Evidence for macro-evolution

[AV1611VET]

And we're still mammals who are still animals who are still eukaryotes who are still...

Thats kind ( ) of the point about evolution.

Unless, of course, someone acts like an animal and commits an atrocity -- like Klebold & Harris did -- and then suddenly evolution can take a hike, can't it?

You'd think when something like Columbine goes down, evolutionists would use it as proof of evolution.

But they don't, do they?

That, to me, is a dirty little secret that evolutionists don't want people to know about.

In my opinion.

As a born again Christian, I'll be glad to say why they did it: we're all sinners.

As an evolutionist, can you do the same with your doctrine and say why they did it: we're all animals?

Or can science take a hike now?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we should have a thread that is dedicated to show evidence for macro-evolution.

I'm not an evolutionist, but I'll play devil's advocate here and submit Klebold & Harris as evidence of macro-evolution.

Yea or nay?

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not an evolutionist, but I'll play devil's advocate here and submit Klebold & Harris as evidence of macro-evolution.

Yea or nay?

Nay.

They were two examples of Homo sapiens and not a population that is distinct enough from Homo sapiens to be considered a separate species.

They didn't even reproduce.

 

[Shemjaza]

Unless, of course, someone acts like an animal and commits an atrocity -- like Klebold & Harris did -- and then suddenly evolution can take a hike, can't it?

You'd think when something like Columbine goes down, evolutionists would use it as proof of evolution.

But they don't, do they?

That, to me, is a dirty little secret that evolutionists don't want people to know about.

In my opinion.

As a born again Christian, I'll be glad to say why they did it: we're all sinners.

As an evolutionist, can you do the same with your doctrine and say why they did it: we're all animals?

Or can science take a hike now?

A human is a kind of animal and violence and aggression are tendencies found in humans (and other apes), so it's not surprising that sometimes this goes very wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

They were two examples of Homo sapiens and not a population that is distinct enough from Homo sapiens to be considered a separate species.

Sounds like you're appealing to No True Scotsman here.

Animals that go feral are still classified according to their binomens.

 

[AV1611VET]

A human is a kind of animal and violence and aggression are tendencies found in humans (and other apes), so it's not surprising that sometimes this goes very wrong.

What do you mean humans are a "kind of animal"?

I thought evolution teaches humans ARE animals?

 

[Estrid]

Nay.

They were two examples of Homo sapiens and not a population that is distinct enough from Homo sapiens to be considered a separate species.

They didn't even reproduce.

You gonna encourage yet another hijacking?

 

[Shemjaza]

Sounds like you're appealing to No True Scotsman here.

Animals that go feral are still classified according to their binomens.

Not in the least.

Those two boys went wrong, and that doesn't make them a different species.

They were a product of macro-evolution ultimately as Homo sapiens didn't always exist... but going on a killing spree is probably a psychological of social problem of a pair of individuals and not a macro-evolutionary event.

What do you mean humans are a "kind of animal"?

I thought evolution teaches humans ARE animals?

...those two statements mean the same thing.

You gonna encourage yet another hijacking?

It's a 17 year old thread that never received much traction... if anything we might get some actual discussion of what macro-evolution is and is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

You gonna encourage yet another hijacking?

LOL -- I'm playing devil's advocate and giving evidence for macroevolution, and you ask this?

Albeit, it is a dirty, dark secret that isn't taught in academic circles (that I know of).

But if I was a macroevolutionist, I would consider it powerful evidence that we came from the jungles of somewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the least.

According to Wikipedia horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs all go feral.

And guess what?

They're still horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs.

Humans go feral from time to time and guess what?

They're still humans.

Those two boys went wrong, and that doesn't make them a different species.

I never said it did.

They were a product of macro-evolution ultimately as Homo sapiens didn't always exist...

I believe that's the point I'm making, while in devil's advocate mode.

It seems to me that that is what evolutionists should be pointing out to those who are scratching their heads and wondering what happened.

Evolutionists should be telling them it's just repressed behavior traits, left over from the jungle, where we all came from.

I mean, after all, horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs do it.

And if our cousins can do it, so can we.

... but going on a killing spree is probably a psychological of social problem of a pair of individuals and not a macro-evolutionary event.

There you go.

Failing to make a major plug for macroevolution.

But science can take a hike, can't it?

LGBT? Transgender?

No problem.

It's coded into our DNA.

Columbine?

Not on your life.

It's a psychological problem.

...those two statements mean the same thing.

Interesting word choice then.

You took the longer route and said "they are a kind of animal," instead of saying "they are animals."

Perhaps deep down, you know something that you're not willing to accept?

 

[Shemjaza]

According to Wikipedia horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs all go feral.

And guess what?

They're still horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs.

Humans go feral from time to time and guess what?

They're still humans.



I never said it did.



I believe that's the point I'm making, while in devil's advocate mode.

It seems to me that that is what evolutionists should be pointing out to those who are scratching their heads and wondering what happened.

Evolutionists should be telling them it's just repressed behavior traits, left over from the jungle, where we all came from.

I mean, after all, horses, dogs, goats, cats, rabbits, camels, and pigs do it.

And if our cousins can do it, so can we.

I've never denied it.

In fact a animal that has changed behavior and become dangerous also hasn't genetically changed... some might just be bad and dangerous, but many have been in an environment that encouraged that behavior somehow, it's the same with humans.

There you go.

Failing to make a major plug for macroevolution.

But science can take a hike, can't it?

LGBT? Transgender?

No problem.

It's coded into our DNA.

Columbine?

Not on your life.

It's a psychological problem.

Those boys were a part of the normal spectrum of humanity. Part of the spectrum is aggression and the potential for violence... and a part of that spectrum is the need for good social structures to keep their behavior in check... humans are still humans when they go feral, but sometimes if they had a better environment they wouldn't have snapped or it would have been more manageable.

Killers like terrorists and spree killers like the those two aren't compulsive killer like serial killers, they have some kind of social or personal ideas that override their normal ability to interact with society.

I don't believe in the supernatural or sin, but it's more akin to evil than crazy.

Interesting word choice then.

You took the longer route and said "they are a kind of animal," instead of saying "they are animals."

Perhaps deep down, you know something that you're not willing to accept?

Nah, I'm just being specific and clear. All humans are animals, but not all animals are human.



I see the problem we are having in this discussion.

Something ultimately being a product of evolution doesn't make it evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never denied it.

Maybe not, but you have such a wonderful example of macroevolution here, and you're not using it.

In fact a animal that has changed behavior and become dangerous also hasn't genetically changed...

No argument there.

Only God can genetically change something.

Such as when he changed Aaron's rod into a serpent, and back again.

... some might just be bad and dangerous,

There you go again.

"Might"?

Don't we come from a long line of killers and literal baby-eaters?

And didn't our close relatives club women over the head and drag them home to their caves by their hair to cook their food and have children?

... but many have been in an environment that encouraged that behavior somehow, it's the same with humans.

Another interesting word choice.

Why are you calling it "encouragement," when it should be "survival of the fittest"?

Or maybe it's natural selection gone awry?

Maybe Klebold & Harris wanted to "improve" their community by subjecting them to fight-or-flight?

(Evolution sure is cruel protective of itself, isn't it?)

They say "nature will find a way."

And when Klebold & Harris found a way, evolutionists treat them as if they were criminals or did something wrong.

Those boys were a part of the normal spectrum of humanity.

Yup.

Part of the spectrum is aggression and the potential for violence...

Yup.

But I somewhat disagree with "potential."

Isn't so-called violence the standard go-to method of natural selection?

After all, you can't have natural selection without death.

... and a part of that spectrum is the need for good social structures to keep their behavior in check...

What do you mean by "good"?

... humans are still humans when they go feral,

Okay.

... but sometimes if they had a better environment they wouldn't have snapped or it would have been more manageable.

But what's a "better environment"?

Animals literally walk all over themselves, have multiple wives, wife swap, eat their children, stand around (or run) when a crocodile or something takes one of their herd, sniff each other's food, and Darwin knows what all else.

Can you take a sounder of swine and make them "more manageable"?

By the same token, can you take a shrewdness of people and make them "more manageable"?

Killers like terrorists and spree killers like the those two aren't compulsive killer like serial killers, they have some kind of social or personal ideas that override their normal ability to interact with society.

"Normal ability"???

LOL

Science can take a hike, can't it?

I don't believe in the supernatural or sin, but it's more akin to evil than crazy.

I honestly believe you've got more sense than the evolutionist philosophy you're [trying to] defend.

All I hear you saying in post after post is:

"Macroevolution can take a hike."

Nah, I'm just being specific and clear.

Why would you have to clarify?

It should be standard teaching.

All humans are animals, but not all animals are human.

Okay.

I see the problem we are having in this discussion.

I don't think you do.

Something ultimately being a product of evolution doesn't make it evolution.

It can take a hike, can't it?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Horses don't become giraffes.

Horses simply give rise to related species; and giraffes simply give rise to their related species.

"Kind" in the Bible is the same as "genus" in collegiate circles.

And God said animals will multiply "after their kind."

So, just to be clear, your contention is that all of these:

are different, uniquely created kinds that share no common ancestors or evolutionary history?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, just to be clear, your contention is that all of these:

...

are different, uniquely created kinds that share no common ancestors or evolutionary history?

I can't tell just by looking at them.

I would have to know their respective genera.

Then I can tell you.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I can't tell just by looking at them.

I would have to know their respective genera.

Then I can tell you.

Did you think I picked them at random? They are all different genera. And these do not represent all the different genera of Felidae because the forum limits to only 10 images.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are all different genera.

Then they are all different kinds, whose [genera] were created in 4004 BC.

(Cue cross-bred hybrids in three ... two ... one ...)

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Then they are all different kinds, whose [genera] were created in 4004 BC.

That's patently absurd. Isn't one of the hallmarks of the "kinds" argument that a kindergartener could tell that things were the same "kind" just by looking at them? Do you honestly believe that a kindergartener would look at all of these "cats" and say they were different "kinds"?

 

[Estrid]

A percent, at least, of what's so insane
about basing rejection of evolution
on the biblical phrase "after their kind"
is that nobody contests it, its trivially
obvious, and, in common other factual obsevations,
Is iessential and ntegral to the ToE.

Of COURSE ofspring are " kind" - kindrrd- to their
parents.

Equally obvious, uncontestable, offspring are not clones.
They include their own unique genetics.
Kind, but not copies.

Here the creos start in on the intellectual
dishonesty that will have carry their faith
forward, by inventing some limit- so,far but no
further- that change can go as it accumulates from
generation to generation.

The next point on " kind" is that unlike the creos,
biologists chridtian and theist alike recognize that
"Kind- ness" is exactly what evolution is about.

Cats and dogs history goes back to a common
ancestor; horses and donkeys to a more recent one.

Cats and dogs are kindred carnivores, donkey and horse,
kindred perisodactyls.

Of course ignorance × ideology× faith in personal
infallibility do make it impossible to see the obvious.

Obviously.

 

[Aaron112]

Thanks be to the Creator Who Himself Reveals the Truth in perfect Harmony with all Creation.

Man can seek, man can search, but Only the Creator Himself is Able to take the veil away.

With all man's endeavors, all man's directions, even if all are distractions away from Truth,

one man by Himself might learn the Truth , when God is so Pleased to Reveal the Truth to him.

Other men can also , likewise, learn, when God is Well-Pleased so to do. Thus, the Truth is

well-guarded by the Creator, never changed, never changing, always True.

In science and other fields, men can verify the Truth, but cannot change it . They can and often

may learn things contrary to the truth,

and may and do often teach things contrary to Truth, but that's how it is with mankind.

The unchangeable truth rests with The Creator, not man.

Man can discover it. When God Reveals it to him, not before that.

All through history this is confirmed in every field of science and study.

So why is there still ..... argument against God .... ?

I can't tell just by looking at them.

I would have to know their respective genera.

Then I can tell you.

..... joy in truth !

 

[Estrid]

Thanks be to the Creator Who Himself Reveals the Truth in perfect Harmony with all Creation.

Man can seek, man can search, but Only the Creator Himself is Able to take the veil away.

With all man's endeavors, all man's directions, even if all are distractions away from Truth,

one man by Himself might learn the Truth , when God is so Pleased to Reveal the Truth to him.

Other men can also , likewise, learn, when God is Well-Pleased so to do. Thus, the Truth is

well-guarded by the Creator, never changed, never changing, always True.

In science and other fields, men can verify the Truth, but cannot change it . They can and often

may learn things contrary to the truth,

and may and do often teach things contrary to Truth, but that's how it is with mankind.

The unchangeable truth rests with The Creator, not man.

Man can discover it. When God Reveals it to him, not before that.

All through history this is confirmed in every field of science and study.

So why is there still ..... argument against God .... ?


..... joy in truth !

This may well all be true.

And if so,it calls on all to have the
honour, respect and courage to recognize
that there is no respect nor truth in words
not in harmony with creation.

Yes, science can verify what is truth, and it serveth
too, to rebuke those whose vanity leads them to
proclaim Truth (in God's name!) contrary to
what is also written, and not by the hands of man, into
the very earth itself. There lies unchangeable truth.

Why is there still argument against God?

Is there? Not from me. I domt believe, but I dont know.
Ive no argument against God, only against the
CLAIMS of ignorant people.

They are the ones arguing against the very God they
nominally worship, with their silly and specious
"interpretation" of both the Bible, and the earth at their
feet.

You might direct your question to them.