Jump to content
IGNORED

God used Evolution to 'create' man


A Christian 1985

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

When I became a Christian, i spent a lot of time looking at the other side of the discussion.  Mainly at ICR.  I found heir explanation of science was far more scientific.

Why did you find their explanation better? You can't tell me what a mutation is. You have no idea what an allele is or why frequency of alleles in a population is important to the discussion. You keep saying you don't need to define a mutation because you know what they do. How can you possibly understand what mutations can or cannot do if you do not understand what one is?

If you want to select your beliefs on faith, and freely admit that you are unfamiliar with the evidence, I can accept that. But you are trying to argue about things you simply do not understand and it is completely disingenuous.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Barbarian observes:

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

There is no change in allele frequency.

There always is.   Every birth slightly changes the allele frequency.   Over time, unless the population is extremely well-fitted, the allele frequencies change.

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I don't even know what that means.  All  of the genes that will give the kid its traits are in the gene pool of the parents. 

Not knowing what you're talking about, is what's hurting you here.   And no you're wrong about the genes.   All of us have several dozen mutations that didn't exist in either parent. 

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Mutations only alter a trait, and that would not make a new species

No, that's wrong, too.   A single mutation in O. lamarckania (evening primrose) produced a new species that could not interbreed with the old species.  (O. gigas).    Would you like to learn about some other examples?

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

BUT THEY REMAINED  elephants.  

Just elephants that are different than the earlier ones.   Mammoths were elephants, just different than today's elephants.   As you learned, speciation is when a new non-interbreeding population evolves.

Most creationists now admit the fact of speciation.  Would you like me to show you, again?

5 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Most Christians do not believe  in any form of evolution and they say no such hing.

Well, let's take a look...

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

 

Here's their version of common descent:

 

 

speciation.jpg

As you see, they go quite a bit past species, including entire orders of organisms as having a common ancestor.  That's a fairly recent concession by creationists, but there it is.

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Why did you find their explanation better?

They explained in detail scientifically how something could or could not happen and gave the evidence to support what they said.  They also explained why some evolution beliefs were not scientific, including why mutatgions are not a mechanism for a change o species.

You can't tell me what a mutation is.

No  only can I, I did on Wed.  9:30 Am in thread #21,.

You have no idea what an allele is or why frequency of alleles in a population is important to the discussion.

Not true.  You have never ask me what an allele is so I have never said what they are.   And because you are willing to accept by faith alone, you do not know enough basic genetics to know that freque4ncy of alleles is not important in this discussion.  The frequency of alleles, like mutations, is not a mechanism for a change  of species.

You keep saying you don't need to define a mutation because you know what they do. How can you possibly understand what mutations can or cannot do if you do not understand what one is?

Do you really not understand that definitions do not prove anything?  What is important is know what something can or can't do.  You might know the definition, but saying a mutation can change the species shows you don't  understand the term.  You are trying to make the definition more  important than what it can or can't do.  That is backwards.

 

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If you want to select your beliefs on faith, and freely admit that you are unfamiliar with the evidence, I can accept that. But you are trying to argue about things you simply do not understand and it is completely disingenuous.

I am tired of your false accusations and condescending attitude.  The truth  is you don't understand what constitutes verifiable evidence and you have only presented the usual evolution talking points and have yet to present even one bit of evidence to support what you say. I know more about evolution than you do and I certainly am more familiar with what constitutes evidence.  You say I am unfamiliar with the terms we discuss for one reason---YOU don't accept them.  It was YOU who is unfamiliar with evidence and don't understand the evidence.  I am probably as educated as you are and IMO you have not exhibited any great amount of superior intelligence. 

You tried to make a big deal about YE Christians believing eh Bible said he earth was 10,000 years old.  I proved you did not know what you were talking about there and i will show you can't prove a basic belief of evolution.

Mutations can't be a mechanism for the species to change.  Now since you are so intelligent on this term, prove me wrong.

Unless you change your condescending and  insulting attitude, you will be put on my ignore list.

Peace and joy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

There always is.   Every birth slightly changes the allele frequency.   Over time, unless the population is extremely well-fitted, the allele frequencies change.

You may be right but i   doubt if you can prove it.  However it is irrelevant in evolution.  A change in the alleles will change a trait eh kid was going o inherit, but is not a mechanism for a change of the species.Alleles.  The kid will pop out after the kind it parents were.  No change of species, no evolution.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Not knowing what you're talking about, is what's hurting you here.   And no you're wrong about the genes.   All of us have several dozen mutations that didn't exist in either parent. 

That is not true, you can't prove that statement and it shows you are the one not knowing what you are talking about.  You need to stop accepting by faith alone what some evo says and do a little research on your own, like i have done for a long time.

No, that's wrong, too.   A single mutation in O. lamarckania (evening primrose) produced a new species that could not interbreed with the old species.  (O. gigas). 

You still don' get it.  The inability to interbreed does not make a new species.  The best you could hope for would be a sub-species. You still don;t get it, making a dogmatic statement and not supporting it with evidence is as worthless  as a moose buying a hat rack.

   Would you like to learn about some other examples?

I would rather have some verifiable evidence for your primerose example.

 

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Just elephants that are different than the earlier ones. 

Since you admit the elephants were just different elements, where is the evolution?  Are you really trying to tell me a species being the same species, just different, is evidence for evolution>  That thinking come right  out os evolution lala land.

Mammoths were elephants, just different than today's elephants. 

If  mammoths were just elephants, just different is like say a poodle is still a dog just different than bull dog.  What is  it about a species not changing that you think supports evolution?

As you learned, speciation is when a new non-interbreeding population evolves. Most creationists now admit the fact of speciation.

I learned no such thing. You learned, or should have, that the inability to reproduce does not make an new species.

 Would you like me to show you, again?

I would rather you explain how a salamander remaining a salamander is evidence of evolution.  You keep avoiding the question.

Well, let's take a look...

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

Real science has proved much of What Darwin believed is wrong., and the more we learn about science, especially DNA, evolution become more doubtful

Here's their version of common descent:

 

 

speciation.jpg

As you see, they go quite a bit past species, including entire orders of organisms as having a common ancestor.  That's a fairly recent concession by creationists, but there it is.

Once up a time...and they lived happily ever after.

As usual, no evidence.  Anyone who believes a psalm tree is he mommy and daddy of a butterfly, needs a checkup  by a qualified head shrink.

Peach and joy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

They explained in detail scientifically how something could or could not happen and gave the evidence to support what they said. 

Do you think you could share some of that evidence?

15 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

They also explained why some evolution beliefs were not scientific, including why mutatgions are not a mechanism for a change o species.

I suspect that ICR is not making the claim that scientists believe that a few mutations are enough to cause speciation. I would have to read more of what they have written that leads you to believe this in order to judge it fairly.

26 minutes ago, omega2xx said:
Quote

You can't tell me what a mutation is.

No  only can I, I did on Wed.  9:30 Am in thread #21,.

My apologies, I missed this explanation earlier.

Quote

Basically Mutations alter a trait that the offspring would have gotten without the mutation. 

No, most mutations do not alter traits. I can explain why if you would like to learn more.

29 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You have never ask me what an allele is so I have never said what they are.

You can tell me about alleles and why a change in frequency is important to show me I am in error.

30 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

And because you are willing to accept by faith alone, you do not know enough basic genetics to know that freque4ncy of alleles is not important in this discussion.

Changes in allele frequency are critical to the concept of evolution. A denial of this fact only highlights an unfamiliarity with the necessary knowledge base.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

What is important is know what something can or can't do.

If you don't really know what something is, it is very difficult to accurate assess what it can or can't do.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I am tired of your false accusations and condescending attitude.

Please point out anything I have said that is false. I do apologize for condescending.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I know more about evolution than you do and I certainly am more familiar with what constitutes evidence. 

 

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I am probably as educated as you are and IMO you have not exhibited any great amount of superior intelligence. 

I have no claim of more intelligence. However, I have worked hard to study biology for about 30 years and earned a PhD in the subject about 20 years ago. No, you do not know more about evolution than I do. No, you are not more familiar with what constitutes evidence. No, you are not as educated as I am. I do not say this because I believe it makes me superior - it absolutely does not. However, it does make me more qualified to make assertions regarding the scientific evidence for evolution.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You tried to make a big deal about YE Christians believing eh Bible said he earth was 10,000 years old.  I proved you did not know what you were talking about there and i will show you can't prove a basic belief of evolution.

Not true. I pointed out that there are assumptions that YEC make about science that are not actually based on what the Bible teaches.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Mutations can't be a mechanism for the species to change.

What evidence is this assertion based on?

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Unless you change your condescending and  insulting attitude, you will be put on my ignore list.

Again, I apologize for the condescension, but you can ignore me if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Barbarian observes:

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

There always is.   Every birth slightly changes the allele frequency.   Over time, unless the population is extremely well-fitted, the allele frequencies change.

12 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You may be right but i   doubt if you can prove it.  However it is irrelevant in evolution.  A change in the alleles will change a trait eh kid was going o inherit, but is not a mechanism for a change of the species.Alleles.  The kid will pop out after the kind it parents were.  No change of species, no evolution.

It's just what we observe.   All organisms have mutations that their parents lacked.    DNA has an error-correction process, but it's just sloppy enough to allow a number of mutations in each individual.   

Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3× or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation);[11] these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation.[12] Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10−8 per site per generation.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

And yes, mutations are the cause of speciations.   The genome can't change without mutations.    And as you learned, even knowledgeable creationists admit the fact of speciation.   Would you like me to show you again?

Barbarian observes:

Not knowing what you're talking about, is what's hurting you here.   And no you're wrong about the genes.   All of us have several dozen mutations that didn't exist in either parent. 

12 hours ago, omega2xx said:

That is not true, you can't prove that statement and it shows you are the one not knowing what you are talking about. 

See above.   This is why you keep walking into walls.   You're just running on imagination, and that's almost always wrong.

12 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You still don' get it.  The inability to interbreed does not make a new species.  

Your fellow YE creationists already admit that it does.   Would you like to see that, again?

12 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Since you admit the elephants were just different elements, where is the evolution? 

Remember what "evolution" means in biology; "change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Macroevolution is what your fellow creationists call "speciation", the evolution of a reproductively-isolated population.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

(chart from Answers in Genesis, showing the creationist concept of limited common descent)

As you see, they go quite a bit past species, including entire orders of organisms as having a common ancestor.  That's a fairly recent concession by creationists, but there it is.

12 hours ago, omega2xx said:

As usual, no evidence.  Anyone who believes a psalm tree is he mommy and daddy of a butterfly, needs a checkup  by a qualified head shrink.

AIG has very good evidence for the common descent they've documented there.   And you've completely missed what your fellow creationists are telling you.    They are saying that all palm trees have a common ancestor, and they diverged by speciation.    They're telling you that all species of butterflies have a common ancestor.  And so on.

Ignorance is the enemy.   And truth will save you.   Learn the truth, and the truth will set you free.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/1/2019 at 6:25 PM, omega2xx said:

The O.T. stated the idea of the Big Bang before science did. 

 

Where?

The main problem about the BB is that they never explain the source of the matter that went bang, they never explain the source of the energy needed to make it go bang and they never explain how life began from dead elements. 

Peace and joy

Right.

I always found this interesting....

Most scientists are atheists and do not believe in God, and yet the bible stated how the universe began, as you've stated.

Some scientists are now using the term "Intelligent Design" to express that it's apparent that something beyond what we could understand had to have a hand in creating everything.  We know this something as God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Do you think you could share some of that evidence?

Probably the most convincing evidence is that mutations do not add information the the offspring.  Mutations can only alter the trait the kid would have gotten without the mutation.  For example the kid whose gene for skin color was mutated, its skin color will not be the same as its parents, but not only will it remain the same species as its parents, so will its kids and the mutation may or may not be passed on.  Now if the kid and its kids remain the same species, where is the evolution.   Let  me add that evolution needs lots  of time to make their theory work, but time will not change proven scientific truths.  Proven truths never change.  A mutated cat is still a cat and will only reproduce after its kind.  A truth that is proven thousands of times every day and can't be falsified. that is

Now why don't you give me the evidence evolution uses to support mutations changing a species.  I know what it is but you need to think about how small changes that never  change the offspring can eventually change the species. 

I suspect that ICR is not making the claim that scientists believe that a few mutations are enough to cause speciation. I would have to read more of what they have written that leads you to believe this in order to judge it fairly.

I am not sure what ICR says about speciation, but her is the problem with that theory.  First, the inability to reproduce does not make a new species.  We see this in dogs and cats caused by over interbreeding.  Second in the only2 studies I am aware of, salamanders and gulls, the salamanders remained  salamanders and the gulls remained gull.  One university in California did classify the ones who could not reproduce a sub-species.  That is legitimate, but rejects there was any evolution.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

My apologies, I missed this explanation earlier.

No problem, I do it all the time.

No, most mutations do not alter traits. I can explain why if you would like to learn more.

That doesn't  matter.  In fact it is evidence against mutation being a mechanism to change a species.  You need to explain how mutations that do effect a trait, but do not change the species, can result in a change of species.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

 

You can tell me about alleles and why a change in frequency is important to show me I am in error.

Changes in allele frequency are critical to the concept of evolution. A denial of this fact only highlights an unfamiliarity with the necessary knowledge base.

It only highlights my lack of knowledge if it is true.  so you need to explain how it happens and what is the result and how the result causes a change of species. 

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If you don't really know what something is, it is very difficult to accurate assess what it can or can't do.

You ASSUME I don't know what something is because you think it is something else.  I support what I say or admit I can't.  You and Barbarian and other evolutionist never do.  You always just post the usual talking evo points but do not explain how.  How does a land animal with no gene for fins have a kid with fins and eventually become a sea animal.  Whale evolution is probably the most absurd invention introduced by the evolutionist, but it is necessary.  If the origin of sea life can't be explained, evolution is exposed for the farce it is.   What is even more absurd and contradictory is that originally evolution taught that life began in water, the primordial pool, and eventually some creature walked out of the pool and became the origin for all land animals.  If evolution was true, it would make more sense to say whales evolved from some sea animal, a porpoise for example.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Please point out anything I have said that is false. I do apologize for condescending.

I don't know if you have said these things specifically, but they are basic evolution beliefs that I consider wrong.

Mutations cause a change of species---natural selection is a cause for a change of species---allele frequency  causes a change of species---speciaion is evidence of evolution.

I have no claim of more intelligence. However, I have worked hard to study biology for about 30 years and earned a PhD in the subject about 20 years ago.

That is certainly something to be proud of.  There are many creationist with PhD's in science  who disagree with you, so why should I believe you over them? Especially when they explain how it is possible/not possible.  I only have a BS  in Business Administration, but I have the ability to study a subject and evaluate  it, and I have done that for over 40years.

No, you do not know more about evolution than I do. No, you are not more familiar with what constitutes evidence.

Ok, then explain what I don't know about evolution and what constitutes verifiable evidence.

 

No, you are not as educated as I am. I do not say this because I believe it makes me superior - it absolutely does not. However, it does make me more qualified to make assertions regarding the scientific evidence for evolution.

You are certainly more educated than I am, but as long as there are some as educated as you, who reject what you believe, you can't say with assurance I am wrong.

 

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Not true. I pointed out that there are assumptions that YEC make about science that are not actually based on what the Bible teaches.

No you didn't,  You said dogmatically that the YEC said the Bible said the universe is only 10,000 years old.  IMO you are quibbling over some nonessential.  The age of the universe is irrelevant.  What is important is how did it originate?  Science can't tell us,  Evolution doesn't have a clue.  If God didn't do  it, how did it get here wish matter, energy and life from lifeless elements originate our of nothing?

What evidence is this assertion based on?

Since you didn't backquote I don't remember the comment.  Remember I am an old foggy.

Again, I apologize for the condescension, but you can ignore me if you wish.

No problem, I get a little testy and condescending myself at times.  I have more respect for you for apologizing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

There always is.   Every birth slightly changes the allele frequency.   Over time, unless the population is extremely well-fitted, the allele frequencies change.

It's just what we observe.   All organisms have mutations that their parents lacked.    DNA has an error-correction process, but it's just sloppy enough to allow a number of mutations in each individual.   

You may be right , but it is irrelevant.  Mutations are not a mechanism for a change of species.  The life form, man, animal or plant remains the exact same species as its parents, and its kids will be the exact same species is its parents and grand parents, proving "after them kind.  Also, the trait caused by the mutation may not show up in the next generation

Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3× or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation);[11] these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation.[12] Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10−8 per site per generation.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

You may be right again, but it is still irrelevant  and DNA actually refutes evolution because the DNA of every species is different. That is how you can tell a man from an ape

And yes, mutations are the cause of speciations.   The genome can't change without mutations.    And as you learned, even knowledgeable creationists admit the fact of speciation.   Would you like me to show you again?

No, I want you to explain how salamanders remaining salamanders and gulls remaining gulls support evolution.  I thought the species had to change of species.  I have ask you this before.  Why do you keep avoiding answering?

 

Barbarian observes:

Not knowing what you're talking about, is what's hurting you here.   And no you're wrong about the genes.   All of us have several dozen mutations that didn't exist in either parent. 

See above.   This is why you keep walking into walls.   You're just running on imagination, and that's almost always wrong.

Amusing.  You don't eve understand what you are saying.  You just parrot the usual evo talking points and that with no evidence to support what you say.  you say you have several dozen mutations that did not exist in your parents, but you are the exact same species as they are.  If you have children, they are also the exact same species as your and your parents.  If you have great grand children, they are still the same, If you have great grand children they are also he same.   This had been going on in humans land animals, sea animals, birds etc since Adam and Eve.  Ain't "after their kind" wonderful?  WHERE IS THE EVOLUTION?

Your fellow YE creationists already admit that it does. 

Some might, some do not not.

  Would you like to see that, again?

I have told you what I want---EVIDENCE.  It is time to put up or shust up.

 

Remember what "evolution" means in biology; "change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Macroevolution is what your fellow creationists call "speciation", the evolution of a reproductively-isolated population.

A change in the allele WILL NOT cause a changve in the species.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable.

Nothing he said will cause a change in he species.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

(chart from Answers in Genesis, showing the creationist concept of limited common descent)

As you see, they go quite a bit past species, including entire orders of organisms as having a common ancestor.  That's a fairly recent concession by creationists, but there it is.

AIG has very good evidence for the common descent they've documented there.   And you've completely missed what your fellow creationists are telling you.    They are saying that all palm trees have a common ancestor, and they diverged by speciation.    They're telling you that all species of butterflies have a common ancestor.  And so on.

I don't believe Answers in Genesis says that, but i can't check your link until i send this message.  When I do, I will get back to you.

Ignorance is the enemy.   And truth will save you.   Learn the truth, and the truth will set you free.

The only way to defeat ignorance is to base what you believe on evidence.  If you have any, and you don't, present  it every time you make  one of your dogmatic statements just parroting the usual evo talking points..

I have been on both sides of this debate.  Since I learned the truth, I feel much freer.  If you was really interested in learning he truth, you would look at what the other side says.  You seem bright enough to evaluate what they say.

peace and joy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  447
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   80
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/26/2019
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Fran C said:

Right.

I always found this interesting....

Most scientists are atheists and do not believe in God, and yet the bible stated how the universe began, as you've stated.

Some scientists are now using the term "Intelligent Design" to express that it's apparent that something beyond what we could understand had to have a hand in creating everything.  We know this something as God.

Amen and amen sister.

Even scientist with an open mind admit nothing can't be the source something.  Everything, except God, needs a source.Because of the order in the universe, I like the idea of an Intelligent Designer.  It is very unlikely that chaos can be the mommy and daddy of order.

Thanks for your comments.

 

Love, peace and joy

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...