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?

[Dokimas]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

[micatala]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

How life started is an interesting and worthy question.

However, goat is correct. With respect to the theory of evolution, it is a red herring and does not need to be answered for us to examine the evidence of the history of life and know that evolution has occurred.

To give you another analogy, your position is like saying that if we do not know where a person is born, we cannot say anything at all about his later life.

Or, if we do not know when or where a criminal woke up on the day he committed a crime, we must throw out all the evidence from video cameras, forensics, eyewitnesses etc. related to the crime that he committed that evening.

[Dokimas]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

How life started is an interesting and worthy question.

However, goat is correct. With respect to the theory of evolution, it is a red herring and does not need to be answered for us to examine the evidence of the history of life and know that evolution has occurred.

To give you another analogy, your position is like saying that if we do not know where a person is born, we cannot say anything at all about his later life.

Or, if we do not know when or where a criminal woke up on the day he committed a crime, we must throw out all the evidence from video cameras, forensics, eyewitnesses etc. related to the crime that he committed that evening.

If the question of how life started is not important for discussing evolution, then why are creationists asked where God came from in most any discourse about the origin of life as we know it?

[micatala]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

How life started is an interesting and worthy question.

However, goat is correct. With respect to the theory of evolution, it is a red herring and does not need to be answered for us to examine the evidence of the history of life and know that evolution has occurred.

To give you another analogy, your position is like saying that if we do not know where a person is born, we cannot say anything at all about his later life.

Or, if we do not know when or where a criminal woke up on the day he committed a crime, we must throw out all the evidence from video cameras, forensics, eyewitnesses etc. related to the crime that he committed that evening.

If the question of how life started is not important for discussing evolution, then why are creationists asked where God came from in most any discourse about the origin of life as we know it?

First, this is another red herring, and does nothing to refute the fallaciousness of your assertion regarding the beginning of life and evolution.

Secondly, I would say it is a reasonable question to ask, but as I am not one to pose such a question, I am not sure I should address it. I am a Christian and do consider God as the ultimate creator. God's existence and role as creator or sustainer of the universe is a theological issue, not a scientific one.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no question that evolution has occurred, that life has change a very great deal over the long history of the earth.

What theological implications these facts have is another matter.

I suppose creationists get this challenge in part to show the fallaciousness of their position, but someone else who makes the "where did God come from challenge" should address this. Perhaps you could find an example from around the forum.

[Dokimas]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

How life started is an interesting and worthy question.

However, goat is correct. With respect to the theory of evolution, it is a red herring and does not need to be answered for us to examine the evidence of the history of life and know that evolution has occurred.

To give you another analogy, your position is like saying that if we do not know where a person is born, we cannot say anything at all about his later life.

Or, if we do not know when or where a criminal woke up on the day he committed a crime, we must throw out all the evidence from video cameras, forensics, eyewitnesses etc. related to the crime that he committed that evening.

If the question of how life started is not important for discussing evolution, then why are creationists asked where God came from in most any discourse about the origin of life as we know it?

First, this is another red herring, and does nothing to refute the fallaciousness of your assertion regarding the beginning of life and evolution.

Secondly, I would say it is a reasonable question to ask, but as I am not one to pose such a question, I am not sure I should address it. I am a Christian and do consider God as the ultimate creator. God's existence and role as creator or sustainer of the universe is a theological issue, not a scientific one.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no question that evolution has occurred, that life has change a very great deal over the long history of the earth.

What theological implications these facts have is another matter.

I suppose creationists get this challenge in part to show the fallaciousness of their position, but someone else who makes the "where did God come from challenge" should address this. Perhaps you could find an example from around the forum.

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.

[Goat]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

And what does abiogensis have to do with the TOE? This is a very big red herring, because the TOE does not address the origin of life. It merely is a model that explains the observation of how life changes over time.

It sort of an analogy of 'plumbing is not useful if the plumber can not explain the origin of the water'...

I'm not familiar with 'TOE' unless it's an appendage of the foot.

For those that don't believe in a Creator, how life started is a huge problem. Correct presuppositions tend to produce better understanding while wrong presuppositions often are 'dead' ends, IMO.

I disagree. The analogy seems to more like, you don't need a plumber if there's no water to flow through the pipes. Can macro or micro evolution take place without life?

TOE.. The Theory of Evolution.

And, evolution does not care how life got started.. That is totally irrelevant to the study on how life changes over time.

[Confused]

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.

It's even more than that when you consider that changes compound over time. For example, let's say that there is an animal that is increasing in size one percent every thousand years. The average weight of the animal is one pound.

A thousand years pass. The average weight is 1.01 pounds.
70,000 years pass. The average weight is 2 pounds.
A million years pass. The average weight is 20,959 pounds.
2 million years pass. The average weight is 439,286,205 pounds.
A billion years pass. The average weight is absolutely ridiculous.

Yet, if you were a biologist studying this animal over the course of your lifetime and measuring change in average weight over time with high precision you would not notice any change at all.

If I did this observation, I think you'd have the right to call me a spaghetti monster.

Moderator Comment
This post was reported as a one liner. Please try to avoid these nonconstructive comments unless they directly contribute to the debate in which case more clarification is required.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Autodidact]

Yes, I have seen the imagined superimposed "limits" on micro-evolution; however these limits have never been identified or even shown to exist. Until they can do that, my analogy holds.

I'm jumping in without reading anything that follows, so forgive me it you have answered me or someone else has brought up my ideas.

First, could you show real evidence of life arising out of non-life? If you can't I'm not sure you have a solid position.

Why? It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Second, your analogy starts with something that can't happen and you're trying to convince us it 'proves' something that you say does/did happen? Again, you position doesn't seem too solid to me.

what is it that can't happen?

[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.

[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.