Evolution thread.

Such as? They may be taught evolution but it doesn't mean they use evolution.

How so? If anything a grasp on micro evolution should give you a boost in that study. The microbe isn't gonna turn into a dog in a few generations. It's still a microbe.

And how does this relates to macro evolution?

 

There limits to everything we see in nature. Steel has a strength limit. Rubberbands have a stretching limit. Everything has a limit. It's the reason why horse can't grow to be the size if Texas. The question should be why genetic mutation is the only thing that DOESN'T have a limit.

 

I don't take out multiple amounts of around $9,000 in the same day, so, no, I don't structure.

Of course they did it on purpose. You don't take out amounts of less than $9000 44 times accidentially. Taking out $30 is not structuring.

The law says that employers are required to take the money out of the checks, so that's not a defense. I don't understand how "Christians" can defend such lying, cheating and fraud. I live in Pensacola, and followed the case. The Hovinds were convicted of 58 counts of tax fraud. They went to prison for it.

 

Can you prove that reading the script?

Here's the tax code for churches. Please show me where did Hovind went wrong.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

Wait a minute, are you on/was on survivalist boards?

 

Evolution is not some separate topic - it is a foundation of all biology. It permeates the field.

Listing individual cases is ludicrous, because it is throughout all biology.

Yes, what we refer to as macroevolution doesn't happen in a few generations. But, that certainly doesn't mean that microevolution is the limit of what is interesting to medicine.

 

Such as? If evolution is such a foundation to biology then why was it a Christian who founded long before evolution became popular?

At least name one.

So how does macro evolution comes into play?

 

We don't have horses the size of Texas because of physics and the evolutionary principles of competition, efficiency, etc.

Today, we have horses and donkeys which came from a common ancestor.

There was nothing to block that macroevolution.

 

And here's a site totally debunking your site: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Oh, and it is one the premier universities in the country.

 

Yes, many of those who developed the theory of evolution were Christians.

What's your point?

 

First off, horses and donkeys are an example of micro evolution. Second there are limits to the gene pool. You haven't demonstrated that it doesn't have limits. There's a reason why people say "it's at the end of the gene pool".

 

The two main objections I saw was dark matter and the redshift. With dark matter the site itself gave an alternative explanation to it. Gravity is stronger on larger bodies. With redshift I think this video explains it nicely.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kEMH-QQI-tU?autoplay=1&FORM=VIRE1&PC=APPM

- - - Updated - - -

Biology isn't a part of evolution nor does it need it. Can you demonstrate how evolution plays into biology by one example?

 

Creationists think there’s some kind of magic barrier between “macro-evolution” and “micro-evolution.” Those terms, and the magic barrier between them, are all creationist inventions. The magic barrier, of course, is the reason they need the magic Designer, who is able to overcome the barrier to provide the evidence we see that life evolved naturally over eons.

If there were such a barrier (for which there is no evidence), then there could be no long sequence of evolutionary changes, no Tree of Life, and we’d be left with magically created “kinds,” as in the tale of Noah’s Ark. So it’s very much in the interest of creationists to keep alive the myth of a distinction between what they term micro-evolution, which they can’t avoid accepting, and macro-evolution, which,despite the abundant evidence of the fossil record,they dogmatically reject.

The creationists’ magic barrier claim has two prongs. The first is that understandable, testable, natural processes that are verifiably seen to occur somehow don’t continue to occur when no one is looking.

The second prong is that such processes certainly didn’t happen before anyone was looking. The core of this denial is that if they don’t see something happen, or if no one saw it happen, then it didn’t happen, notwithstanding the fossil record, which is evidence that it did happen. (This imaginary problem is resolved, however, by the mysterious activities of their imaginary Designer.)

 

They are both of genus Equus, but they are not of the same species because they can not interbreed to form animals able to breed.

Thus they are separate species - the definition of macroevolution.

 

Yes, this is one of the big problems with the Noah nonsense.

Creationists end up suggesting there are "kinds" from which all current animals derived. However, the number of "kinds" they require must either be huge (thus requiring less from post-Noah evolution, but precluding living on the ark) or there are few "kinds" in which case the power of evolution is shown to be enormous.

And, yes, the wonderful aspect of raw belief in a god is that one can postulate absolutely any form of magic one wants.

Gravity can become no more than god moving objects according to His will. God can create photons arriving at earth to fool astronomers. etc.

This all derives from the motivated reasoning of deciding the Bible is a physics document and then making up stuff to match.

 

Macro evolution deals with different families coming from one ancestor of which you have yet to prove.

 

You never demonstrated that families can come from one ancestor.

How does the fossil record prove evolution? You can't prove it had different children.

If your only evidence for macro evolution is the fossil record then how do you know they're related?

 

The estimate for how many animals in the ark following the Bibical guidelines is about 8000. Plenty of room for a boat the size of three football fields.

 

The real issue is not prodding into Evolution as the dominant theory for the development of life on the planet you need an alternative that can actually challenge it. Now your debating Creationism as that alternative however the time frames involved discount the evidence for both an ancient universe and a long period of evolutionary processes.

Astronomy discounts a young universe using simple physics the speed of light is a constant and that alone would suffice.

The fossil record, DNA and simple archeology demonstrates evolution and the movement of the human line from Africa to the rest of the world and our ancestors are documented especially Neanderthals. All well past the 10,000 year old Earth mark.

So to counter that you need to explain away to much and further replace it with a better theory which your not doing,

 

We're not discussing the age of the earth, we're discussing micro and macro evolution. However to address your argument here's a couple of articles on this.

http://www.icr.org/article/distant-starlight-big-bang

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/

How does the fossil record and DNA prove evolution?

 

Now you are changing the definition of macroevolution.

I don't accept your definition. But, I doubt you do either.

For example, Family Hominidae includes both humans and gorillas.

And, I think you will agree that there are significant differences between humans and gorillas.

 

Getting from 8,000 to what we have today would include massive evolution.

And, suggesting that is a refutation of the theory of evolution is nonsense.

Of course, this is not anywhere near the end of the problems with the ark story. So, it makes no sense to take this story that is so full of holes as some sort of indication of how biology works.

 

I don't think humans and gorillas should be considered in the same family. Actually I don't think they are. They're considered primates but not hominidea. So what is your definition of macro evolution?

 

That wasn't meant to be a refutation of macro evolution, just addressing the objection to the story of Noah. Btw, getting all the defferent species from 8000 is far more conceivable than getting those 8000 from a rock.