Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I noticed Junior trying to tell you earlier on this very thread.
What did he say?
Are you trying to claim this as a real-world barrier? What is the gore3000 definition of macroevolution? How much new complexity? How many new genes? What sort of new faculties?
You'd have more of a point if ID was producing some sort of informative content. Say, if the Discovery Institute actually discovered something. But all they do is try to make what we do know go away.
Well's essay on homology, on a more careful reading, is a typical creationist excursus with the usual melange of quotes, gaps, and controversies. A capsule summary, "It's all a house of cards, so there's room for design!"
You have described how you think a mutation, once occurred, might spread in a population. Such an attempt, however poorly conceived, is a model. Yours is a poor one.
No it is not a model. And all your nonsense about recessive genes just shows your ignorance. Both dominant and recessive genes have an equal chance of being passed on to the next generation (another thing the charlatan Darwin did not know and of course ignored). The passing of genes is random from each allele of each parent regardless of whether a gene is dominant or recessive. The difference between a recessive gene and a dominant gene comes in when it is expressed in the progeny. In a recessive gene you need both genes passed on to the progeny to have the recessive gene for it to be expressed in the individual. In a dominant gene you only need one allele of it in the individual.
I am not surprised that you try to dismiss genetics as having to do anything with evolution. However, evolutionists have been forced to deal with it. That was the reason for the split in evolutionism between Neo-Darwinians, Punk-Eeks(Gould & Eldredge) , and Genetic Drifters (Kirmura). The split over genetic drift (mutations are spread completely at random without the help of selection) came from the realization that it was virtually impossible for small mutations to spread throughout a species because of the halving each time a new progeny is born. Punk-eek also recognizes this and that is why it states that speciation occurs in small isolated populations. It is easier for a gene to spread when individuals in a species are marrying their sisters.
Excuse me? I do not dismiss genetics. I dismiss simplistic, strawman models designed to fail.
Like all evolutionists, you try to create confusion. Homo is the genus of man hence homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neanderthalis. These are different species in the same genus. They are called different species because they could not produce progeny with each other. Primates is a higher classification than both species and genus, it is an order. So no, it is not the same thing as the examples given. The examples given were in some cases just sub-species, in other cases species. None were of a different genus. So no, they are not examples of macro-evolution. They are just examples of the garbage that evolutionists try to pass off as proof of their theory.
They are not a new genus, they are not even a new species. From BMCDA's post to be found at #808 of this thread:
Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.
In summary, you have yet to give an example of macro-evolution on this thread. Keep trying though, maybe in another 150 years you will find one.
I answered you already. We cannot do better with all our science than what the eye does. When we can (if ever), perhaps we can criticize how the eye was made, not before. Can you do better? No. Then don't criticize what you don't know about.
Note that the same article says specifically that the populations where the ring rejoins meet every definition of being a separate species. More creationist quote science! You just took the one sentence you wanted.
Ostrich head-in-the-sand democrat--lawyer on the words
Think wonderful thoughts--reality will go away
Own definitions making up--Help f.Christian I'm no good at this!
Sir, evolution with atheism is ‘trying’ to make the what we have always known go away. And you throw out terms like ‘typical creationist’ as if there is no need to pay attention to anything they say. Am I a ‘typical creationist’?
You were kind enough to share a brief history about yourself so if you will – my turn. I currently design circuit cards, brew beer, can play pool with the best, and can beat most in darts with my eyes closed. I am a partner in a surf shop and my wife runs a company that puts her on the road quite often – even during 9/11 – which led me to this site because it was by far the best source of information.
I don’t know what a ‘typical creationist’ is – do you? Designing circuit cards causes one to look at the big picture as well as the intricate details. I must also work with every facet of the organization.
I do believe on the issue of evolution without ID - we will have to agree to disagree. And, not to apply a fatalist or fire and brimstone perspective, but time will surly tell.
In the salamander example you gave, scientists do not call them different species. The person who wrote the article seems to think so, but scientists at large have not yet considered them to be different species. So they clearly are not an example of macro-evolution.
As to where I draw the line, I have said it a few times on this thread (though not directly to you): Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus.
As to my reasons for drawing the line there see post#1175.
Here's the short answer: because paleontology is bunk. Let's take one of the things paleontologists believe in classifying fossils: brain size. They keep saying that a larger skull shows a higher order species. This is ridiculous of course, hippos, elephants and whales have much larger skulls than humans yet none of them has built rocket ships or gone to the moon. (BTW they are following the charlatan Darwin in making this unwarranted assumption).
It's the thinking that's all narrow. The arguments are the passed around, complete with the original typos. Think I'm joking? Watch this!
A Web Search on "boy from Tukana". ("Tukana" is "Turkana" misspelled.)
You are supposing a lot and your explanation is all gobbledygook. Use your so called theory if you like, but answer the question: why did the coelacanth stop evolving, stop mutating for 400 million years (note also that it did not de-volve either). One thing you also need to explain about your fantastic theory is how the parameters for a particular species are measured as well as how the formulas were derived and tested.
You know Junior, your famous list-o-links as well as your "Ultimate Resource" has plenty of articles on macro-evolution. I am really surprised that you make that claim. In addition, I posted to you why macro-evolution is a valid distinction and exactly where the line is drawn between micro-and macro-evolution. You can see it again in my reposting to Vade in post#1175.
Seriously though, I am by no means a conspiracy theorist, but you must also keep in perspective the liberal academia that this evolution stuff is from. To admit one is wrong at this point could be costly.
Everybody has an agenda – you cannot debate someone who doesn’t.
Aaaah! Another advocate of the theory of coevolution! Perhaps you can tell us how that theory works (other than to say it works, other than to say 'because I am an atheist and the answer to a question can never be God'). Another person on this thread seemed to believe in that novel theory but was totally unable to explain it. Perhaps you can do better. Of course, if you claim it is science, you will need to give scientific proof of it, a few examples of macro-co-evolution would be nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.