1. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    30 Mar '06 08:34
    A lot of theistic refutations of evolution seem to tranlsate to the rejection of macroevolution in general. I invite any theist to demonstrate any biological limitations which would prevent one speicies evolving into another (I believe this is the flimsy interpretation of macroevolution). What biological restrictions could prevent the accummulation of microevolutions (which you theists seem to acknowledge) and thus, marcoevolution?
    None? ... well then case closed. Evolution is true.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Mar '06 08:51
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    A lot of theistic refutations of evolution seem to tranlsate to the rejection of macroevolution in general. I invite any theist to demonstrate any biological limitations which would prevent one speicies evolving into another (I believe this is the flimsy interpretation of macroevolution). What biological restrictions could prevent the accummulation of micro ...[text shortened]... to acknowledge) and thus, marcoevolution?
    None? ... well then case closed. Evolution is true.
    It appears that the creationist definition of macro evolution has changed. It now refers to evolution from one 'kind' to another. The advantage of this is that the word 'kind' is even more loosely defined than the word 'species' and thus the goal posts can be moved more easily. The fundamental logical flaw with thier claim is that macro evolution is not a specific term but a general clasification similar to the terms 'life', 'species', 'kind','big','small' etc and so its rather like makeing statements like "big birds cant fly" or "in evolution small changes can occur but not large ones"
  3. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    30 Mar '06 09:05
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It appears that the creationist definition of macro evolution has changed. It now refers to evolution from one 'kind' to another. The advantage of this is that the word 'kind' is even more loosely defined than the word 'species' and thus the goal posts can be moved more easily. The fundamental logical flaw with thier claim is that macro evolution is not a ...[text shortened]... birds cant fly" or "in evolution small changes can occur but not large ones"
    The recent one I've seen is that macroevolution is 'evolution which cannot be observed'. Handy that defintion really.
  4. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    30 Mar '06 09:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The fundamental logical flaw with thier claim is that macro evolution is not a specific term but a general clasification similar to the terms 'life', 'species', 'kind','big','small' etc and so its rather like makeing statements like "big birds cant fly" or "in evolution small changes can occur but not large ones"
    😵

    I think it might take a while for the theists to bamboozle their way out of this one.
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    30 Mar '06 09:26
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    😵

    I think it might take a while for the theists to bamboozle their way out of this one.
    They'll claim that your argument is circular, or your logic flawed, or your use of terms is ungrammatical, or they'll top contributing to the forum and hide their heads in a bucket of sand.
  6. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Mar '06 12:161 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    A lot of theistic refutations of evolution seem to tranlsate to the rejection of macroevolution in general. I invite any theist to demonstrate any biological limitations which would prevent one speicies evolving into another (I believe this is the flimsy interpretation of macroevolution). What biological restrictions could prevent the accummulation of micro ...[text shortened]... to acknowledge) and thus, marcoevolution?
    None? ... well then case closed. Evolution is true.
    To be honest, I have more of a problem with microevolution than macro. I don't have that much difficulty seeing that certain species are related to each other.

    I'm a lot more interested in questions like how all the parts that make up a bacterium's flagellum came to work together instead of each one being a useless waste of energy.

    Or am I not understanding the definitions?
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Mar '06 12:22
    Originally posted by orfeo
    To be honest, I have more of a problem with microevolution than macro. I don't have that much difficulty seeing that certain species are related to each other.

    I'm a lot more interested in questions like how all the parts that make up a bacterium's flagellum came to work together instead of each one being a useless waste of energy.

    Or am I not understanding the definitions?
    You have your definitions back to front. However if you can see that the elephant is related to the whale, then how do you explain the whales fins and tail as surely it would have been a waste of energy when it was on land? If you can understand that then you will understand the flagellum.
  8. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Mar '06 12:261 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You have your definitions back to front. However if you can see that the elephant is related to the whale, then how do you explain the whales fins and tail as surely it would have been a waste of energy when it was on land? If you can understand that then you will understand the flagellum.
    What a bizarre question. No-one thinks that whales had fins when they were on land. They lost their arms/legs once they were OFF the land, because they were a waste of energy.

    Or so the story goes.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Mar '06 12:39
    Originally posted by orfeo
    What a bizarre question. No-one thinks that whales had fins when they were on land. They lost their arms/legs once they were OFF the land, because they were a waste of energy.

    Or so the story goes.
    So how did the elephant know that if it flapped its back legs around enough they would turn into a tail? My point is that if you accept change at all then via gradual steps you can get dramatic seemingly impossible change. Further study will lead you to the realization that there is nothing unique about a bacterial flagellum. There are many possible ways in which it could have evolved and without fossil evidence it would be hard to know exactly which one. But that shouldnt make you reject it as impossible or even imply an 'inteligent designer'.
  10. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    30 Mar '06 21:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So how did the elephant know that if it flapped its back legs around enough they would turn into a tail? My point is that if you accept change at all then via gradual steps you can get dramatic seemingly impossible change. Further study will lead you to the realization that there is nothing unique about a bacterial flagellum. There are many possible ways ...[text shortened]... ne. But that shouldnt make you reject it as impossible or even imply an 'inteligent designer'.
    Firstly, I didn't say I accepted whales CAME FROM elephants. They might have. I accept they're related. There's a difference.

    The fact that every higher animal on the planet shares a large part of their genetic code could simply mean God found a design that worked, and stuck with it.

    Secondly, I didn't say I thought the flagellum was impossible. I simply don't think anyone has explained it very well yet.

    I'm best described as a 'weak' creationist. Frankly, I don't really care that much about the issue and it doesn't seem to occupy any of my time other than the occasional excursion onto this site.

    What irks me though is that there never seems to be such a thing as a 'weak' evolutionist. No-one ever comes here and frankly acknowledges that there are gaps in the fossil record, or that there things that are not properly understood about how enzymes developed, or whatever.
  11. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    30 Mar '06 21:46
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Firstly, I didn't say I accepted whales CAME FROM elephants. They might have. I accept they're related. There's a difference.

    The fact that every higher animal on the planet shares a large part of their genetic code could simply mean God found a design that worked, and stuck with it.

    Secondly, I didn't say I thought the flagellum was impossible. I si ...[text shortened]... re things that are not properly understood about how enzymes developed, or whatever.
    The trouble is evolutionists can't afford to be 'weak'. Any sign of doubt or a chink in the evolutionary armour and the creationists pounce - you could call it an 'evolutionary' strategy.

    We need to really careful in discussing evolutionary relationships. To suggest that any living species came from any other living species is to misrepresent the nature of evolution. Related species share long dead ancestors might be a better way to put it. Whales and Elephants may share a long dead ancestor. Chimpanzees and Humans may share a long dead ancestor.

    As for the gaps in the fossil record argument - this is a pretty easy one to cover when you consider the nature of fossil formation. That is, it's hard to create fossils and thus they occur relatively infrequently - hence the gaps.
  12. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    30 Mar '06 23:18
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    ...What biological restrictions could prevent the accumulation of microevolutions (which you theists seem to acknowledge) and thus, marcoevolution?
    None? ... well then case closed. Evolution is true.
    Oh-vay! What a terrible piece of logic. I don't mind your premise, but you conclusion is completely bogus. Even if macro-evolution is possible, that doesn't make the ToE true. That's like arguing that if one can not disprove God, then God exists.

    There are two things that ToEist have failed to do: 1) they never observed the occurrence of macro-evolution, 2) they have never shown that all living things (man included) evolved from non-living matter. So if anyone wants to believe in something you've never seen, and you can not prove, then go ahead. Each person has the right to their own religious beliefs. Just don't expect me to switch my religion for your's. 🙂
  13. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    31 Mar '06 00:54
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Oh-vay! What a terrible piece of logic. I don't mind your premise, but you conclusion is completely bogus. Even if macro-evolution is possible, that doesn't make the ToE true. That's like arguing that if one can not disprove God, then God exists.

    There are two things that ToEist have failed to do: 1) they never observed the occurrence of macro-evolu ...[text shortened]... o their own religious beliefs. Just don't expect me to switch my religion for your's. 🙂
    1 so called "macro evolution" is observed in the fossil record.

    2 nothing to do with toe

    Please enjoy your religion but don't confuse your religion's foundation myths with reality
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Mar '06 06:29
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Firstly, I didn't say I accepted whales CAME FROM elephants. They might have. I accept they're related. There's a difference.

    The fact that every higher animal on the planet shares a large part of their genetic code could simply mean God found a design that worked, and stuck with it.
    I do realise that whales did not come from elephants and appologise for any misconceptions that may have brought about. However my point was intended to show that if a land animal can evolve into a sea animal as supremely adapted as the whale then something as simple as a bacterias flagellum is equally possible. It is impossible to know the exact evolutionary history for all possible living things ever to have existed and it is actually unnecessary to know it in order to understand and accept that evolution is not only a viable explanation for the observations available and also is observed to be taking place today. Yes God may have brought the world into existance a few years ago but if so he carefully created evidence to imply a much older earth and evolution.

    Secondly, I didn't say I thought the flagellum was impossible. I simply don't think anyone has explained it very well yet.
    I believe a possible explanation has been put forward but I dont know how much evidence there is that that is the only explanation available. However as mentioned above it is not very important.

    I'm best described as a 'weak' creationist. Frankly, I don't really care that much about the issue and it doesn't seem to occupy any of my time other than the occasional excursion onto this site.

    What irks me though is that there never seems to be such a thing as a 'weak' evolutionist. No-one ever comes here and frankly acknowledges that there are gaps in the fossil record, or that there things that are not properly understood about how enzymes developed, or whatever.

    OK here I am. I am an evolutionist. I would not call myself a 'weak' evolutionist but I am more than ready to acknowlede that there are gaps in the fossil record and that there things that are not properly understood about how enzymes developed, or whatever. However if you are asking for a complete fossil of every possible living thing ever to existed then of course there will be gaps. The gaps do not in any way detract from the theory of evolution. I dont think we will ever know for sure how enzimes developed but I believe that science has shown that there are various possible ways and therefore there is no need to look for supernatural alternatives.
  15. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    31 Mar '06 10:04
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Oh-vay! What a terrible piece of logic. I don't mind your premise, but you conclusion is completely bogus. Even if macro-evolution is possible, that doesn't make the ToE true. That's like arguing that if one can not disprove God, then God exists.

    There are two things that ToEist have failed to do: 1) they never observed the occurrence of macro-evolu ...[text shortened]... o their own religious beliefs. Just don't expect me to switch my religion for your's. 🙂
    Ok, Ok, my conclusion was bogus (in the most liberal sense). However, macroevolution does not need to be observed it can be inferred. From the available evidence (i.e. fossils) we can make [flimsy-semi-plausible] inferences about a species development. There is however, no biological reaon why macro-evolution is impossible. This is what I meant by "evolution is true".
Back to Top