermarkt but not from New York to Las Vegas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Give up. You don't have a rational argument. All you can do is repeat the materialist myths.
You have been given a large amount of evidence, which you have either ignored, misrepresented or denied. All you are doing is repeating creationist lies because it is you who does not have a rational argument. That is why you avoid the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I explained that. Light or dark color is already within the potential of the species, and the environment brings out one or the other.
Not all the time. Your ignorance of the types of changes possible within the genome means you are once again arguing from ignorance.
Evolution is turning out to be much more complicated than was assumed in the mid 20th century. We now have reasons to think DNA can respond to changes in the organism and environment. We know for certain this is true with epigenetic changes. A lot more needs to be discovered.
The idea that random genetic changes and natural selection completely account for evolution is already out of date.
Yes, we already know this. That is why NO ONE claims that random genetic changes and natural selection completely account for evolution except dishonest creationists trying to avoid the question.
So once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Creationist BS. Macro evolution is just a matter of degree, and is observed in the fossil record as well as the genome of different genera within the family.
So what is this mechanism that stops the observed differences in the genome from growing even wider? Because if you can not give us a scientific reason, then there is every reason to accept micro to macro considering the fossil and genetic record that we have.
We await your next dancing about the question routine.
yes it does. you prove the point. it generates waste that all life, as we know it, does.
What point? That parts of the universe fart? That parts of the universe collapses in on itself so light can not escape. That parts of the universe are born in a ball of elephant dung?
Go4No accepts that 'Macro' evolution happened, but does not accept that the mechanism for 'Micro' (within a recognisable "Kind") is what causes that evolution. It is the same objection as Creationists who do deny 'Macro' evolution.
It's a bit odd as she evidently accepts the evidence of change so much in the past that one species evolved into one that looked quite different, but denies the genetic mutation that causes this to happen either in the past or now. Essentially, we have a theistic evolutionist here rather than an evolution -denier (1). Although the theistic evolutionists i have heard of accept genetic mutation as the method that God uses to make it happen. Just like the automobile -gnomes don't drive the engine, they use internal combustion to do it.
(1) though she has never mentioned a god doing it so far as I can remember, I would bet my last penny that is what is behind all this denial.
That's what I get for not reading the entire thread. I see in the first post that he or she stated that evolution is real. So far as that goes Good4NothIn, sorry about the misunderstanding.
''Tons of evidence exists that species evolved. We know they were not simply created all at once. And simple observation, even just common sense, tells us that natural selection really does happen.''
So the argument is over the driving force behind evolution. Got it.
Yes, we already know this. That is why NO ONE claims that random genetic changes and natural selection completely account for evolution except dishonest creationists trying to avoid the question.
So once again:
We await your next dancing about the question routine.
Random errors do not create useful new features. There is no reason to believe they can. You only believe it because it's materialist dogma.
That's what I get for not reading the entire thread. I see in the first post that he or she stated that evolution is real. So far as that goes Good4NothIn, sorry about the misunderstanding.
''Tons of evidence exists that species evolved. We know they were not simply created all at once. And simple observation, even just common sense, tells us that natural selection really does happen.''
So the argument is over the driving force behind evolution. Got it.
I am not saying there is one driving force, and I am not saying that anyone knows what the driving forces could be.
Just that newer research is showing intelligence in cells and organisms. According to Dawkins, DNA and its random errors is the driving force, and natural selection is the organizing force.
The "central dogma" of modern genetics says that information goes from DNA to the cell and organism, never to the DNA. This has already been shown to be wrong.
Evolution research is far from finished. It is just starting to go beyond the old Darwinist ideas.
And by the way, atheists ALWAYS object that their theory of evolution includes so much more than neo-Darwinism (Darwinism plus modern genetics). No, it doesn't, it is basically neo-Darwinism. The essential idea is that genetic changes are always errors.
Random errors do not create useful new features. There is no reason to believe they can. You only believe it because it's materialist dogma.
Except you admitted (without knowing it) that they can. Except you called it adaption.
Which is why you have to lie about 'materialist dogma' all the time. Because you do not even understand your own arguments. Which is why you refuse to answer questions. Which is why you refuse to take this to the science section.
The "central dogma" of modern genetics says that information goes from DNA to the cell and organism, never to the DNA. This has already been shown to be wrong.
Straw man modern genetics, maybe. But the rest of us are talking about actual genetics. Unlike you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
And by the way, atheists ALWAYS object that their theory of evolution includes so much more than neo-Darwinism (Darwinism plus modern genetics).
Most atheists do not. They just say they do not believe in gods. But biologists (of all religious persuasions) know that Darwin's theory has been advanced with later works, starting with the religious Mendel. The fact that you have to misrepresent this as well is amusing, especially as you were responding to a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
No, it doesn't, it is basically neo-Darwinism. The essential idea is that genetic changes are always errors.
Your need to constantly misrepresent is your problem, not ours.
Edit: And why have we ended up talking about evolution again? Did you get tired of claiming a universal consciousness without evidence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
