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

[Sparks]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

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.  

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. 

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.

Speciation is real.  Macroevolution is not, and is not observed.  We have 1400+ 'species' of bats, but they are still bats (same kind).  Same with the e. coli that exhibited a new trait, but all other e. coli has the same data and so the data is present in all the e. coli, whether or not it grows on citrate.  In other words, both have the same DNA, and nothing new.

When you find a bat giving birth to a non-bat, let me know; you will have witnessed macroevolution. 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Speciation is real.

Which, as you learned, is what macroevolution is. 

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/

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

We have 1400+ 'species' of bats, but they are still bats (same kind). 

No.  Each different kind of bat is a species of its own.   Humans and chimps are hominids, but humans are a different kind than chimps, just as leaf-nosed bats are a different kind than large flying foxes.   Each kind is a separate species.   See the scientific definition above.    If you have to redefine words to make your case, that's a pretty good sign that your idea is wrong.

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

Same with the e. coli that exhibited a new trait, but all other e. coli has the same data and so the data is present in all the e. coli, whether or not it grows on citrate. 

No.   The genetic information is different for the kind that can utilize citrate.   

The Cit⁺ trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter. The clades varied in their propensity to evolve this novel trait, although genotypes able to do so existed in all three clades, implying that multiple potentiating mutations arose during the population’s history. Our findings illustrate the importance of promoter capture and altered gene regulation in mediating the exaptation events that often underlie evolutionary innovations.

Nature 19 Sept 2012

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

When you find a bat giving birth to a non-bat, let me know; you will have witnessed macroevolution. 

No.    You're still forgetting what macroevolution is.

Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution Definition

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

Trying to change the definition won't help.   Find a way to accept the reality.

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.    You're still forgetting what macroevolution is.

Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution Definition

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

Trying to change the definition won't help.   Find a way to accept the reality.

What I have noticed is that when evolutionists back something ridiculous, they have to change definitions. 

Macroevolution is a change above species, to create new kinds and is unobserved.  Microevolution is within kinds, and is seen at every birth.   With the definition you have provided above, they have conflated the two types.  The two types are not the same.

Now you know.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

What I have noticed is that when evolutionists back something ridiculous, they have to change definitions. 

That's been the definition since I was a freshman in college, nearly 60 years ago.   So you really got that one wrong.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Macroevolution is a change above species

Microevolution is change within a species.   Macroevolution is a change above species level.   Speciation at least, resulting in a new species.   BTW, most creationist organizations admit that new genera also appear, which would also be a change above species.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Microevolution is within kinds

Speciation always produces a new kind of organism.   That's why they call them "species."  

In Late Latin, in logic and legal language, it acquired the meaning "a special case," especially (as a translation of Greek eidos) "a class included under a higher class; a kind; a sort; a number of individuals having common characteristics peculiar to them."

...

  The specific use in biological sciences in reference to groups of living things recognizably distinct from all others by their inherited characteristics is from c. 1600

https://www.etymonline.com/word/species

It's a continuing embarrassment to YE creationists that no one can come up with a universal definition of species.    If there was no macroevolution, it would be easy; there would be nice, clean separations between species.   But because macroevolution produces new species, usually over a long period, there are all sorts of intermediate stages of almost-species as well as new species.

Each new kind of organism is a new species.   And this is, apparently why you were reluctant to tell us what the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is.

 

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

23 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's been the definition since I was a freshman in college, nearly 60 years ago.   So you really got that one wrong.

Microevolution is change within a species.   Macroevolution is a change above species level.   Speciation at least, resulting in a new species.   BTW, most creationist organizations admit that new genera also appear, which would also be a change above species.

Speciation always produces a new kind of organism.   That's why they call them "species."  

In Late Latin, in logic and legal language, it acquired the meaning "a special case," especially (as a translation of Greek eidos) "a class included under a higher class; a kind; a sort; a number of individuals having common characteristics peculiar to them."

...

  The specific use in biological sciences in reference to groups of living things recognizably distinct from all others by their inherited characteristics is from c. 1600

https://www.etymonline.com/word/species

It's a continuing embarrassment to YE creationists that no one can come up with a universal definition of species.    If there was no macroevolution, it would be easy; there would be nice, clean separations between species.   But because macroevolution produces new species, usually over a long period, there are all sorts of intermediate stages of almost-species as well as new species.

Each new kind of organism is a new species.   And this is, apparently why you were reluctant to tell us what the scientific definition of "macroevolution" is.

 

Considering evolution is fake, so is the current definition.  With your prior definition, the authors of the definition have conflated the two (micro and macro), but you will notice, I didn't make that mistake.

Speciation is not macroevolution, it's micro.  Speciation is within kinds.  Bird kinds remain bird kinds, and dog kinds remain dog kinds.   Remember the 1400 bat 'species' mentioned are still bat kinds, so bat kinds remain bat kinds.  That's all we ever see today, is kinds bringing forth from their kind. If you ever see a bat kind produce a dog kind, for example, you will have seen macroevolution.

Genesis 1:24 (KJV) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Looks like God is 100% correct, all the time, since what He said would happen is exactly what we observe, today.  You might consider that before some human tries to redefine things since what He said would happen, exactly happens.
 

[The Barbarian]

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Considering evolution is fake

It's directly observed to happen.   Did you forget the scientific definition of "evolution?"    "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time."  Happens constantly.

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Speciation is not macroevolution, it's micro.

As you learned from the dictionary of biology, speciation is macroevolution.   As you admitted, it's a change above species level.

So anything that produces a new species is macroevolution.   By definition.

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Remember the 1400 bat 'species' mentioned are still bat kinds

They are indeed different kinds of bat, but still bats.   Just like humans and chimpanzees are different kinds of primates but still primates. 

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Bird kinds remain bird kinds

And each species is indeed a different kind of bird.  Which, as you have seen is also a kind of dinosaur.

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

If you ever see a bat kind produce a dog kind, for example, you will have seen macroevolution.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be falsified.   You still don't get how it works.   Dogs evolved from base carnivores.   Bats did not.  

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Genesis 1:24 (KJV) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The issue is you don't approve of the way He did it.

25 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Looks like God is 100% correct, all the time, since what He said would happen is exactly what we observe, today.

In fact, engineers have started using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design.   Evolution is more efficient than design.   God was indeed right.   We just took a while to figure that out.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218311095

The evolution we see happening today, is also effective for solving complex engineering problems.   

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

21 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's directly observed to happen.   Did you forget the scientific definition of "evolution?"    "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time."  Happens constantly.

As you learned from the dictionary of biology, speciation is macroevolution.   As you admitted, it's a change above species level.

So anything that produces a new species is macroevolution.   By definition.

They are indeed different kinds of bat, but still bats.   Just like humans and chimpanzees are different kinds of primates but still primates. 

And each species is indeed a different kind of bird.  Which, as you have seen is also a kind of dinosaur.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be falsified.   You still don't get how it works.   Dogs evolved from base carnivores.   Bats did not.  

The issue is you don't approve of the way He did it.

In fact, engineers have started using evolutionary processes to solve problems that are too complex for design.   Evolution is more efficient than design.   God was indeed right.   We just took a while to figure that out.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544218311095

The evolution we see happening today, is also effective for solving complex engineering problems.  

Evolutionists have had to redefine everything since actual observations counter Darwin, and the whole evolution gang.  You think micro is macro, which is why you think speciation is macro, and which is why you think you have observed macro.  But, you haven't seen macro, ever.  No one has.  Period.

When you mix the two, you get the wrong answer.

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Sparks said:

Evolutionists have had to redefine everything

As I pointed out, the definition of "macroevolution" hasn't changed for at least 60 years.   Creationists have to redefine the word, because new species have been observed to evolve.

Denial won't help you at this point:

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/

Learn to accept the reality.

Incidentally, the term "macroevolution" was coined by a Russian geneticist Philipchenko about 1919:

Accordingly, he restricted Darwinian "microevolution" to evolutionary changes within the boundary of given species that may lead to different races or subspecies at the most. By contrast, he referred "macroevolution" to major evolutionary changes that correspond to taxonomic differences above the species level

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

Phillipchenk0 erred in supposing that observed speciation (which he called "macroevolution) happened by different processes than natural selection, an assumption refuted by his student Dobzhansky.  So it's been that way from the start.  YE creationists have tried to redefine the term, for the obvious reasons.

 

Edited January 13 by The Barbarian

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The issue is you don't approve of the way He did it.

The issue is, we don't approve of people taking words out of context and denying the undisputable fact that God created the heaven, the earth, the seas and all that is in them in six days.  Months have cycles of the moon.  Years have cycles of the seasons.  The seven day week is based solely on the six day creation.  The creation manifests the glory of the Creator.  Flowers and bees function together because God planned it that way.  Bats and eagles perform different functions so they are designed differently.  Bacteria adapt to each other forms of garbage because bacteria are DESIGNED to eat garbage.  Oil leaks into the oceans naturally and there are marine bacteria that eat it.  All things work together because they were designed to work together.  Symbiosis is part of God's natural plan.  All true biologists, geologists and astronomers must admit that the creation truly exalts the glory of the Creator.