The design argument

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be in here! 😛

Speciation is the closest macroevolution can come to proving the emergence of one species from another. But although speciation is the creation of a new species, it only happens because of isolation and not because of an increase in genetic information.

http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section2.rhtml

In order for macroevolution to show itself to be true there must be a demonstrable increase in genetic information. Not new variations of combining existing genes, but actual new genes contributing to increased complexity and leading to new phyla and body plans. There's plenty of proof that genetic information has been lost over time, but where has there been proof of an increase, other than taking someones word for it that this has happened?

Originally posted by JS357
I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial.

So why would evolutionists make this distinction if as you say it's artificial?

Who do you think coined the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"...
the creationists, or evolutionists?

Think about it...

Originally posted by JS357
I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial.

The point being that if you make no distinction between variation within a species, and a theory that proposes variation through selection is a vehicle for macroevolution, then for you to always win an argument this simply becomes a matter of playing a familiar game:

~ If I say I agree with evolution, then I've agreed to macroevolution.
~ If I say I don't agree with evolution, you can then show that microevolution is true and universally accepted as being true.

I don't know if this was your intent or not, but if it was then please do me the favor of not trying to confuse the issue with semantic sleight of hand tricks. Okay? Seriously... if evolutionists believed there is no real distinction between micro and macro evolution, then what would be the point of coining those two terms?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This is key point that tends to be under-emphasized. So-called 'macro' evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a long period of time. I often hear Creationists concede that 'micro' evolution indeed occurs, without realizing that they have conceded the entire debate!

No, not even by any measure. Saying I can jump 2 feet is not saying I can
jump to the moon. Saying I can swim a half mile every morning is not
saying I can swim across an ocean. Saying I agree a bird's beak can get
larger or smaller is not saying it can turn into cold blood snake given
enough time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, not even by any measure. Saying I can jump 2 feet is not saying I can
jump to the moon. Saying I can swim a half mile every morning is not
saying I can swim across an ocean. Saying I agree a bird's beak can get
larger or smaller is not saying it can turn into cold blood snake given
enough time.

Those analogies aren't apt. It's more like you are denying that you cannot swim half a mile by swimming a few feet.

Your own exhaustion stops you from swimming a whole ocean. There is no analogous limiting factor on micro-evolution.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is the crux: The two, creationism and evolution CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT.

So if you disprove creationism, you may not prove evolution but you eliminate a contender.

Haven't you heard, the evolutionists claim that creationism is not falsifiable. That means they have given up on disproving it.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Those analogies aren't apt. It's more like you are denying that you cannot swim half a mile by swimming a few feet.

Your own exhaustion stops you from swimming a whole ocean. There is no analogous limiting factor on micro-evolution.

So you say, but that is where I draw the line of if is it either probable or possible.
Making small changes in an already established system is one thing, putting
together a system over time is quite another.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say, but that is where I draw the line of if is it either probable or possible.
Making small changes in an already established system is one thing, putting
together a system over time is quite another.

Here's a question for you. If a small amount of DNA can change in a small amount of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large amount of time? What biological mechanism stops that from happenning Kelly?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Here's a question for you. If a small amount of DNA can change in a small amount of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large amount of time? What biological mechanism stops that from happenning Kelly?

Small amounts can do little or no damage, or they can cause little or very
nasty damage. Large amounts of change in my opinion would almost force
damage to take place.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All the things that work together to support life from the placement of
stars and planets down to the sub-atomic levels is evidence, you reject
that! I've no issue with you doing that, but to deny that shows us something
in my opinion just smacks as you will reject everything and anything that
can point to that as possibly being true.

The evidence in ...[text shortened]... it. It would screw up your
world view and everything in it, which is much to important to you.

we are talking about scientific evidence. you do understand that looking around and having a personal opinion is not scientific evidence.

ill repeat what ive already said. you or anybody else can look at the universe and think "it screams of a creator".......this is NOT scientific evidence!!!

if you insist it is scientific evidence then please provide some science!!!!

you might also want to try and explain why there has never been a published scientific paper providing evidence of intelligent design.

one little bit of scientific evidence please.


edit: as for world views, im perfectly happy for something to come along and change the way we look at the world. i love fantasy and science-fiction, it would be amazing if reality was not what we thought it was. you have me all wrong sir. i just choose to base my opinions on scientific evidence.

Originally posted by lemon lime

No one argues with micro-evolution.

Awesome! I guess we can close this thread then.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Small amounts can do little or no damage, or they can cause little or very
nasty damage. Large amounts of change in my opinion would almost force
damage to take place.

Would that opinion perchance be based on something other than wishful thinking?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say, but that is where I draw the line of if is it either probable or possible.
Making small changes in an already established system is one thing, putting
together a system over time is quite another.

No, it really isn't. It just seems that way to you.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
No, it really isn't. It just seems that way to you.

Yea, well if you don't grasp the complexity of the issues, you can go on
your merry way happy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Would that opinion perchance be based on something other than wishful thinking?

It is knowing that in a complex living system a small change can do more
damage than good, and you are talking about whole sale over halls as if
it were no big deal. The thing about random mutations within DNA, if
they are indeed random they can come and go, you just believe that the
good ones stay and build upon themselves when random changes have
not pattern to pull that off. Even with natural selection the death through
random mutations is much more likely.

Nothing to do with wishful thinking!