In order for a bird to evolve from a dinoasaur, for example, a lot more than speciation with a genus is required., otherwise a genus will remain the same genus. At the very least therefore, macroevolution requires the evolution of one genus into a different genus. To claim that speciation within a genus is “macrovevolution” is an intelligence-insulting joke … probably born of a desperation to delude oneself that “Macroevolution really happens! We can see it!”Another thing I learned from this thread is that “macroevolution” is simply defined as “whatever level of evolution a creationist can plausibly pretend doesn’t happen”
Wrong. Get your basic facts straight.In order for a bird to evolve from a dinoasaur, for example, a lot more than speciation with a genus is required., otherwise a genus will remain the same genus. At the very least therefore, macroevolution requires the evolution of one genus into a different genus. To claim that speciation within a genus is “macrovevolution” is an intelligence-insulting joke … probably born of a desperation to delude oneself that “Macroevolution really happens! We can see it!”Another thing I learned from this thread is that “macroevolution” is simply defined as “whatever level of evolution a creationist can plausibly pretend doesn’t happen”
As i stated before, the predictions are based on known fossil sequences. An explanation for how these sequences came to be is unnecessary. A geologist could believe the fossils sequences are the result of alien experiments or the activity of fairies, and still make the same predictions based on them that an evolutionist geologist could.The history of life as revealed by fossils is incomplete due to how rare fossilization is. Evolutionary theory predicts how the gaps can be filled. Successfully, I might add. It allows us to predict if we dig in this place, in this layer, what kind of fossils we will find
This is a nothing post. Explain what you mean.Wrong. Get your basic facts straight.
The history of life on earth is one of creation, yet many of those doing geology may believe in evolution. The story that it’s cast in doesn’t matter to the actual science involved.the history of life on earth
Since that’s not the case with me, I’m thinking this is an example of projection.They think it’s a threat. As such they’ll never give the theory a shot. For them, the sun still goes around the earth.
Exactly, but try telling that to our indoctrinated evo-brethren! Any scientific articles and papers they read are written according to the Darwinist paradigm and this creates the illusion that that is the only paradigm that makes sense of what is observed. This myopic, “closed shop” situation in science is, in effect, a recipe for brainwashing.The history of life on earth is one of creation, yet many of those doing geology may believe in evolution. The story that it’s cast in doesn’t matter to the actual science involved.
Point 1. Straw man alert! You have conflated the claim that “evolution” is useless with the claim that “evolution” is false. I’ve never claimed that “evolution” is false because it is useless.You guys should go to Life or Cell and tell them that evolution is totally useless and false and pointless, this will come as big news. I expect to see your Nobel prizes in the next year or so. Congrats!
The problem here is with evolutions lack of a specific meaning. If it means manipulating the genome to create a mutated phenotype, then it is used. If we mean that we are going to create Some sort of master race, it’s nonsense. We can breed smart mice and dumb mice, but no mouse with a rational soul.t’s only the forms of evolution that you don’t like that are not useful
Point 1. This sounds suspiciously like yet another straw man - my post made no claim at all about what evolutionary theory says.ToE doesn’t say species will “evolve from one genus into another.” That’s a very basic misunderstanding of the theory. Maybe that’s your problem, you don’t understand what you’re talking about at all.
This opinion has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that the information that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor has no practical use in applied science. Even if all life on earth DID IN FACT evolve from a common ancestor, that information would still be useless to applied science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with forms of evolution that I “don’t like”.Gotcha, so it’s only the forms of evolution that you don’t like that are not useful.
This is joke, right?Gravity as it applies to everything on earth or anything that touches humans is great, but gravity that affects Pluto or Alpha Centauri is a useless waste of time mythology and anyone who believes in gravity applying to all mass is a dumb brainwashed idiot, is that right?
But natural selection is a slave to environmental conditons, which are random. So doesn’t this means the process overall is random?think that evolution as a whole is random. The underlying chemistry is not random. Random mutations are indeed random, but natural selection is not. It is not random that a well camouflaged organism has a better chance of reproducing than a less well camouflaged organism. Overall the process is not random.
That 's not what I meant. If speciation is macroevolution, then macroevolution is observable in real time. Hence, according to their word games, evolutionists can claim “macroevolution” (which is really just microevolution) is a “fact”.It happens very, very, very slowly. Or so we’re told.