[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[felix]

Macro-evolution is the over-arching effect of micro-evolution.

When you are talking about macro-evolution, you are invariably talking about micro-evolution.


There is no "only macro-evolution."

What you mentioned is an assumption. An assumption to be valid, it must be supported by evidence. Taking evidence of a variation within species to explain variation outside species is not valid. It is like taking earth as a planet having life as an evidence to prove all planets should have life.

 

[Adam]

What you mentioned is an assumption. An assumption to be valid, it must be supported by evidence.

It is.

Taking evidence of a variation within species to explain variation outside species is not valid.

Why not?

It is like taking earth as a planet having life as an evidence to prove all planets should have life.

No, it isn't.

It's like life on one continent of earth and the ability for lifeforms to migrate supports the idea that there is life on it's other continents.

Which there is, btw.

 

[felix]

It is.

Why not?

No, it isn't.

It's like life on one continent of earth and the ability for lifeforms to migrate supports the idea that there is life on it's other continents.

Which there is, btw.

No it is not. Proving macro-evolution requires one species evolving into another species. Micro-evolution is easily noticeable in a few generations and this "noticeable" and "observable" evidence is in no way proving macro-evolution.

 

[Adam]

Proving macro-evolution requires one species evolving into another species..

No, it does not.

Macroevolution describes variation in genes and gene expression on a braoder timescale than microevolution. Besides that, there is no difference.

Is speciation a phenomenon that happens on a macroevolutional timscale? Absolutely.

Is speciation necessary in order to identify that change happens throughout the broader timescale? No.

But populations have and will continue to diversify when given the amount of time that the microevolutional scale offers. However, this is not the only scale in which speciation will take place. Speciation also has been OBSERVED on the microevolutional scale.

We just use microevolution for taxonomical purposes (to deliniate the differences between species) and we use macroevolution to trace common descent (to delineate commonality between species).

While macroevolution is any change in the species at the species level or higher and microevolution is any change in the species below the species level, both are the result of the same mechanism and follow the same patterning.

 

[felix]

Macroevolution describes variation in genes and gene expression on a braoder timescale than microevolution. Besides that, there is no difference.

No. Macroevolution has nothing to do with variation in genes. 95% of monkey genes matching human genes is in no proves that it is a man's ancestor. It simply shows it has the genes for producing the sample building blocks of life - as mentioned, a common design pattern only proves a common designer not one design evolving into another.

 

[Adam]

No. Macroevolution has nothing to do with variation in genes.

It has everything to do with it.

95% of monkey genes matching human genes is in no proves that it is a man's ancestor.

No one has claimed that. That is a strawman.

It simply shows it has the genes for producing the sample building blocks of life - as mentioned, a common design pattern only proves a common designer not one design evolving into another.

So you acknowledge that a human and a Chimp both diverge from the same common "building blocks"?

Good. That's a good start.

 

[felix]

It has everything to do with it.

No one has claimed that. That is a strawman.

No it is not a strawman. It is what you said.

If microevolution is variation in genes, and macro-evolution is not, then using evidence of microevolution for macro-evolution is not valid.

So you acknowledge that a human and a Chimp both diverge from the same common "building blocks"?

Good. That's a good start.

Of course all living things are carbon based and have the same building blocks DNA. All animals are from dust/clay. As I said, this only shows a common designer not evolution of designs.

 

[Adam]

No it is not a strawman. It is what you said.

I NEVER said that monkeys are man's ancestor. That doesn't even remotely describe man's evolution.

If microevolution is variation in genes, and macro-evolution is not, then using evidence of microevolution for macro-evolution is not valid.

Again, macroevolution IS in regard to variation is genes, so your "if...,then...," is not valid

Of course all living things are carbon based and have the same building blocks DNA. All animals are from dust/clay. As I said, this only shows a common designer not evolution of designs.

All animals are not from dust/clay. They are successors of successors of probionts that are from "dust/clay" but so are bacteria, fungi, beets, and evergreens.

Evolution is the "design" and various lifeforms are the phenomena/consequence of that design.

Do you think a lightening bolt is "designed"? No, it follows a mechanism guided by a set of rules so that it doesn't require design, it simply emerges as a consequence of the parameters given in the laws of physics within the confines of a particular environment.

Do you think sand is designed?

No. Sand is a consequence of particular rules that are designed. Those rules provide that we can expect sand when given a certain set of conditions.


Are stars designed? There is no need. The mechanisms of physical laws are fine-tuned so that stars may emerge without design. Then we see variation is stars, their size, magnitude, density, color, stellar make-up, lifespan... We see binary solar systems, we see protostars, brown dwarves like Jupiter that have failed to meet the threshhold of nuclear fission, we see pulsars and Red Giants.

All that variation because there is not one blueprint for a star. There is a mechanism that provides for the potential for a star and when the environmental conditions and the physical material for a star are present, a star can be actualized.

This is no different for the differing landscapes, for different types of storms or clouds and it is no different for lifeforms.

There is a common mechanism. The mechanism does not evolve. The arrangement of material is altered following a consistent pattern. When a series of rearrangements have taken place, we have a different set of characteristics that follow. That part should be intuitive.

 

[felix]

All animals are not from dust/clay.

Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought [them] to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that [was] its name.

Evolution is the "design" and various lifeforms are the phenomena/consequence of that design.

Ps 119:73 Your hands have made me and fashioned me; Give me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.

Do you think a lightening bolt is "designed"? No, it follows a mechanism guided by a set of rules so that it doesn't require design, it simply emerges as a consequence of the parameters given in the laws of physics within the confines of a particular environment.

Job 38:35 Can you send out lightnings, that they may go, And say to you, 'Here we [are!]'?

Do you think sand is designed?

No. Sand is a consequence of particular rules that are designed. Those rules provide that we can expect sand when given a certain set of conditions.

Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry [land] appear"; and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.

Are stars designed? There is no need. The mechanisms of physical laws are fine-tuned so that stars may emerge without design. Then we see variation is stars, their size, magnitude, density, color, stellar make-up, lifespan... We see binary solar systems, we see protostars, brown dwarves like Jupiter that have failed to meet the threshhold of nuclear fission, we see pulsars and Red Giants.

All that variation because there is not one blueprint for a star. There is a mechanism that provides for the potential for a star and when the environmental conditions and the physical material for a star are present, a star can be actualized.

Job 9:7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars;
Ps 8:3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
Ps 147:4 He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name.
Ps 148:3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!

It is not worth considering yourself as a Christian when none of your post glorifies God and His handiwork. Did spirits and souls had to evolve too? Anyway, you consider yourself a piece of evolved meat with no soul and spirit.

 

[Adam]

Are you going to finish with yet another strawman and even more non sequitors?

I see you have even begun ad homming.

That's you're fight or flight reflex kicking in. Somewhere within your psyche it is apparent to you that you have nothing left to refute evolution. Now you are just attacking the man. You've run out of places to go.

 

[felix]

Are you going to finish with yet another strawman and even more non sequitors?

You can shout to yourself whatever you like.

I find no problem arguing with non-Christians and atheists. But, shame on people like you who call themselves Christians and yet have no faith in His creation abilities, making His image a piece of evolved meat with no spirit and no soul.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Adam]

You can ad hom all you want. But that is so far from actually refuting evolution that I really fail to understand why you would bother.

 

[Barbarian]

I find no problem arguing with non-Christians and atheists. But, shame on people like you who call themselves Christians and yet have no faith in His creation abilities, making His image a piece of evolved meat with no spirit and no soul.

If you had any faith in God's abilities, you wouldn't be trying to limit Him to poofing each organism into being, like some little Canaanite nature god. God is a lot more powerful and capable than many creationists are willing to let Him be.

And of course, nothing in evolutionary theory denies that man has a spirit and a soul. That's just a story some creationists tell each other to make their rebellion against creation more comfortable.

Absolutely disgusting.

Just foolish. Fortunately for the creationists, God doesn't judge you on how you accept His creation.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought [them] to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that [was] its name.

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -John 1:29

In my opinion, I don't think that John the Baptist meant a literal "Lamb". I guess it's possible that whoever wrote Genesis might have been using the same literary tool as John the Baptist did. :dunno

 

[Adam]

If you'd like, I can join in on the ad homming and claim that your refusal to understand that the core message of the bible regarding the human condition is about transformation and transcendence and that to deny that we are meant to undergo an everchanging process of refinement in order to become holy is simply a matter of your ungodliness.

Would that be true? Of course not. But I could claim so. Would it help our circumstance of disagreement? No. So let's avoid stooping to the level of debasement and namecalling, shall we?

 

[felix]

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -John 1:29

In my opinion, I don't think that John the Baptist meant a literal "Lamb". I guess it's possible that whoever wrote Genesis might have been using the same literary tool as John the Baptist did. :dunno

Yes, it is a literal "lamb of God".

 

[felix]

If you'd like, I can join in on the ad homming and claim that your refusal to understand that the core message of the bible regarding the human condition is about transformation and transcendence and that to deny that we are meant to undergo an everchanging process of refinement in order to become holy is simply a matter of your ungodliness.

Would that be true? Of course not. But I could claim so. Would it help our circumstance of disagreement? No. So let's avoid stooping to the level of debasement and namecalling, shall we?

the core message of the bible regarding the human condition is about transformation ... we are meant to undergo an everchanging process of refinement in order to become holy
... through evolution? So, why is there a Holy Spirit? Don't call yourself a Christian. It's a shame!!

 

[felix]

And of course, nothing in evolutionary theory denies that man has a spirit and a soul.

Does Primordial soup has a soul? Ah yes... Bacteria has a soul and a spirit according to you. As I said it is a shame on you to call yourself a Christian.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Yes, it is a literal "lamb of God".

No. You are literally wrong.

 

[felix]

No. You are literally wrong.

"Lamb of God" is different from "lamb".