The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[The Barbarian]

You were going to tell us what the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is.   I believe that's the source of your confusion.   What do you think it is?

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Fossils are not evidence of evolution. 

Dr. Wise does.   And he's a YE creationist who does know what macroevolution is.   So what do you think it is?

 

[The Barbarian]

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.  

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

No it hasn't.

Since you seem unable to even tell us what it means in science, I'm wondering why you're denying it.

 

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.  

Since you seem unable to even tell us what it means in science, I'm wondering why you're denying it.

There are a lot of bad scientists who pretend to have observed it, but they observed micro, not macro.

[The Barbarian]

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.  

Since you seem unable to even tell us what it means in science, I'm wondering why you're denying it.

38 minutes ago, Sparks said:

There are a lot of bad scientists who pretend to have observed it, but they observed micro, not macro.

If you don't know what the difference is, how would you know?

 

[Sparks]

45 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Two errors there.   First, it's been directly observed.  

Since you seem unable to even tell us what it means in science, I'm wondering why you're denying it.

If you don't know what the difference is, how would you know?

I have already said so.  A 'scientist' like Richard Lenski claims that e. coli suddenly growing on citrate is is macro (new information added to the genome), but it turns out it's not new at all, and is only micro.  That is the e. coli used existing information, not new.  Honest scientists pointed out the error, but you cannot stop dishonesty with something as simple as honesty. 

Sorry, I know you are about to hose down the thread with links attempting to counter what I just said, but I am right, and the links you are about to plaster everywhere, are not. 

[BeyondET]

13 hours ago, Sparks said:

The point is it does not take trillions of years to make them, like the evolution crowd believes.  They believe a fossil indicates evolution, but why? 

The process your describing is intervening to make it happen that's not a good comparison.

[The Barbarian]

Since you seem unable to even tell us what macroevolution means in science, I'm wondering why you're denying it.

If you don't know what the difference is, how would you know?

11 hours ago, Sparks said:

I have already said so. 

I went back and looked.   Not there.   Why not just tell us now what you think it is, so there's no question? 

I could show you a link defining the term, but you seem unhappy with me documenting things that way.   But I guess that we'll have to do it:

Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution Definition

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the barriers imposed by reproductive isolation. This is the process of speciation, which can be driven by a number of different mechanisms. Additionally, macroevolution can describe differences between that organisms belonging to larger clades of organisms, for example the different taxonomic groups within the primates.

https://biologydictionary.net/macroevolution/

So bacteria evolving a new enzyme is evolution, but not macroevolution.     A population of hawthorne maggot flies evolving into a new population of flies that live on apples, and no longer interbreed with hawthorn flies is evolution and macroevolution.

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, BeyondET said:

The process your describing is intervening to make it happen that's not a good comparison.

All you need is the right conditions and the placement of an item, and you will have a fossil or it will be petrified.  You can intentionally make them in a lab in a single day.  People find petrified and fossilized items that are not that old, so 1). fossils to not take millions of billions of years to make, and 2). they are not evidence of evolution.

A man left a bucket of acorns and forgot them, but when he returned a year or two later the acorns were stone.  Bags of flour, pickles, and more turn to stone in a few years under the right conditions.  The pickle was found in a 1930's pickle jar and the lid had rusted off, and the pickle was stone.  A dead man was buried, but when they dug a grave next to his to bury his wife, they struck water and when they open the man's grave, he had turned to stone.  He was in the ground for 14 years, not trillions of years. 

I asked how fossils were evidence of evolution, but I see you have no answer.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I went back and looked.   Not there.   Why not just tell us now what you think it is, so there's no question? 

It's simply that you don't understand what I wrote, or the topic. 

Look again:

 

[The Barbarian]

 

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

It's simply that you don't understand what I wrote, or the topic. 

I get it.   You didn't know what macroevolution is.   It's the evolution of new species or higher taxa.   I have a degree in bacteriology, and trust me, prokaryotes are a difficult group to classify.   Since they don't have sexual reproduction and since lateral gene transfer is the norm for most of them, you can't use the normal standards to define species.   It's true that some of Lenski's bacteria would no longer be classified as E. coli, if they had been found and routinely tested.   But that's not necessarily speciation.  

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I asked how fossils were evidence of evolution

I showed you how honest YE creationists demonstrate that they are.  

Dr. Wise admits that the many series of transitional fossils are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory", because they show a gradual transition from one major group to another in a temporal sequence in the fossil record.   No point in denial. 

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

A man left a bucket of acorns and forgot them, but when he returned a year or two later the acorns were stone. 

Fossils can form very quickly in the right environment.   But that doesn't mean they all formed quickly.   Nor does it mean that they can't form quickly and then persist for millions of year.    Here's a fossil I found not long ago:
 

 

It's an opalized ammonite.     The shell of calcium carbonate was replaced by aragonite forming the same refraction properties as opal, in which the silica molecules are arranged in rows.   It happens slowly enough that the fine structure of the shell was preserve by the slow mineralization.   Explain to us how this could happen quickly.

 

 

Edited January 12 by The Barbarian