Right, but to claim that species-species evolution is “macroevolution” is a joke. Speciation within the genus of Green Warblers is “macroevolution” … just as a dinosaur evolving into a bird is “macroevolution”? LOL!
It’s very useful in AIDS research, for a starter, but I am 100% positive that you will not accept any evidence I give you because you appear to have a fundamentalist religious conviction that you have to deny science.
You expect me study hundreds of studies in a few minutes? That’s a bit rough. And you ignored my question - which one of these hundreds of studies has converted the belief that all life on earth shares a common ancestor into a practical use in applied science? You made the claim that said belief has proven useful, so the onus is on you to back it up with some facts.
I’m not claiming to understand the technicalities of his research, but when he told me that no practical use had resulted from his belief in the common ancestry of humans and chimps, I believed him.
Pray tell - how has it proven useful? I guarantee you are conflating a theory with a practical use in applied science.
Excellent example of a straw man argument, amigo! I never said or implied anything of the sort. The fossil record in fact assists geologists in oil and gas exploration, for example … but don’t get too excited - it is the history of life on earth that has proven useful, not the Darwinian interpretation of that history.
His name is Stephen Schaffner and he works for the Broad Institute (which is connected to MIT and Harvard somehow or other). He has a Ph.D in experimental particle physics but is now a computational biologist involved in genetics research.
How this (unverified, btw) theory proven useful in the treatment of AIDS?
No, I didn’t.
I don’t recall declaring an entire field of study to be a waste of time, but I do recall arguing that the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life has not proven any practical use in applied science.
I moved the goalposts? I don’t think so. This discussion stems from post 6280 in which I argued that “the Darwinian interpretation of the history of life” is useless in any practical, applied sense.
Who is moving the goal-posts now?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Btw, I am not a YEC - I accept that same history and age of life on earth as an evolutionist does.
It is the fossil sequence that has proven useful to geologist - the explanation for that fossil sequence is irrelevant. A geologist could attribute the same fossil sequence to the activity of pixies or alien experiments and still utilise the fossil record just as effectively as a geologist using an evolution model.
No, the predictions are based on known fossil sequences. The explanation for those fossil sequences is irrelevant. In fact, a geologist needs no explanation for the fossil sequences.
There is a particular pattern - it is revealed by the fossil record. All the geologist has to do is accept the pattern - he doesn’t need an explanation for the pattern.
So, every dictionary of the English language is a joke?
It’s not clear whether these are models or reconstructions using the actual bones of individual creatures who once walked this earth. At any rate, the history comes in when we build a story around them. If you are to gain anything from these discussions hopefully it will at least be that you accept the fact that no matter what you say, people will have a different perspective on what happened at the beginning of time. Same scientific facts, same truth, but different paradigms. You may resort to sarcasm towards the people you disagree with, out of frustration I suppose, but that will not move anyone closer to your position. I do get why you think this represents evolutionary change. In either case it is a mystery, one that is far better explained by creation.Well you can posit these conversations to the introduction of a soul if you want, but that doesn’t really speak to the biological history.
Human nature is an aspect of our soul. To express itself in time and space, a brain is required. Our capacities may in some part be associated with brain size but are more tied to the amount of grey matter, the number of neuronal connections and the speed with which they communicate. That organization forms such experiences as that which is happening here, including visual phenomena such as colours, brightness, and shapes, along with all the other sensations, like the pressure of the chair on the body, which we don’t attend to unless some cue directs us to it. There are these words which immediately become nonsense if a specific artery were to become blocked. Of course it is our relational soul that connects us to those elements of the monitor and the rest of the world through our senses and intellect. It’s more complicatedly simple than we might imagine and it would help to sort out our origins to know who we are. Trying to grasp how all this has transpired contemplating bony 3D jigsaw puzzles in the form of skulls can point us in the right or wrong directions; either way it doesn’t begin to scratch the surface.
There is intraspecies evolution, clearly, but no change of one kind of being into another. We are not a complex molecule in other words, although we are composed of atoms. Lot’s of plants and animals have vanished. Some remain, and according to evolutionary theory would continue to bring forth ever more complex life forms, which we have not witnessed. I wouldn’t see the point of God making it look like the earth is flat or that everything revolves around the earth, nor do I consider these ways to understand the world around us as attempts by God to deceive us.