The Barbarian Posted February 27, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2020 It's not clear to you, because, as more than one person has pointed out, you don't know much about it. Dr. Wise said that there was very good evidence for it in the sense of common descent. But it technically means "speciation." 4 hours ago, dad2 said: No, actually, the term is not clear because it is not a scientific term for starters. Online Biology Dictionary: Macroevolution Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Supplement Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population. Word origin: Greek makro-, from makrós, long + evolution. Related forms: macroevolutionary (adjective). Compare: microevolution. 4 hours ago, dad2 said: Then, if someone is talking about speciation, we would need to see details of what exactly they are saying, and what the basis is. Reproductive isolation in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 27, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2020 2 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Quote It's not clear to you, because, as more than one person has pointed out, you don't know much about it. Dr. Wise said that there was very good evidence for it in the sense of common descent. But it technically means "speciation." What is not clear is what the guy thinks speciated from what and why. You do not seem able to debate his position so why mention it? Quote Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Exactly. So you need to support the over great time thing. You also need to explain where the samples that speciated are from, is it the fossil record? If so, that is only a record of a tiny percent of life and variety of life that lived. Man and most animals were here since the beginning, but did not make it into the fossil record. The nature of the past did not allow that to happen, and only a very small percentage of things that lived were able to leave fossil remain. So, unless you prove there was the present nature in the past, what you thought was knowing about things was really belief based misconceptions on a macro scale! You cannot determine what evolved from what using the fossil record to any significant degree, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 28, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, dad2 said: What is not clear is what the guy thinks speciated from what and why. You do not seem able to debate his position so why mention it? He merely says that the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. But then, he actually knows what the fossil record is, and what macroevolutionary theory is. And he goes with the scientific definition of macroevolution: Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48 macroevolution [ mak-roh-ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, -ee-vuh- ] noun Biology. major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/macroevolution In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html 21 hours ago, dad2 said: You cannot determine what evolved from what using the fossil record to any significant degree, period. Your fellow YE creationist disagrees with you. And unlike you, he actually understands the evidence. , Edited February 28, 2020 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 28, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: Quote He merely says that the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Define macroevolution theory? Does this mean a few creatures seem to have evolved in the fossil record? Or does this mean that evolution was responsible for life on earth? Even if all the guy meant was that the fossil records shows some bits of macro evolving, that would still be a claim that needed support. To take some creature in the fossil record and then another one later in the record that resembles it does not mean one evolved from the other. It could mean there were similar creatures that were able to leave fossil remains. It could mean that two kinds of that sort of creature were created. It could mean that there is no real connection, because there may have been other creatures that we do not know about also at that time that maybe never could make it into the record...etc etc. For you to claim they have to be ancestors is a leap of faith. Quote Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[ That does not matter. The issue is whether the species in the fossils you offer are evolved from each other, and if so, what that actually means. Quote Your fellow YE creationist disagrees with you. And unlike you, he actually understands the evidence. You have failed to defend or expound on what his position actually is. You have also shown us that you do not know what the fossil record is all about, or genetics as relates to the past. You have denied creation, and given credit for life to evolution rather than the creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 28, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2020 (Barbarian notes that YE creationist Kurt Wise admits that the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory) 17 hours ago, dad2 said: Define macroevolution theory? New taxa evolve from earlier taxa. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: Does this mean a few creatures seem to have evolved in the fossil record? Let's see what Dr. Wise (a young Earth creationist) says: "Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." That kind of thing. Pretty much common descent. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: Or does this mean that evolution was responsible for life on earth? As you learned earlier, that's not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first living things. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: Even if all the guy meant was that the fossil records shows some bits of macro evolving, that would still be a claim that needed support. As you now realize, his point is that there's a huge amount of evidence, and it is very good evidence for common descent (for example) of apes and humans among many, many others. If you want to test Dr. Wise's finding, name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: To take some creature in the fossil record and then another one later in the record that resembles it does not mean one evolved from the other. Here, you've confused analogy with homology. Would you like to learn why that misled you? Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: The issue is whether the species in the fossils you offer are evolved from each other, and if so, what that actually means. As you fellow creationist admitted, the homologies in these predicted series that were later found, are very good evidence for it happening. Wise doesn't mention something that's even more convincing; there's never any such transitionals where there shouldn't be. No mammals with feathers, no arthropods with bones, no whales with gills. So we know that the homologies do indicate common descent. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: You have failed to defend or expound on what his position actually is. His position is that the large number of transitional series are very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. He says that creationists need to accept this fact. He suggests that someday, there might be a reasonable creationist explanation for them. Presently there is none. 17 hours ago, dad2 said: You have also shown us that you do not know what the fossil record is all about, or genetics as relates to the past. As everyone here has seen, you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of either. You seem to have been completely gobsmacked by the admissions of your fellow creationists, acknowledging the fossil evidence, and imagine some kind of weird pre-genetic systems in Adam and Eve, even though we've recovered DNA from primitive hominids and it's remarkably close to our own. C'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 29, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Quote New taxa evolve from earlier taxa. That is not known. If it all started with creation then obviously the first creatures did not evolve from any taxa! Also, since your mr wise uses the fossil record, we cannot know from that what evolved from what either. In addition to all the life we see fossilized was a vast vast amount of other l Quote ife such as man that was here also. Your same nature in the past belief has misled you into viewing the fossil record as a more complete record. Let's see what Dr. Wise (a young Earth creationist) says: "Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates There you go, proof that the guy used the fossil record with all the wrong beliefs. Quote — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Ignorant babble. There are no horse ancestors in the fossil record. There are horse like creatures that also lived, but were able to leave remains before horses started to be able to. Quote Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), More religious ignorance couched in sciency sounding words. Quote That kind of thing. Pretty much common descent. Nonsense then. OK. The usual assumption and belief based interpretation of the fossil record all based on a same nature having existed always. The guy should know better. He should know animals and fish and man were here at the same time as any other fossil in the early record. Quote As you learned earlier, that's not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first living things. As you were told several times the long sequence of creatures all are claimed in the evo chain that supposedly resulted in man! No denial is possible. Right on down to and past your imagined shared little ancestor with flatworms! Quote As you now realize, his point is that there's a huge amount of evidence, and it is very good evidence for common descent (for example) of apes and humans among many, many others. If you want to test Dr. Wise's finding, name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find you a transitional. Said to be evolutionarily connected is a joke. They cannot be said to be connected. Not the creatures of the fossil record. The only reason they appear that way to you is because you have no clue what the fossil record really represents, and no clue when evolution started (created kinds). Quote Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population. It matters not at all. The point is you claim evolution for things in the fossil record based on a certain belief that is wrong and unsupportable. For example, there may have been a tiger on the ark (a pair). Now there are some thirty species of tigers. Yet there are some almost cat like things in the fossil record that you think all cats evolved from! No. The things you think they (or whales, or etc) evolved from are merely creatures that also lived that looked like cats. (or whales or etc). You have believed that what was in the fossil record had to be what other things found later in that record had to have come from. No. No. Quote As you fellow creationist admitted, the homologies in these predicted series that were later found, are very good evidence for it happening. No. Predicting similar looking creatures might be found is hardly a prediction! And though some may have been found what is NOT found is the say, 96% of life on earth that was also alive at the time! You try to say it all had to have come from the few creatures that could leave remains early n the record! Once we are aware of the mistake, it becomes very ridiculous and intellectually embarrassing to go back to your position. Quote Wise doesn't mention something that's even more convincing; there's never any such transitionals where there shouldn't be. No mammals with feathers, no arthropods with bones, no whales with gills. So we know that the homologies do indicate common descent. False. Itemizing the few creatures in the early record into groupings with bones or feathers or etc has precious little meaning. There were OTHER creatures with bones and feathers and etc alive at the same time that did not evolve from the ones you see in fossils! Quote You seem to have been completely gobsmacked by the admissions of your fellow creationists, You mean the simplistic faith based ramblings of a few folks seeking attention that do not have much of a clue what they are talking about..like you. Quote acknowledging the fossil evidence, I acknowledge it for what it is. Not for the foolishness evo religion (and some poor clue challenged creationists) has thought it was. Quote and imagine some kind of weird pre-genetic systems in Adam and Eve, Hey, our genetics do not result in us living 1000 years. So bring on the weird genetics that do! Quote even though we've recovered DNA from primitive hominids and it's remarkably close to our own. C'mon. Not true. I told you I suspect the flood was somewhere near the KT layer time. Name any usable DNA from before this!? Or hominids!? Edited February 29, 2020 by dad2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted February 29, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2020 5 hours ago, dad2 said: Not true. I told you I suspect the flood was somewhere near the KT layer time. Name any usable DNA from before this!? Or hominids!? Barbarian observes: New taxa evolve from earlier taxa. 5 hours ago, dad2 said: That is not known. Directly observed. No point in denying it. Even your fellow YE creationists freely admit the fact... "This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended." https://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/ "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. " https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/ "Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.),Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." 5 hours ago, dad2 said: More religious ignorance couched in sciency sounding words. He is a YE creationist, yes. But he does know the evidence. And you do not. Evolutionary theory does not say that human evolved from flatworms. Humans evolved from other primates. You keep missing this. I think what you are meaning to say is that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. As you learned, genetic data shows this to be a fact. If you imagine that DNA did not appear until much later, you're still stuck trying to explain how that would be possible, when DNA analysis shows the same phylogenies as phenotypes and the fossil record. If you think the flood was at the KT boundary, your new doctrine is immediately undercut by the fact than no human or even primate fossils occur before the KT event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted February 29, 2020 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted February 29, 2020 51 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Quote Barbarian observes: New taxa evolve from earlier taxa. Not a whole lot of that observed. Quote Directly observed. No point in denying it. Even your fellow YE creationists freely admit the fact... "This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended." I said a lot of evolving goes on and a lot more used to go n in the former nature. Pretending this is denying speciation is disingenuous. The issue discussed was how your mr wise used the fossil record. In that case we cannot tell much about what evolved from what. Quote He is a YE creationist, yes. But he does know the evidence. And you do not. Parrot defeated arguments all you like. Using the fossil record as you and he do is not evidence but abuse of evidence by imposing your belief system onto it. Quote Evolutionary theory does not say that human evolved from flatworms. They say a common ancestor existed for humans and flatworms. That does not mean anything like you suggest. It does mean that the common ancestors claimed for all sorts of little things are supposed to be our ancestors (nor direct recent ancestors of course). There is no doubt the long list of ancestors are said to be in the family tree of man!! Quote Humans evolved from other primates. You keep missing this. Obviously the most recent ancestor claimed by the fable would be that. There are many many other more distant so called ancestors also that they claim. You purposely miss that and use a strawman argument. Quote I think what you are meaning to say is that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. That is the furthest thing from what I mean. I mean God created every kind of animals and man. Talk about vile dishonest 'debating'. Quote As you learned, genetic data shows this to be a fact. As pointed out many times modern genetics cannot be claimed to be the same as former nature genetics. Get over it. You only believed that for no reason. Quote If you imagine that DNA did not appear until much later, you're still stuck trying to explain how that would be possible, when DNA analysis shows the same phylogenies as phenotypes and the fossil record. I said that under different forces and laws atoms and molecules and cells and genes all must operate accordingly and obey whatever nature exists. In our nature today genetics must and does work a certain way. If the forces and laws were different we could not expect things to work the same. Nor did the world of Adam's day work the same in Scripture. We do not live a thousand years now if you notice. Quote If you think the flood was at the KT boundary, your new doctrine is immediately undercut by the fact than no human or even primate fossils occur before the KT event. Wrong. We expect no remains of man or most animals in the fossil record in the different nature of the past. In that time not all life could leave remains, only a tiny percentage of life! That is all that is in the fossil record. Only your belief system would expect a cross section of life represented in the record because you believe the present nature also existed then and worked as it does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Christian 1985 Posted February 29, 2020 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/22/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=rVEJNRDsIL0 truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/ What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will. If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a "natural," progressive means of forming man. If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one? Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145 The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber Genius Posted March 5, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 657 Content Per Day: 0.33 Reputation: 244 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 5, 2020 A large hairy audacious topic! Firstly, let's ask ourselves, "If I made the scripture align with science how often would I have to reinterpret scripture?" At least every ten years or so science is falsifying old scientific views and replacing them with new ones. "Well God meant a, no b, no c, no d, no e..." You get the conundrum right? There is a name for this type of error, it is called concordism. What is strange about the literary style of Gen 1? why is Big Bang cosmology much more "scientific," than evolutionary disciplines of biology and anthropology? Why is history so hard to replicate or falsify? We haven't even discussed the anti-intellectual forces affecting Christianity in the US since the 1830s, or the anti-supernatural forces affecting what counts as science or knowledge in the academy since the 1970s. I am dubious that we can make serious progress here. The prerequisite knowledge requirement is too high. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts