Kenneth Miller and Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dark_Warrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
No. You do not get to redefine words at will. A new species of mosquito is macroevolution. If a new species is involved then it is macroevolution by definition.

Part of the problem is that there are different definitions of “macroevolution” and “microevolution” used on the web. The scientifc definitions are just evolution above or below the level of species. The creationist definitions tend to be “evolution I cannot personally accept” and “evolution I can presonally accept”. Science does not use the creationist definitions.

If you spend five minutes looking at a blade of grass then you will not see any growth in that blade of grass. You need to look a lot longer if you want to see the grass growing. For the sort of major evolutionary steps you are asking about we need to use fossils to give us a long enough perspective in time.

Consider the evolution of amphibians from early fish:

  1. *]Start with a fish with fins.
    *]Next a fish with fins on stumps - like modern or fossil Coelacanths.
    *]Next a fish with fins on stumps with both lungs and gills - like a modern or fossil lungfish.
    *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows - Eusthenopteron.
    *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows and wrists/ankles - Tiktaalik.
    *]Next amphibians with lungs, gills and stumps with knees/elbows, wrists/ankles and digits - Acanthostega and others.

    It is also worth noting that palaeontologists were able to predict where and when to find the fossil of Tiktaalik since they already had Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega.

    Evolution has both living examples and fossils. Creationism has nothing. If God created cattle in creation week (Genesis 1:24) then where are your fossil cattle dating back to the origin of life on earth? Where is your evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all land tetrapod species due to a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years? You have no evidence. In science the evidence wins.

    rossum
Click to expand...

  1. That’s a point I was also making, scientists can predict where to find certain fossils in the strata.

    So, in a sense, micro and macro are one in the same? Micro is little steps, macro eventually becomes big steps, as what would be the case in fossil finds like this:

    Start with a fish with fins.

    and then:

    Next a fish with fins on stumps with both lungs and gills - like a modern or fossil lungfish

    In other words, these are macro steps in the fossil record, but they came about through micro sequences, step by step.
 
rossum said:
No. You do not get to redefine words at will. A new species of mosquito is macroevolution. If a new species is involved then it is macroevolution by definition.

Part of the problem is that there are different definitions of “macroevolution” and “microevolution” used on the web. The scientifc definitions are just evolution above or below the level of species. The creationist definitions tend to be “evolution I cannot personally accept” and “evolution I can presonally accept”. Science does not use the creationist definitions.

If you spend five minutes looking at a blade of grass then you will not see any growth in that blade of grass. You need to look a lot longer if you want to see the grass growing. For the sort of major evolutionary steps you are asking about we need to use fossils to give us a long enough perspective in time.

Consider the evolution of amphibians from early fish:

  1. *]Start with a fish with fins.
    *]Next a fish with fins on stumps - like modern or fossil Coelacanths.
    *]Next a fish with fins on stumps with both lungs and gills - like a modern or fossil lungfish.
    *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows - Eusthenopteron.
    *]Next a fish with lungs, gills and fins on stumps with knees/elbows and wrists/ankles - Tiktaalik.
    *]Next amphibians with lungs, gills and stumps with knees/elbows, wrists/ankles and digits - Acanthostega and others.

    It is also worth noting that palaeontologists were able to predict where and when to find the fossil of Tiktaalik since they already had Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega.

    Evolution has both living examples and fossils. Creationism has nothing. If God created cattle in creation week (Genesis 1:24) then where are your fossil cattle dating back to the origin of life on earth? Where is your evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all land tetrapod species due to a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years? You have no evidence. In science the evidence wins.

    rossum
Click to expand...

  1. Hey Rossum, I see you’re a Buddhist. interesting.

    You seem quite respectful here on Catholic Answers. 🙂
 
The_Catholic said:
Hey Rossum, I see you’re a Buddhist. interesting.

You seem quite respectful here on Catholic Answers.
Click to expand...
I do try to be. Buddhism lacks the concept of “sin” but it also lacks the concept of “forgiveness of sin”. In Buddhism you have to be mindful of everything that you do because there is no “Get out of Hell free” card:Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean,
nor in a cave in the mountains,
is there a place where a man
can escape his evil deed.

Dhammapada 9:12
None of the hells are permanent but they are still places to be avoided if possible.

rossum
 
For the record I am not a creationist and accept rational proofs in science.

I can see where new species of a mosquito or dog or any other species can be obtained. I also see breeding with various species as being a way to create a new species such as a lion with tiger.

What I cannot accept is that a fish will be anything but a fish. Or that a single cell organism eventually became a man. There is no proof/evidence or whatever the popular term is, for this.
 
JacktheCatholic said:
What I cannot accept is that a fish will be anything but a fish. Or that a single cell organism eventually became a man. There is no proof/evidence or whatever the popular term is, for this.
Click to expand...
This is a statement of profound ignorance. You should really study the theory of evolution before you make a statement like that. Here are some good things to look at for a start:

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
evolution.berkeley.edu/

You should also check out Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyce.

Better yet, take some basic college-level biology courses.
 
The_Catholic said:
Yes, I understand this, I just worded it poorly, sorry. 😦

I was merely looking at the basics, anotherwords, **amphibians **(creatures which were not around before fish, or the first fish) came from fish. I know that a mere fish cannot simply evolve into an amphibian, it happens through enough genetic change, as you say.

But overall, this is what jackthecatholic was asking. Where can this be observed? Has there been any experiments that have shown this type of evolution, perhaps experiments lasting over 50 years? Bacteria are still bacteria, but amphibians are not “new species of fish,” just as reptiles are not “new species of amphibians.”

The fossil record clearly shows this evolution though, but YEC interpret those transitions as simply other creatures and not intermediete species.
Click to expand...
There’s no way you could observe this over such a blink of an eye as 50 years, even in a population like fruit flies. But since we can observe new species forming in such rapidly-procreating populations, I think the burden of proof is on folks who would say that there’s no way even bigger changes can happen over a much longer period of time, especially when there is indirect evidence that this has happened in the past.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top