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

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. ATTN: Christians who believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
8 years ago#51
hunter_gohan posted...
OrangeWizard posted...
That's called death. I'm sure you're familiar with all the fatal mutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So in all of those observed instances of macro evolution, they really just saw stuff die is what you're saying? Because macro evolution = speciation. From wiki:

"The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species.""



Do you know who classifies things as new species? Taxonomists. They look at it and say "Yeah, sounds good to me, what do you want to name it?"

But, from the first example on that link, some kind of lavender plant, it's still a lavender plant.

Just because some taxonomist can point out some arbitrary difference between one lavender plant and another, does not mean that the human race came from single-celled organisms.

That would be like pointing out the difference between a poodle and a dalmatian, and then calling them new species.

sthater posted...
From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:20:03 PM | #046
I'm not claiming that. I'm simply claiming that macro-evolution doesn't exist
Really because I'm pretty sure I remember you claiming that other species all "take after their kind" as said by the bible. What do you claim in place of this then?


The only thing I'm claiming, as of now, is that evolution does not exist.
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops

User Info: sthater

sthater
8 years ago#52

From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:32:18 PM | #051
The only thing I'm claiming, as of now, is that evolution does not exist.


So you're making that claim but without any alternative... I seem to remember someone saying something about standing in a house with no foundation.
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
8 years ago#53
sthater posted...
From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:32:18 PM | #051
The only thing I'm claiming, as of now, is that evolution does not exist.
So you're making that claim but without any alternative... I seem to remember someone saying something about standing in a house with no foundation.


God did it, obviously. I didn't think I would have needed to say that. Would you also like me to tell you that the sky is blue?
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops

User Info: sthater

sthater
8 years ago#54

From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:36:35 PM | #053
God did it, obviously. I didn't think I would have needed to say that. Would you also like me to tell you that the sky is blue?


So then you are claiming creationism.
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666

User Info: TheLesserFaithX

TheLesserFaithX
8 years ago#55
It wasn't God.

It was Thor.
Evolution is a scientific fact with tons of conclusive evidence.
Here is a shortened link to a Google Doc that compiles said evidence: http://goo.gl/hWwzO

User Info: hunter_gohan

hunter_gohan
8 years ago#56
OrangeWizard posted...
Do you know who classifies things as new species? Taxonomists. They look at it and say "Yeah, sounds good to me, what do you want to name it?"

The fact that there is no hard and fast split between species is evidence of evolution. It is what we would expect if evolution were true, and the complete opposite of what we would expect if everything was created in completely separate kinds.

But, from the first example on that link, some kind of lavender plant, it's still a lavender plant.

Good, because evolution would be falsified if it wasn't. It's still a lavender plant just like you're still a metabolic organism, a eukaryote, an animal, a chordate, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a synapsid, a mammal, a eutherian, a primate, and yes you are still an ape.

The "You Are an Ape" post of the month May 2003 by Aron-Ra:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html

A very excellent post if you haven't read it before.

Just because some taxonomist can point out some arbitrary difference between one lavender plant and another, does not mean that the human race came from single-celled organisms.

Of course not, this is evidence for evolution. There is entirely separate evidence for the theory of Common Descent.

That would be like pointing out the difference between a poodle and a dalmatian, and then calling them new species.

The fact that creationists acknowledge that we got poodles, dalmatians, and all sorts of other from wolves yet still deny evolution is simply mind boggling to me.

Most breeds of dogs have only been around for less than 400 years. Less than 400 years got us this:

http://tinyurl.com/3f7f9cp

and this:

http://tinyurl.com/3olu9p6

If they aren't different species now, they will be eventually.

The only thing I'm claiming, as of now, is that evolution does not exist.


Yes, I have noticed people that know little to nothing about evolution think it doesn't exist.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
8 years ago#57
sthater posted...
From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:36:35 PM | #053
God did it, obviously. I didn't think I would have needed to say that. Would you also like me to tell you that the sky is blue?
So then you are claiming creationism.


If creationism means "God created the heavens and the earth" yes.

But it doesn't, creationism means more than that. Please do not put words in my mouth.
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops

User Info: sthater

sthater
8 years ago#58

From: OrangeWizard | Posted: 5/24/2011 2:57:26 PM | #057
If creationism means "God created the heavens and the earth" yes.

But it doesn't, creationism means more than that. Please do not put words in my mouth.


Indeed there are many separate stances you could take there. You may be a young earth creationist or you may be an old earth creationist.
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
8 years ago#59
hunter_gohan posted...

The fact that there is no hard and fast split between species is evidence of evolution. It is what we would expect if evolution were true, and the complete opposite of what we would expect if everything was created in completely separate kinds.


There is a hard split. We can't mate with apes and create offspring, can we?


Good, because evolution would be falsified if it wasn't.

I wasn't aware that evolution says "Things don't actually change at all."

The "You Are an Ape" post of the month May 2003 by Aron-Ra:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html

A very excellent post if you haven't read it before.

Why am I an ape, but not a single-celled organism, or a tadpole?

Of course not, this is evidence for evolution. There is entirely separate evidence for the theory of Common Descent.

Oh, well the latter is what I'm talking about.

I like how people use the former to prove the latter, even though they have entirely separate evidences.

The fact that creationists acknowledge that we got poodles, dalmatians, and all sorts of other from wolves yet still deny evolution is simply mind boggling to me.

Because they're all dogs. We just arbitrarily group them up.


If they aren't different species now, they will be eventually.


Call me when that happens.
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops

User Info: hunter_gohan

hunter_gohan
8 years ago#60
OrangeWizard posted...

There is a hard split. We can't mate with apes and create offspring, can we?

There isn't though. As to your question, possibly we're not sure:

"The humanzee (also known as the Chuman or Manpanzee) is a hypothetical chimpanzee/human hybrid. Chimpanzees and humans are very closely related (95% of their DNA sequence, and 99% of coding DNA sequences are in common[1]), leading to contested speculation that a hybrid is possible, though no specimen has ever been confirmed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

Ethical concerns prevent us from finding out though.

But there are plenty of examples where we do know that two separate species can interbreed. Lions and tiger, two separate species produce a Liger or a Tigon if they breed.

http://lion_roar.tripod.com/Liger_Tigon.html

A horse and a donkey(again two separate species) produce a mule, a quite well known animal that is actually intentionally breed because they are stronger than horses and can pull heavier loads. I assume you don't need a link for a mule?

This would be flat out impossible if Creationism was true.

I wasn't aware that evolution says "Things don't actually change at all."

No, it says the child will always be the same species as the parents. You will never get a dog giving birth to a cat or any other ridiculous example. The only way you would see that would be if evolution is false.

Why am I an ape, but not a single-celled organism, or a tadpole?

Hmm troll yes I'm seeing that. Count your cells, stop after you reach two. And you're not a tadpole because your parents weren't frogs.

Edit:Why don't you tell me whether or not you're an ape, here's an excerpt from the PotM I linked before:

"You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you."

Does that match your characteristics or not? If that doesn't describe you, then you can't be human either.

Oh, well the latter is what I'm talking about.

This thread is not about common descent, it's about evolution.

I like how people use the former to prove the latter, even though they have entirely separate evidences.

Sometimes people do silly stuff.

Call me when that happens.

IMHO the only reason they aren't already considered separate species is because we breed them. If we found them in the wild we would have no problem at all labeling them as separate species.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. ATTN: Christians who believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution.
  • Topic Archived