Beetles and Creationism

Originally posted by bbarr
...The only dogmatism here is yours. You and your creationist ilk dogmatically assume that the small changes you agree take place during so-called micro-evolution cannot aggregate to whatever large scale changes you think sufficient for so-called macroevolution. You have never argued for this assumption, nor is there any evidence in its support. Given this, ...[text shortened]... specting scientist or informed layperson to take your assertions about macroevolution seriously.

No, I do not make that assumption. Nor do I assume the macroevolution is a fact. To do so would take a leap of faith that I find unscientific. I only assert that the only assertions that science should make are what we can observe and test. Macroevolution can not be observed or tested. Evolutionist are the ones making assumptions based on a broadly defined theory.

I am not required to prove that the small changes of micro-evolution can NOT lead to macro-evolution. In fact I believe it is possible - but it has never been proven. So keep your assumptions to yourself.

Originally posted by Coletti
No, I do not make that assumption. Nor do I assume the macroevolution is a fact. To do so would take a leap of faith that I find unscientific. I only assert that the only assertions that science should make are what we can observe and test. Macroevolution can not be observed or tested. Evolutionist are the ones making assumptions based on a broadly defi ...[text shortened]... I believe it is possible - but it has never been proven. So keep your assumptions to yourself.

Your notion of scientific theory confirmation is absurd. Nobody has ever observed an electron, so I guess we just take their existence on faith, right Coletti? We infer that electrons exist because their existence is the best explanation for a variety of things we have directly observed, like tracks of condensed water in cloud chambers. I still have no idea what you mean by 'macroevolution'. As far as I can tell, neither do you. You merely throw that word around as proxy for your own incredulity that large scale change can aggregate from incremental small scale change. Until you give me a precise notion of macroevolution, and give me an argument for thinking it hasn't taken place or cannot take place, then there is no need for me or anyone else to take your groundless and ill informed skepticism seriously.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]But to address your point Bbar, and to end the argument rather abruptly, I would say that a kind might be identified by those creatures that have no transitional fossils found to connect them to each other! TaDA! (I think that's as good a definition as you might find, and it does fit the criterion of the creation model.)

Well, that does end the argu ...[text shortened]... tion of the perissodactyls.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#peri[/b]

That's all very nice and well if your goal is to avoid a simple definition. I assumed (probably wrongly) that we would all agree that the absence of transitional forms so far discovered, considering that they should far outnumber the few forms found, is evidence enough that none will ever BE found! If you think that somehow, only those fossils that represent unknown creatures somehow managed to hide particularly well, then.....I guess we don't agree on that.

Your premises and the coinciding conclusions don't pass the common sense test.

If you have the proof for macroevolution, I would be convinced by it. I would not be one who would insist that the sun orbits the earth.

But I do like this statement:
by any standardly employed notion of kind, reptiles and birds are of different kinds

I believe, perhaps because I'm not a graduate student or anything, that this type of 'standardly employed notion' is all it takes for us to move on to the next part of the discussion. OF COURSE, birds and reptiles are different kinds. It is only reasonable. Therefore, no transitional fossils between the two will ever be discovered. (This is my hypothesis; we will await the test results.) And considering the fervor involved in attempting to find said fossils, it really shouldn't take much longer (watch for the desperate hoaxes, however).

As far as your Grandfather example....Is this what happens when you can't admit a little point to a guy? It's a little off the deep end for you Mr. Bar. Next you'll be trying to convince Frogstomp that because there aren't any transitional fossils linking Jesus and Paul, they must in fact be of the same ilk! I expected better of you.

As far as the rest, I'll take your good advice and do some homework.

Originally posted by bbarr
Your notion of scientific theory confirmation is absurd. Nobody has ever observed an electron, so I guess we just take their existence on faith, right Coletti? We infer that electrons exist because their existence is the best explanation for a variety of things we have directly observed, like tracks of condensed water in cloud chambers. I still have no idea ...[text shortened]... s no need for me or anyone else to take your groundless and ill informed skepticism seriously.

The evidence to support the scientific definition of an electron is testable and repeatable. It is ultimately a scientific theory (a mathematic model that approximates our observations) as Einstein would tell you. But it about as precise and accurate as science gets. But it is not adequate to explain all of our observations which is why it is still part of the scientific theory. Evolution does not come close to this level of science.

As far as your not understanding what I mean by macroevolution - I'm sorry you are confused. Maybe if you think it over it will will begin to understand. 😉 Please feel free to ask any question you think will help you understand.

Originally posted by Coletti
The evidence to support the scientific definition of an electron is testable and repeatable. It is ultimately a scientific theory (a mathematic model that approximates our observations) as Einstein would tell you. But it about as precise and accurate as science gets. But it is not adequate to explain all of our observations which is why it is still part of ...[text shortened]... gin to understand. 😉 Please feel free to ask any question you think will help you understand.

Are you claiming that evolutionary theory isn't testable? I hope so, 'cause that would make it obvious to the readers just how ignorant you are of both scientific theory confirmation and evolutionary theory.

As to your "understanding" of macroevolution: you have none. You have some vague notions you deploy as they suit you. You have no rigorous notion of a kind, hence no rigorous notion of macroevolution. Hence, here's my question: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for two things to differ in kind?

Without answering that question, you cannot distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, and accordingly any objection you have that relies on such a distinction is so much hot air.

Originally posted by chinking58
That's all very nice and well if your goal is to avoid a simple definition. I assumed (probably wrongly) that we would all agree that the absence of transitional forms so far discovered, considering that they should far outnumber the few forms found, is evidence enough that none will ever BE found! If you think that somehow, only those fossils that rep ...[text shortened]... pected better of you.

As far as the rest, I'll take your good advice and do some homework.

If you are content with a question begging definition of 'kind', that's fine with me. Question begging arguments don't require answers. My points above show that your proposed definition of a kind is obviously flawed. Further, hilariously, you admit that you would classify reptiles and birds as different kinds, and yet there are well documented transitional fossils linking these two kinds of creatures, as you would know if you had devoted even a modicum of time to researching the sorts of transitional fossils that we have discovered. Hence, by your silly criterion, they are actually of the same kind. Hence, you can't even believe your own criterion! 🙄

If you care to provide an alternate definition of kind, I'm waiting. If not, then your claims about macroevolution (like Coletti's) are so much hogwash.

Originally posted by Coletti
The evidence to support the scientific definition of an electron is testable and repeatable. It is ultimately a scientific theory (a mathematic model that approximates our observations) as Einstein would tell you. But it about as precise and accurate as science gets. But it is not adequate to explain all of our observations which is why it is still part of ...[text shortened]... gin to understand. 😉 Please feel free to ask any question you think will help you understand.

Creation theory isn't science ,besides:
Creation has never been observed,,,
Creation doesn't explain the gaps in the geologic column
The probability of an intelligent creator existing without a begining and is also less complex than a protein strand is Zero.
The idea of a creator existing forever and then creating the place it's in is rather unscientific , to say the least.


Science isn't religion and vice versa
"creationists" are doing great damage to religion by making mockery of it.
To cling to Myths and Legends from our polytheist past even under the monotheistic approach of the bible as truth that science must use as a first premise in it's search for knowlege is a insult to the intelligence of both God and Man.

Originally posted by bbarr
Are you claiming that evolutionary theory isn't testable? I hope so, 'cause that would make it obvious to the readers just how ignorant you are of both scientific theory confirmation and evolutionary theory.

As to your "understanding" of macroevolution: you have none. You have some vague notions you deploy as they suit you. You have no rigorous noti ...[text shortened]... on, and accordingly any objection you have that relies on such a distinction is so much hot air.

Since you are still confused - why don't you take a swing at what macroevolution means? Then we can debate if that is in agreement with what most people believe and what is being taught in schools. Maybe the problem is they don't teach what you think of as evolution to kids - maybe they are really teaching the equivalent of fairy tales. I think there maybe some agreement between us there.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Creation theory isn't science ,besides:
Creation has never been observed,,,
Creation doesn't explain the gaps in the geologic column
The probability of an intelligent creator existing without a begining and is also less complex than a protein strand is Zero.
The idea of a creator existing forever and then creating the p ...[text shortened]... n it's search for knowlege is a insult to the intelligence of both God and Man.

Best post on this bored for ages. good man

Originally posted by Coletti
Since you are still confused - why don't you take a swing at what macroevolution means? Then we can debate if that is in agreement with what most people believe and what is being taught in schools. Maybe the problem is they don't teach ...[text shortened]... fairy tales. I think there maybe some agreement between us there.

From talkorigins.com:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch" ) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

I use the term the way biologists use the term. The notion of species employed is the biological species concept.

Originally posted by bbarr
From talkorigins.com:

[b]In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek ...[text shortened]... notion of species employed is the biological species concept.[/b]

"Not restricted to" means "not limited to", so macroevolution does include "the evolution of new families, phyla or genera." That is agreeable to what I see as the definition of macroevolution.

The sentence looses clarity at the "origin of higher taxa". I would think development or production of would be more correct then "origin". The origin is the starting point, evolution is the change that gets us from the origin to the higher taxa. But I am splitting hairs.

Let us agree that evolution means the development of new species and macroevolution means the the evolution of new families, phyla or genera. From fish to man as the textbooks show. Agreed?

Close, but the term 'macroevolution' is supposed to include instances of speciation. So the evolution of new species (where 'species' is understood according to the BSC) is considered by biologists as macroevolution.

Originally posted by bbarr
Close, but the term 'macroevolution' is supposed to include instances of speciation. So the evolution of new species (where 'species' is understood according to the BSC) is considered by biologists as macroevolution.

You can't evolve new families, phyla or genera without evolving new species. I think the defining macroevolution as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera is sufficient for the sake of argument. No?

Originally posted by Coletti
Sure it is. You are avoiding the issue. You don't believe the words of Christ or Paul. Your assertion that Christians should stick to the "red text" is moronic. You have never given any solid argument in your favor, and what you have said flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian doctrine. It is absurd for a person who rejects all the Bible to tel ...[text shortened]... dfish telling a seagull how to fly. Who are you to tell a Christian what defines a Christian?

You reject Christ for Paul and then say crap like that?
what you really mean is " Who was Christ to tell what a christian is "

Im not going to respond to your infantile taunts

at least not such ridiculous ones.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You reject Christ for Paul and then say crap like that?
what you really mean is " Who was Christ to tell what a christian is "

Im not going to respond to your infantile taunts

at least not such ridiculous ones.

Little guys like you should stay out of the open where they risk getting stepped on. Best to avoid facts you know you can not openly deny.