This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

ATTN: Christians who believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

#1DiranosaurPosted 5/24/2011 12:02:18 PM
You do realize that macroevolution is just microevolution, but over a longer time, right?
Humans define which animals belong to which species, so when an animal has changed enough from it's ancestor, we give it a new name.
---
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/
#2arian487Posted 5/24/2011 12:04:15 PM
Diranosaur posted...
You do realize that macroevolution is just microevolution, but over a longer time, right?
Humans define which animals belong to which species, so when an animal has changed enough from it's ancestor, we give it a new name.


No, evolution can only happen within a 'kind'. Meaning a horse can't turn into a duck or something, but a horse can change in size and features over the years while still retaining its basic horse like features. These initial kinds were what God created.
---
x - (x^3 / 3!) + (x^5 / 5!) - (x^7 / 7!) + ... = sinx
4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) = PI
#3kozlo100Posted 5/24/2011 12:10:54 PM
You do realize that macroevolution is just microevolution, but over a longer time, right?

Just out of curiosity, how likely do you think it is that you're the first person to ask this question of any given member of your target audience? What do you expect the answer to be?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#4sthaterPosted 5/24/2011 12:10:59 PM

From: arian487 | Posted: 5/24/2011 12:04:15 PM | #002
No, evolution can only happen within a 'kind'. Meaning a horse can't turn into a duck or something, but a horse can change in size and features over the years while still retaining its basic horse like features. These initial kinds were what God created.


And what's funny is that if things really worked the way that creationists seem to think they do then it should be a very simple process to outline every single "kind" of animal through phylogenetics if that's how things actually work. And yet this hasn't been done quite curious eh?
---
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666
#5Diranosaur(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2011 12:13:35 PM
arian487 posted...
No, evolution can only happen within a 'kind'. Meaning a horse can't turn into a duck or something, but a horse can change in size and features over the years while still retaining its basic horse like features. These initial kinds were what God created.

There were no horses back when there were dinosaurs, but I'm going to guess that you also believe that the earth is just 6000 years old.

You can cross-breed many subspecies and create new animals (most of them sterile). I mind you, evolution is a very very long process. If you believe that the earth is just 6000 years old however, despite that all evidence says the earth is older, then it would be impossible to discuss evolution with you.
---
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/
#6arian487Posted 5/24/2011 12:14:56 PM
sthater posted...
From: arian487 | Posted: 5/24/2011 12:04:15 PM | #002
No, evolution can only happen within a 'kind'. Meaning a horse can't turn into a duck or something, but a horse can change in size and features over the years while still retaining its basic horse like features. These initial kinds were what God created.

And what's funny is that if things really worked the way that creationists seem to think they do then it should be a very simple process to outline every single "kind" of animal through phylogenetics if that's how things actually work. And yet this hasn't been done quite curious eh?


Scientists are bent on their theories being correct, so no one is doing the right searches. If anyone bothered to really look, they'd see that no kind has ever evolved into another kind.
---
x - (x^3 / 3!) + (x^5 / 5!) - (x^7 / 7!) + ... = sinx
4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) = PI
#7Diranosaur(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2011 12:15:31 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Just out of curiosity, how likely do you think it is that you're the first person to ask this question of any given member of your target audience? What do you expect the answer to be?

Not very likely. I'm sure it's a quite common question. I don't know what to expect, some will probably try to give good arguments against it, some will realize their faults and some will just plain try to avoid answering.
---
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/
#8sthaterPosted 5/24/2011 12:18:52 PM

From: arian487 | Posted: 5/24/2011 12:14:56 PM | #006
Scientists are bent on their theories being correct, so no one is doing the right searches. If anyone bothered to really look, they'd see that no kind has ever evolved into another kind.


Considering that there is a wealth of info on animal genomes out there for public use it seems extremely curious that so-called creation scientists have not tried to make use of that. If animals could be separated into "kinds" using phylogenetics that would be enough to disprove evolution to me.
---
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666
#9Diranosaur(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2011 12:24:47 PM(edited)
arian487 posted...
Scientists are bent on their theories being correct, so no one is doing the right searches. If anyone bothered to really look, they'd see that no kind has ever evolved into another kind.

If you bothered to read scientific reports, you'd know that speciation have both been observed and been artificially created. It's funny that you mention horses as an example of it not happening, because transitional fossiles have been found for horses and it's predecessors.

Also, why would a horse evolve into a duck? The split was made long ago. It's not like horses became ducks, it's like a common ancestor was split in different species, one became horses after a very long time and one became ducks after a very long time. We're talking about millions of years. Scientists conclude that the split in the evolution between humans and chimpanzees was made over 4 million years ago, for example. It's not like chimpanzees evolved into humans, like many Christians think scientist believe.
---
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/
#10arian487Posted 5/24/2011 12:23:16 PM
Alright sorry guys, I don't believe in that crap I just said. I was just trying to put my mind in the mind of a creationist. I was just trolling. I'm an atheist and I'm all for evolution (and understand it better then the average guy).

Sorry TC, I thought you would have known me from the forum.
---
x - (x^3 / 3!) + (x^5 / 5!) - (x^7 / 7!) + ... = sinx
4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) = PI