Evidence for macro-evolution

[dlamberth]

Yes, God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But he didn't create a young Earth 6000 years ago. According to AV he created an old Earth. So AV is not a "young Earth" creationist.

AV's old earth has been in existence for only 6000 years. For the Earth, that's not old at all. And the starting point for AV is 6000 years ago. He will not venture beyond that point.

 

[BCP1928]

What is? Omphalos? or Embedded Age?

Biblical creationism in any form. Literal inerrancy is derived from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which only Protestants adhere to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biblical creationism in any form. Literal inerrancy is derived from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which only Protestants adhere to.

1. I'm not a Protestant.
2. Eve paid the price for giving in to literal errancy.

In fact, you can blame the shape the world is in because of Biblical errancy.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV's old earth has been in existence for only 6000 years.

Yup.

For the Earth, that's not old at all.

Unless it came into existence old.

And the starting point for AV is 6000 years ago.

Yup -- starting point of time.

He will not venture beyond that point.

Correct.

I give the starting point of time at 4004 BC.

Not 13,700,000,000 BC.

 

[humbled_christian]

Define 'macro-evolution' first.

Evolution above the species level .

 

[humbled_christian]

Thats kind ( ) of the point about evolution.

The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation

 

[BCP1928]

The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation

Why?

 

[Estrid]

The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation

I suppose you feel obligated to think that
because of religious beliefs you
chose to adopt.

Issues obvious in that include-
Zero evidence that it's directed.
Known mechanisms for mutation
that no more call on divine intervention than
lightning does.

If you like questions,
Which mutatins are presumed to be directed, which not?

why assume a god of lesser capacity, who,couldn't
set the universe up to do what he wants, without
having to meddle and tinker on the fly like itx an old
british sports car?

Why introduce a new theory, and believe it when there's
zero data for the new, and no issues with existing theory?

 

[Estrid]

Evolution above the species level .

Micro- macro assumes an invisible non
existent line. Like between warm and cold.
Big and small.

And trying to deny the undeniable for religious reasons.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation

Yes, natural selection is a given. It's also just a filter, you cannot naturally select anything into existence. You can only preserve or eliminate what already exists. i.e. the exact opposite of Darwin's tree of life.

That leaves only random chance to account for every evolutionary development between a single cell and a human being (according to ToE)
That doesn't cut it mathematically. The changes have to be directed somehow towards specific goals.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose you feel obligated to think that because of religious beliefs you chose to adopt.

Just so you know, that's not a crime in America.

In fact, the first amendment to our constitution makes it illegal to prohibit the free exercise thereof of those who feel obligated to practice what religion they chose to adopt.

Issues obvious in that include-Zero evidence that it's directed.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Known mechanisms for mutation that no more call on divine intervention than lightning does.

In directed evolution & directed weather, said phenomena don't call on God.

God calls on them.

And they obey.

If you like questions, Which mutatins are presumed to be directed, which not?

What difference does it make?

why assume a god of lesser capacity, who couldn't set the universe up to do what he wants, without having to meddle and tinker on the fly like itx an old british sports car?

I don't believe in guided evolution -- (I do believe in guided weather though) -- but I'll play devil's advocate here and say:

Perhaps He likes to meddle and tinker on the fly?

Why introduce a new theory, and believe it when there's zero data for the new, and no issues with existing theory?

It's called "speculation."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Zero evidence that it's directed.
Known mechanisms for mutation

The known mechanisms for mutation are the evidence for direction.

Because random mutations destroy the specificity of the gene, you can't turn a bacteria into a human being by simply introducing random error.
You will destroy the organism long before you ever achieve this.

If you like questions,
Which mutatins are presumed to be directed, which not?

As above, mutations which destroy functional information are random/ undirected- this is what we expect mathematically, and what we observe in nature and experimentally. And is also referred to as micro-evolution.

The 'mutations' which produced e.g. entire new proteins crucial to macroevolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion- are the exact opposite phenomena, the introduction of vast new volumes of functional information. = macro-evolution, and cannot be explained by mere random errors.

In short:
micro/backward steps are random
macro/forward steps are not

why assume a god of lesser capacity, who,couldn't
set the universe up to do what he wants, without
having to meddle and tinker on the fly like itx an old
british sports car?

It's a very good analogy & the above applies perfectly.

Random deterioration of the car is what we expect and observe through entropy. Parts will wear out and rust gradually/ specified functionality is lost. (micro evolution)

But occasionally we see changes in the opposite direction, a brand new part will suddenly appear, providing a brand new function- a transmission with a whole extra gear perhaps. (macro-evolution)

You cannot extrapolate the first mechanism to explain the second, they are entirely opposite in direction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Micro- macro assumes an invisible non existent line.

I disagree.

The demarcation line is at the genus level.

Like between warm and cold.

Are warm & cold two distinct compartments of temperature, with a distinct dividing line between them?

I suspect not.

So your example is moot.

Big and small.

See above.

And trying to deny the undeniable for religious reasons.

That's not a crime in America.

QV our First Amendment.

 

[BCP1928]

The known mechanisms for mutation are the evidence for direction.

Because random mutations destroy the specificity of the gene, you can't turn a bacteria into a human being by simply introducing random error.
You will destroy the organism long before you ever achieve this.




As above, mutations which destroy functional information are random/ undirected- this is what we expect mathematically, and what we observe in nature and experimentally. And is also referred to as micro-evolution.

The 'mutations' which produced e.g. entire new proteins crucial to macroevolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion- are the exact opposite phenomena, the introduction of vast new volumes of functional information. = macro-evolution, and cannot be explained by mere random errors.

In short:
micro/backward steps are random
macro/forward steps are not

It's a very good analogy & the above applies perfectly.

Random deterioration of the car is what we expect and observe through entropy. Parts will wear out and rust gradually/ specified functionality is lost. (micro evolution)

But occasionally we see changes in the opposite direction, a brand new part will suddenly appear, providing a brand new function- a transmission with a whole extra gear perhaps. (macro-evolution)

You cannot extrapolate the first mechanism to explain the second, they are entirely opposite in direction.

None of that has anything to do with what is actually happening as evolution proceeds.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I wonder if this time someone will address the link below:

Trilobites through horseshoe crabs to scorpions

Surely Creationists cannot say this is "micro evolution"?

I wouldn’t say that we can say this is evolution at all because we don’t really know that one came from the other. I can arrange a bunch of pictures of different fish or insects in a particular order but that doesn’t mean it’s an ancestral genealogy. I would say that it could be considered to be evidence but it’s definitely inconclusive evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I wouldn’t say that we can say this is evolution at all because we don’t really know that one came from the other. I can arrange a bunch of pictures of different fish or insects in a particular order but that doesn’t mean it’s an ancestral genealogy.

Many such mistakes have been made.

As David Raup, paleontologist at the Chicago Field Museum said; it's ironic that we have fewer transitional examples today than we did in Darwin's time, (as so many were later debunked)

 

[Estrid]

None of that has anything to do with what is actually happening as evolution proceeds.

It's a way to avoid claims being challenged.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

None of that has anything to do with what is actually happening as evolution proceeds.

That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.

Except that not once has anyone shown an example of said 'regression'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

D

That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.

Darwin's model (not an ism) explains how adaption results from selection of characteristics. It does not provide a mechanism for the generation of new variation from which selection takes place. Such things (mutation) were not known when Darwin wrote his book.