Exactly, that's what it comes down to. You have no substance.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Exactly, that's what it comes down to. You have no substance.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
ButTheCatCameBack
Active Member
Has subby even explain what he/she means by "spontaneous" in a scientifically coherent way?
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Due to the evidence for common ancestry in morphology and genetics. We're so similar that we can take blood transfusions from each other for crying out loud.
Your underlined quote is your reply to the evidence presented for an intelligent designer, the incredible engineering skill and remarkable design evident in all living things. (Hebrews 13:4)
Your reply reminds me of a policeman who watches a criminal shoot unarmed people walking on the street, one after another. Bystanders urge the policeman to stop the criminal. "But there's no evidence here of a crime" opines the cop.
Many learned scientists disagree with you, accepting the scientific evidence of which they are eyewitnesses, that such complexity and design arising from chance or mutation is impossible.
Also, your dismissal of HOW God created living things according to their kinds does not change the fact that God's directly creating each animal and plant kind excludes any possibility of life evolving.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Really? Could you provide me with a list of credible biologists who can back this claim up?
And before you go to and post the ridiculous list of 500 "scientists" that creationists usually provide, you should have a look at Project Steve: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
newhope101
Active Member
The Scientific Controversy Over Whether
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution
Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution
© Center for Science and Culture/Discovery Institute, 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, Seattle, WA 98101
When Charles Darwin published
The Origin of Species in 1859, it was already
known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding,which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene
pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial.
The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named
"macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).
In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin
was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may
benefit an organism. For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are. Scientific critics of macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12 of Bowler's book.)
The scientific controversy over whether processes observable within existing
species and gene pools (microevolution) can account for large-scale changes over
geological time (macroevolution) continues to this day. Here are a few examples of peer reviewed scientific articles that have referred to it just in the last few years:
known that existing species can change over time. This is the basis of artificial breeding,which had been practiced for thousands of years. Darwin and his contemporaries were also familiar enough with the fossil record to know that major changes in living things had occurred over geological time. Darwin's theory was that a process analogous to artificial breeding also occurs in nature; he called that process natural selection. Darwin's theory was also that changes in existing species due primarily to natural selection could, if given enough time, produce the major changes we see in the fossil record.
After Darwin, the first phenomenon (changes within an existing species or gene
pool) was named "microevolution." There is abundant evidence that changes can occur within existing species, both domestic and wild, so microevolution is uncontroversial.
The second phenomenon (large-scale changes over geological time) was named
"macroevolution," and Darwin's theory that the processes of the former can account for the latter was controversial right from the start. Many biologists during and after Darwin's lifetime have questioned whether the natural counterpart of domestic breeding could do what domestic breeding has never done -- namely, produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, skepticism over this aspect of evolution was so strong that Darwin's theory went into eclipse. (See Chapter 9 of Peter Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, University of California Press, revised edition, 1989).
In the 1930s, "neo-Darwinists" proposed that genetic mutations (of which Darwin
was unaware) could solve the problem. Although the vast majority of mutations are
harmful (and thus cannot be favored by natural selection), in rare instances one may
benefit an organism. For example, genetic mutations account for some cases of antibiotic resistance in bacteria; if an organism is in the presence of the antibiotic, such a mutation is beneficial. All known beneficial mutations, however, affect only an organism's biochemistry; Darwinian evolution requires large-scale changes in morphology, or anatomy. Midway through the twentieth century, some Darwinian geneticists suggested that occasional "macromutations" might produce the large-scale morphological changes needed by Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, all known morphological mutations are harmful, and the larger their effects the more harmful they are. Scientific critics of macromutations took to calling this the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. (See Chapter 12 of Bowler's book.)
The scientific controversy over whether processes observable within existing
species and gene pools (microevolution) can account for large-scale changes over
geological time (macroevolution) continues to this day. Here are a few examples of peer reviewed scientific articles that have referred to it just in the last few years:
David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the
Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
"One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."
Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
"Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.
Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,"
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
15 (2002): 688-701.
"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian
evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.
Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, sincethe scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue.
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."
It should be noted that all of the scientists quoted above are believers in Darwinian
evolution, and that all of them think the controversy will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory. Stern, for example, believes that new developmental studies of gene function will provide "the current missing link." (p. 1079) The important point here is that the controversy has not yet been resolved, precisely because the evidence needed to resolve it is still lacking. It is important for students to know what the evidence does or does not show -- not just what some scientists hope the evidence will eventually show.
Since the controversy over microevolution and macroevolution is at the heart of Darwin's theory, and since evolutionary theory is so influential in modern biology, it is a disservice to students for biology curricula to ignore the controversy entirely. Furthermore, sincethe scientific evidence needed to settle the controversy is still lacking, it is inaccurate to give students the impression that the controversy has been resolved and that all scientists have reached a consensus on the issue.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Wow!! When are you submitting your paper on genotyping homo sapiens and other primates?
Is this your Doctoral thesis in biology?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
You understand what a phenotype is don't you? It is an organism's appearance and/or what genes it expresses, what is "change above phenotype"?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Page 90 and still not an inkling of evidence!
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well apparently you think it's polite to ignore other people's questions, so...I think you can see this coming...why would anyone answer your questions? You wouldn't want us to think you're a hypocrite, would you?
Guess that kind of kills that discussion. Let me know if you ever want to continue it. I suggest you start by answering the many outstanding reasonable polite questions you're working so hard to ignore.
Usually, when creationists refuse to answer my simple, polite, reasonable questions, such as asking you to define your terms or state your position, I assume they know they don't have a leg to stand on.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Evel, why are you chasing the red herring? This thread isn't about abiogenesis. Rather than prevent this thread from ever having a hope of actually discussing what it's supposed to be about, would you and Subby mind starting a thread about abiogenesis? Thanks.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I wish you would stop repeating this falsehood, less knowledgeable people might actually believe you. Science, ancient and modern, is completely, totally, utterly neutral, silent and agnostic toward the supernatural.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it doesn't. Science doesn't use philosophical naturalism at at. Science has never concluded how life first came into existence, and certainly not spontaneously.
Start a thread. You are miles outside the scope of this one. If you have a hypothesis, please state it. If you don't, please exit, thank you.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
False. It fails to adhere to the scientific method, which includes methodological naturalism. If it were science, you would surely have posited, at a minimum, a hypothesis by now.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Wow, hypocrite much?
What do you think of someone who refuses to answer questions addressed to him, while rudely demanding that others answer his questions?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Your question makes no sense. As someone said, it's like asking how a doberman is different than a dog. Humans are a species of ape, therefore the human genome is an ape genome.