Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, I'm sorry..I get so distracted by you repeatedly and dishonestly (or mistakenly) claiming I deny evolution that I have a hard time following all the rest of your drivel...what did you want again?

But first find where I denied evolution.

What they don't understand allie and it went right over their heads is when I use the term micro adaptations I really mean micro evolution. They never even caught that. Here cones the ol creationist term argument, lol. Which by the way are pretty much the same thing. Neither of us deny evolution within a group or species I would have thought they would have caught on.

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

 

[geauxtohell]

What they don't understand allie and it went right over their heads is when I use the term micro adaptations I really mean micro evolution. They never even caught that. Here cones the ol creationist term argument, lol. Which by the way are pretty much the same thing. Neither of us deny evolution within a group or species I would have thought they would have caught on.

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

I don't think there is really any logic to it. It's just more semantical trip up games like "It's only a theory!".

If this is the best that the people that argue against evolution can do, it's no wonder they are ignored by the scientific community.

 

[cbirch2]

You know, I don't believe I've shared what my definition of evolution is, or even how I think it fits with my faith. All I've said is that evolution doesn't explain diverse, individual species.

And it doesn't.

Are you ever going to find the quote that shows me saying what you have in your siggy?

You won't, cuz it's something you made up. Talk about half baked.

You've said evolution only happens within species, correct? You believe that god created a specific set of creatures that are, more or less, similar to creatures of today. Some have diversified among themselves (like the dog and the wolf) via what you call "evolution", which is really natural selection. Some others may seem similar (dog and coyote, the jackals), but were none the less created as distinct species by god. Am i correct in saying that this is what you believe?

I have no idea. You're so confused regarding the terminology I can't make much sense out if it. At any rate, I never said anything like what you've put up there.

Im so confused regarding terminology? Do you really not get it? Dogs and wolves are both subspecies of the species canis lupus. Can you understand that part?

Im trying to broaden your horizon to the entire genus of Canis. Canis is made up of many species, like Canis Latrans, and Canis Simensis, and Canis Aureus and of course Canis Lupus.

My terminology is from the definitions of the words species and genus. Read this wiki.

Do you really not understand taxonomic rank? Do you get the concept that a genus is a group of species, just as a species can be made of specific animals as well as smaller groups of animals, called subspecies. These words have definitions and fit into a hierarchical ranking. I dont think you understand that.

 

[cbirch2]

Ok, so here's the gist of what you say...

You say that evolution exists as if anyone has argued that.

However, you also imply that evolution explains diverse species. That is what Christians stick at.

You don't seem capable of understanding that it's not all or nothing. I've never said that species don't diversify and change within a species.

But what is true and real is that evolution does NOT explain diverse species. You seem to be arguing that if one believes in evolution one must believe it plays a role in the creation of new species.

So define your terms. Do you believe evolution explains diverse species? If you do, where is your evidence? You're arguing at me as if by denying that this evidence exists I'm denying diversification within a species. I'm not, I never have. They're two different things.

What do you want as proof of speciation? Transitional fossils? Ill provide tons. How about the progression of ape to man?

Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or maybe you want from fish to amphibian?

Eryops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Labyrinthodontia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What do you want as proof? Ill provide whatever it is.

 

[cbirch2]

I've never denied evolution. I deny that evolution is the way new species are created.

"MR. COLLINS: I actually do not believe that there are any collisions between what I believe as a Christian, and what I know and have learned about as a scientist. "

Interview: Francis Collins

Then you believe in natural selection and diversification, not evolution. The title of darwins book was "on the origin of new species". Evolution includes speciation, if you dont believe in speciation you dont believe in evolution. If you think you do you either dont know what the term means or just created your own meaning for it.

The very person your telling us to look into believes in evolution in the fullest sense of the term, not in your half baked definition of evolution that you just made up.

No its called micro evolution or a better term is micro adaptations.

Find me one biology book, one noncreationist website, one legitimate source that even uses the term micro and macro-evolution. Those terms are made up terms. They only exist in Kent Hovind seminars.

 

[AllieBaba]

What they don't understand allie and it went right over their heads is when I use the term micro adaptations I really mean micro evolution. They never even caught that. Here cones the ol creationist term argument, lol. Which by the way are pretty much the same thing. Neither of us deny evolution within a group or species I would have thought they would have caught on.

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

And that is the problem. You guys don't even understand the science.

No, it's not the same. You can't trace dogs back to hyenas, nor to a common ancestor. Then genetics don't fit. So diversity within a species does NOT explain diversity OF species. They are not the same thing.

 

[AllieBaba]

Which is why top genetecists and mathematicians remain Christian.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh, I'm sorry..I get so distracted by you repeatedly and dishonestly (or mistakenly) claiming I deny evolution that I have a hard time following all the rest of your drivel...what did you want again?

But first find where I denied evolution.

What they don't understand allie and it went right over their heads is when I use the term micro adaptations I really mean micro evolution. They never even caught that. Here cones the ol creationist term argument, lol. Which by the way are pretty much the same thing. Neither of us deny evolution within a group or species I would have thought they would have caught on.

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Well I have seen no evidence that convinces me. The latest and supposedly greatest theory is neo darwinism. Sorry but that theory is not possible. Mutations can't do what evolutionist need for macro evolution to occur. See Dr. Spetners arguments against neo darwinism that I posted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What they don't understand allie and it went right over their heads is when I use the term micro adaptations I really mean micro evolution. They never even caught that. Here cones the ol creationist term argument, lol. Which by the way are pretty much the same thing. Neither of us deny evolution within a group or species I would have thought they would have caught on.

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then you believe in natural selection and diversification, not evolution. The title of darwins book was "on the origin of new species". Evolution includes speciation, if you dont believe in speciation you dont believe in evolution. If you think you do you either dont know what the term means or just created your own meaning for it.

The very person your telling us to look into believes in evolution in the fullest sense of the term, not in your half baked definition of evolution that you just made up.

No its called micro evolution or a better term is micro adaptations.

Find me one biology book, one noncreationist website, one legitimate source that even uses the term micro and macro-evolution. Those terms are made up terms. They only exist in Kent Hovind seminars.

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

 

[cbirch2]

Which is why top genetecists and mathematicians remain Christian.

Christian does not equal creationist. Do you think most geneticists are creationists? Im trying to prove evolution; i could care less about proving or disproving god.

 

[cbirch2]

No its called micro evolution or a better term is micro adaptations.

Find me one biology book, one noncreationist website, one legitimate source that even uses the term micro and macro-evolution. Those terms are made up terms. They only exist in Kent Hovind seminars.

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We understand perfectly. This is a lame semantics argument that only the people who have a bias to disprove evolution get wrapped around the axle about.

The field itself is not terribly concerned with "Micro" and "Macro" evolution because evolution is seen as a continual process with no real discrete line that delineates micro evolution or macro evolution.

As I have said before, saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.

If you accept that micro evolutionary events can happen, then how can you justify some natural bar to prevent macro evolution from occurring?

It makes no sense.

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

 

[AllieBaba]

Which is why top genetecists and mathematicians remain Christian.

Christian does not equal creationist. Do you think most geneticists are creationists? Im trying to prove evolution; i could care less about proving or disproving god.

Cripes, you don't even know what you're trying to prove.

Why would you try to prove something that nobody questions? What you're trying to prove isn't that evolution is real, but that it explains diverse species.

And you CAN'T PROVE IT. There is no proof. None.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm very much a layman, and I've often found the micro- and macro-evolution argument seems pretty weak, when you look at it in any depth. I understand that it's easy to believe (or directly see in some cases) 'micro-evolution'. At the same time, you cannot directly see 'macro-evolution'. It's the whole a cat won't give birth to a dog theme. The problem lies in taking into account number of changes and time, as I understand it. The idea of evolution bringing rise to new species is not a matter of an animal giving birth to a creature of a completely separate species. Instead, you have some kind of change within a species. Then that changed animal undergoes another change. Then that changed animal undergoes another change. Do that again, and again, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times over millions of years. It seems reasonable to think that eventually enough accumulated changes can lead to an entirely different species.

On the other side of the coin, there's the question of where the line is drawn. Assuming the theory is correct and that many small changes over time lead to a new species, wouldn't that still leave a point at which one animal, still classified as part of the original (for the sake of my earlier description) species, gives rise to an animal that is no longer classified as part of that species? At some points in the evolutionary chain you must have animals giving birth to other species. It doesn't require the leap that those who don't believe in evolution (or macro-evolution) often present, but it's certainly a necessity.

Anyway, to the original point, if you believe that evolution occurs within a species, and you believe that life has existed on the planet for many millions of years, it doesn't seem to make sense to think that macro-evolution isn't possible. As WorldWatcher has asked, what prevents that accumulation of changes from eventually leading to a new species?

 

[AllieBaba]

We have evidence of one.

There is no evidence of the other.

It's that simple.

 

[cbirch2]

We have evidence of one.

There is no evidence of the other.

It's that simple.

Again, just because you say it doesnt make it true.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Find me one biology book, one noncreationist website, one legitimate source that even uses the term micro and macro-evolution. Those terms are made up terms. They only exist in Kent Hovind seminars.

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

Are you novo.g the goalposts Jr, you said neither term exists they were made up by creationist . Now did you do as I said and see who and why the terms were created. It was to explain the observed and the things never observed. You truly are disingenuous .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Gene depletion and the aid of natural selection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Find me one biology book, one noncreationist website, one legitimate source that even uses the term micro and macro-evolution. Those terms are made up terms. They only exist in Kent Hovind seminars.

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

When are you gonna respond to the flies that were introduced to radiation ?