If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[FrostyM288]

I am not able to understand how the origin of life has no berring on evolution and the discussion of evolution. Sure, if it has no berring it's a red herring, but it yes, then not (if you get my drift).

Is there a greater example of macro-evolution than a group of molecules, being of the correct figuration and type, being in the right place, becoming alive?

I do seem to see why it's avoided in an evolution discussion: it takes faith to believe and as I said, more faith than I have.

I dropped all the embedded quotes to make this a bit more readable.

Dokimas, you're sort of missing the explanation of the red herring. How life started is as unrelated to evolution as how mass got created is unrelated to gravity.

Evolution says... Assume there is life. Assume there is variation. Assume that variation is heritable. Now, evolution explains how a species can change over time and even split off into two distinct species. It does not care about how life first got there. Now you say that evolution must describe how life first emerged to be true, but evolution assumes that there is life to start with. As long as there is life, evolution works. That is why what you bring up is a red herring.

The parallel for theory of gravity would be. Assume there are two bodies. Assume each body has a mass. Gravity explains that there is a force of attraction between those two bodies proportional to the product of their masses. No where in this must it be described HOW the bodies were created to have mass in order for gravity to be true.

We/Scientists aren't dodging the discussion of how life got started. It's a very interesting research topic that many people pursue. However, regardless of how life got started whether it was through creation or abiogenesis, evolution would STILL be true.

Thank you for this explanation, but I'm still struggling with this idea of 'how life got here has no bearing on evolution'.

Remember the OP says if micro then macro. If abiogenisis is true, then the OP is correct. If life needed a Creator to exist, then micro evolution can exist while macro evolution is not a forgone conclusion.

Just ask yourself this. Do you believe in gravity? If you say yes (which I dearly hope ), then you believe in it despite not knowing how matter was created. The same is true for evolution, you can accept evolution without knowing how life was created. As long as there is life, there is evolution.

As for micro versus macro, the only difference between the two (as I'm sure has been mentioned many times in this thread) is that macro takes longer. It's enough small "microevolutions" until two populations can no longer interbreed. To see speciation in progress, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Autodidact]

I am not able to understand how the origin of life has no berring on evolution and the discussion of evolution. Sure, if it has no berring it's a red herring, but it yes, then not (if you get my drift).

Is there a greater example of macro-evolution than a group of molecules, being of the correct figuration and type, being in the right place, becoming alive?

I do seem to see why it's avoided in an evolution discussion: it takes faith to believe and as I said, more faith than I have.

I dropped all the embedded quotes to make this a bit more readable.

Dokimas, you're sort of missing the explanation of the red herring. How life started is as unrelated to evolution as how mass got created is unrelated to gravity.

Evolution says... Assume there is life. Assume there is variation. Assume that variation is heritable. Now, evolution explains how a species can change over time and even split off into two distinct species. It does not care about how life first got there. Now you say that evolution must describe how life first emerged to be true, but evolution assumes that there is life to start with. As long as there is life, evolution works. That is why what you bring up is a red herring.

The parallel for theory of gravity would be. Assume there are two bodies. Assume each body has a mass. Gravity explains that there is a force of attraction between those two bodies proportional to the product of their masses. No where in this must it be described HOW the bodies were created to have mass in order for gravity to be true.

We/Scientists aren't dodging the discussion of how life got started. It's a very interesting research topic that many people pursue. However, regardless of how life got started whether it was through creation or abiogenesis, evolution would STILL be true.

Thank you for this explanation, but I'm still struggling with this idea of 'how life got here has no bearing on evolution'.

Remember the OP says if micro then macro. If abiogenisis is true, then the OP is correct. If life needed a Creator to exist, then micro evolution can exist while macro evolution is not a forgone conclusion.

Because the Theory of Evolution is not ABOUT how life got here. Regardless of how life got here, ToE is correct. It's really not that hard a concept. btw, the fact that science has not solved a problem does not mean it's not solvable, only that it hasn't solved it yet.

Here, let's try it this way. The first self-replicating life form was magically poofed into existence by your God, o.k.? Now, ToE is still correct. Get it?

I think your confusion, which is shared by many creationists, is that you are confusing a scientific theory, the Theory of Evolution, with the idea that God is not involved. Scientific theories are correct (or not) regardless of whether God exists. It simply is correct. If you accept science, then you believe that God created evolution, which by the way would be a very clever way to get the desired result. If you don't, then you believe that evolution can happen without God. Either way, the fact that science can explain something doesn't mean that God does not exist.

We now know that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, not flat with the sun traveling over it. Does that mean that God does not exist? It's like that. The church had to adjust to scientific reality, just as it must now.

[Dokimas]

I am not able to understand how the origin of life has no berring on evolution and the discussion of evolution. Sure, if it has no berring it's a red herring, but it yes, then not (if you get my drift).

Is there a greater example of macro-evolution than a group of molecules, being of the correct figuration and type, being in the right place, becoming alive?

I do seem to see why it's avoided in an evolution discussion: it takes faith to believe and as I said, more faith than I have.

I dropped all the embedded quotes to make this a bit more readable.

Dokimas, you're sort of missing the explanation of the red herring. How life started is as unrelated to evolution as how mass got created is unrelated to gravity.

Evolution says... Assume there is life. Assume there is variation. Assume that variation is heritable. Now, evolution explains how a species can change over time and even split off into two distinct species. It does not care about how life first got there. Now you say that evolution must describe how life first emerged to be true, but evolution assumes that there is life to start with. As long as there is life, evolution works. That is why what you bring up is a red herring.

The parallel for theory of gravity would be. Assume there are two bodies. Assume each body has a mass. Gravity explains that there is a force of attraction between those two bodies proportional to the product of their masses. No where in this must it be described HOW the bodies were created to have mass in order for gravity to be true.

We/Scientists aren't dodging the discussion of how life got started. It's a very interesting research topic that many people pursue. However, regardless of how life got started whether it was through creation or abiogenesis, evolution would STILL be true.

Thank you for this explanation, but I'm still struggling with this idea of 'how life got here has no bearing on evolution'.

Remember the OP says if micro then macro. If abiogenisis is true, then the OP is correct. If life needed a Creator to exist, then micro evolution can exist while macro evolution is not a forgone conclusion.

Just ask yourself this. Do you believe in gravity? If you say yes (which I dearly hope ), then you believe in it despite not knowing how matter was created. The same is true for evolution, you can accept evolution without knowing how life was created. As long as there is life, there is evolution.

As for micro versus macro, the only difference between the two (as I'm sure has been mentioned many times in this thread) is that macro takes longer. It's enough small "microevolutions" until two populations can no longer interbreed. To see speciation in progress, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

[Goat]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

[Dokimas]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

[Goat]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

Then, I will show define macro evolution , and then show examples. It might be futile,, because you refuse to give your criteria for 'macroevolution'..

Macro evolution is a specification event.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

[Dokimas]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

Then, I will show define macro evolution , and then show examples. It might be futile,, because you refuse to give your criteria for 'macroevolution'..

Macro evolution is a specification event.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Your examples: were they controled experiments?

[Goat]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

Then, I will show define macro evolution , and then show examples. It might be futile,, because you refuse to give your criteria for 'macroevolution'..

Macro evolution is a specification event.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Your examples: were they controled experiments?

Moving goal posts here??? I have examples, and now you want 'controlled examples'?? In the past, people who have used that tactics then went on to complain about the controlled experimenter that were conducted, saying it was in the lab, and not out in real life.

Do you actually want 'controlled experiments', or are you just being snarky?

[Dokimas]

Could someone show me the evidence that macro-evolution is a fact?

As I believe I've already stated, if there is a Creator and if micro-evolution is true (observed and observable), that does NOT mean there is macro-evolution.

I would be more than happy to do that..

However, one common tactic I have seen is that when given an example of what is macroevolution, the goal posts about what macro evolution is changed.

What is your specific criteria of what macroevoluiton is?

I have no criteria because I don't accept macro-evolution.

I'm sure the 'common tactic' you speak of is similar to what 'we' get when we 'show evidence' for the existence of God.

Then, I will show define macro evolution , and then show examples. It might be futile,, because you refuse to give your criteria for 'macroevolution'..

Macro evolution is a specification event.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy is now considered to be as important in animals as it is in plants. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Your examples: were they controled experiments?

Moving goal posts here??? I have examples, and now you want 'controlled examples'?? In the past, people who have used that tactics then went on to complain about the controlled experimenter that were conducted, saying it was in the lab, and not out in real life.

Do you actually want 'controlled experiments', or are you just being snarky?

Your observation is correct. If they are controled experiment then the best conclusion is that intelligence is involved in these processes taking less faith to believe in God than in atheistic evolution, IMO.

[Goat]

Your observation is correct. If they are controled experiment then the best conclusion is that intelligence is involved in these processes taking less faith to believe in God than in atheistic evolution, IMO.

So, these observations, that are in the wild, aren't acceptable because they are in the wild, and therefore not 'controlled', and a controlled experiment is 'evidence that intelligence is involved ' (never mind it is just observation of separation over time)'

In other words, no evidence, no matter how complete, would be satisfactory to you, because you have faith in God.