The Strange Thing about Creationism

[outhouse]

Please show an example of observed evidenced macrospeciation, with a link to the study. As I've said several times, Fruit Fly experiments count as "Micro".

says who?

 

[outhouse]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

would that be

allopatric or peripatric or parapatric or sympatric


please get with the program here


Do you think religious brainwashing at a early age has stopped your lacking education that is stopping you from learning known valid science taught in every major university????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Shermana]

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

would that be

allopatric or peripatric or parapatric or sympatric


please get with the program here


Do you think religious brainwashing at a early age has stopped your lacking education that is stopping you from learning known valid science taught in every major university????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Allopatric, periptatric, and parapatric are basically the same, with varying levels of isolation .

Sympatric speciation has yet to be observed to actually cause direct differences.

Either way, all of these are just Microspeciation varieties. When you have proof of fruit flies becoming something other than fruit flies, let me know.

 

[Shermana]

says who?

If you say that the Fruit Fly experiments count as Macro speciation instead of Micro, please explain how and why they are "Macro" instead of "Micro". Did they become something entirely different in structure? One type of "kind" producing others like it that have minor differences (Especially with "Activatable mutations") doesn't count as Macro, Macro is when you have evidence of a reptile turning into a mammal or at least even something in between like a so-called "Synapsid". Got any links on observed evidence of that? No? That's right.

 

[Skwim]

Well, judging by your lack of discussing the specifics of anything I said, I'd say your signature is well suited for you.

Ah, then you do recognize that I sometimes take my own advice and don't involve myself in discussions with such folk.

 

[outhouse]

If you say that the Fruit Fly experiments count as Macro speciation instead of Micro, please explain how and why they are "Macro" instead of "Micro".

is it you who will define evolution or scientist working in the field???


it was already explained to you micro and macro evolution are one in the same

as noted below

You are just receating your undending display of ignorance, there is no Macro-speciation proposed within evolutionary theory. There is just speciation, something that has been observed.

Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution over time, which is fully supported by genetics and the fossil record. If you want to dismiss macroevolution you have to provide evidence that there is some barrier that stops microevolution from accumulating long enough to be called macroevolution.

 

[Shermana]

Ah, then you do recognize that I sometimes take my own advice and don't involve myself in discussions with such folk.

Yep, when you've reasoned yourself into believing things like that milk comes from sweat and that hundreds of thousands beneficial base pair mutations happen on their own, it might be discomforting to have to defend such ideas on the forum.

 

[outhouse]

Do you think religious brainwashing at a early age has stopped your lacking education that is stopping you from learning known valid science taught in every major university???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????

 

[Shermana]

is it you who will define evolution or scientist working in the field???


it was already explained to you micro and macro evolution are one in the same

as noted below

You are just receating your undending display of ignorance, there is no Macro-speciation proposed within evolutionary theory. There is just speciation, something that has been observed.

Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution over time, which is fully supported by genetics and the fossil record. If you want to dismiss macroevolution you have to provide evidence that there is some barrier that stops microevolution from accumulating long enough to be called macroevolution.[/quote

Please provide a link that Macroevolution is well supported by "genetics and the fossil structure", because you are ignoring everything I said about all the gaps. If you think many gaps = well supported, you are mistaken. If anything, the genetic record works against your case. None of you want to discuss the hundreds of thousands of beneficial base pair mutations that supposedly happened, because its ludicrous.

 

[outhouse]

Yep, when you've reasoned yourself into believing things like that milk comes from sweat and that hundreds of thousands beneficial base pair mutations happen on their own, it might be discomforting to have to defend such ideas on the forum.

attacking science from a stand of ignorance does not prove creation


creation is outlawed from public schools because its pseudoscience and we dont teach it to our children.

Evolution howver is taught to children because it is fact

 

[Shermana]

attacking science from a stand of ignorance does not prove creation


creation is outlawed from public schools because its pseudoscience and we dont teach it to our children.

Evolution howver is taught to children because it is fact

Again, Microevolution is fact, Macro-evolution is pure theory which relies on a whole lot of "Don't mind all these massive gaps like milk coming from sweat...supposedly".

There is indeed a problem with use of the word "Evolution" and this should be addressed in the culture to differentiate between Epigenetic studies and Speculative theories that rely on major gaps that have no explanation.

 

[painted wolf]

Macro evolution is species level evolution and has been observed frequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Micro evolution is the changes within a specific population of a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Can you define "macro speciation" I've never encountered it in any scientific literature.

You are aware that Rhoteocetus is not the only transitional whale and there are several species with intermediate limbs present. Such as Maiacetus.

Also we can study the protiens in milk such as the caseins and their relationship to other proteins to see the evolutionary development of said proteins.
BioMed Central | Full text | Evolution of major milk proteins in Mus musculus and Mus spretus mouse species: a genoproteomic analysis

As for the rest, this is a discussion of why creationists, rather than defend or define creationism, instead attack evolution. You are providing excellent support for the OP's position.

Perhaps rather than trying to derail this thread with unrelated content you would stick to the discussion as laid out in the OP?
I'm sure people would be happy to address your other issues in threads meant for such discussion. Especially if you are actually willing to honestly discuss them.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

Maybe you could let us know what scale is necessary for evolution to be macro? How would I go about looking at two generations and saying one has evolved at a macro scale over the other?

 

[Skwim]

Yep, when you've reasoned yourself into believing things like that milk comes from sweat . . . it might be discomforting to have to defend such ideas on the forum.

Not that I can see it has anything to do with evolution, but has someone claimed that milk comes from perspiration (sweat)?

 

[Shermana]

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The idea that lactation came from sweat glands is nothing new, and like the rest of the Macroevolutionary theory, it has absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of actual evidence.

 

[Shermana]

Macro evolution is species level evolution and has been observed frequently.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Micro evolution is the changes within a specific population of a species.
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you define "macro speciation" I've never encountered it in any scientific literature.

You are aware that Rhoteocetus is not the only transitional whale and there are several species with intermediate limbs present. Such as Maiacetus.

Also we can study the protiens in milk such as the caseins and their relationship to other proteins to see the evolutionary development of said proteins.
BioMed Central | Full text | Evolution of major milk proteins in Mus musculus and Mus spretus mouse species: a genoproteomic analysis

As for the rest, this is a discussion of why creationists, rather than defend or define creationism, instead attack evolution. You are providing excellent support for the OP's position.





Perhaps rather than trying to derail this thread with unrelated content you would stick to the discussion as laid out in the OP?
I'm sure people would be happy to address your other issues in threads meant for such discussion. Especially if you are actually willing to honestly discuss them.

wa:do

You accuse me of derailing the thread, the purpose of this was to prove that all of this Macro-evolutionary theory is not so much concerned about trying to look at the gaps, but cover them up. It is indeed related to the OP, turning it around on them.

If you feel I give more ammunition to the OP, that's fine, you are welcome to your opinion, but you are at least the first person to even offer a serious consideration to such a huge gap as the evolution of Lactation. If anything, it's evident that to Evolutionists, they are not so much concerned about finding the answer as they are filling in the answer based on otherwise dubious gaps and at times they have been dishonest such as in the case of Rhodocetus of "recreating" the fins and tail and pushing it off as real. I will look at this other one.

You brushed off the 150,000 base pair thing without even realizing the implications. Each of these major gaps, the Macro-Evolutionists don't seem very concerned about the actual facts or the actual data. They aren't even aware that Lamarck's work is being checked over. Why don't you quote something from that article on the milk development that proves something substantial.

Someone with access to your link will have to explain how the Conclusion in any way gives evidence of the how and why and when.

If the how and why and when don't matter to you, my point is proven.

When I say "Macrospeciation" I mean something beyond fruit flies developing partially different characteristics. I'm talking about observed instances of radical changes, not small changes, not just like wolves and dogs. Nothing of the sort of transitioning has been observed. Fruit Flies turning into different kinds of different flies cannot be compared to monkeys turning into humans by any stretch, and if you say it is, then you must define how with the specific gene changes involved, rather than just leaving it to "It just happened, so shut up!"



What is the purpose of this OP? To prove that Creationists are not concerned about the facts? I have brought up several facts, and at best I get weak defenses. Rethink.

 

[Skwim]

The idea that lactation came from sweat glands is nothing new, and like the rest of the Macroevolutionary theory, it has absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of actual evidence.

None whatsoever, huh. Then you've carefully considered all the possible "actual" evidence. Interesting, but I gotta say, it's kind of hard to swallow.

 

[Shermana]

None whatsoever, huh. Then you've carefully considered all the possible "actual" evidence. Interesting, but I gotta say, it's kind of hard to swallow.

I challenge you to actually present evidence in any whatsover, if anyone has access to that article that Paintedwolf quoted, I'd like to see how the conclusion and the abstract in any way give a clue to the origin.

Until then, you are stuck selling milksweat.

 

[Skwim]

I challenge you to actually present evidence in any whatsover, if anyone has access to that article that Paintedwolf quoted, I'd like to see how the conclusion and the abstract in any way give a clue to the origin.

Until then, you are stuck selling milksweat.

Whoa there a minute cowboy. Not so fast. I ain't selling anything. I'm simply commenting on your claim that,

"The idea that lactation came from sweat glands is nothing new, and like the rest of the Macroevolutionary theory, it has absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of actual evidence."

​

To declare, as you have here, that there is "absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of actual evidence" that "lactation came from sweat glands" would necessarily entail examining every piece of "actual evidence." You really done that---examined every piece of actual evidence---or is you just tryin' to blow creation smoke up our backsides? Your choice, A or B.

A) I, Shermana, have examined every piece of actual evidence regarding lactation came from sweat glands, and have found absolutely no basis for the assertion.

B) I, Shermana, am just blowin' creation smoke up your backsides.

 

[outhouse]

Again, Microevolution is fact, Macro-evolution is pure theory which relies on a whole lot of "Don't mind all these massive gaps like milk coming from sweat...supposedly".

There is indeed a problem with use of the word "Evolution" and this should be addressed in the culture to differentiate between Epigenetic studies and Speculative theories that rely on major gaps that have no explanation.

again macro evolution is evolution and its just a change of species in time. It is fact.


please dont give me your sweat milk junk, you dont understand the science at hand and try picking holes in science to prove creation.


why is it you have ZERO evidence for creation and yet attack valid science


you remind me allot of a recently banned member who must now be bitter