|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shane
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
 |
|
On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:09:12 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
| Quote: |
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1ft5vjz8r5nxb$.pv5cu2vdut1p.dlg@40tude.net...
On Fri, 09 May 2008 06:46:35 -0400, John Vreeland, wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:15:30 +1000, Shane <remarcsd@Netscape.net
opined:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 03:54:37 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: |
Hypothetically, what does Susanne think her religion would be if she
had been born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents?
I think it is quite clear that she believes she would be a christian.
She, apparently, believes that the feelings she has are real and are the
result of a real entity instilling them within her. She seems to further
believe that the exact same feelings in a muslim are either not real and
thus nothing to do with any real entitiy, or are somne counterfeit put
there by the adversary of her entity.
I do believe what you say in the first two sentences.
I do not believe anyone would have the same experience
in the Muslim situation. They may have an experience,
but it would not be the same experience. I will be happy
to explain why. The God of the Bible acknowledges that
Jesus is his only begotten Son. The Koran recognizes
Jesus as only a prophet, and not the Son of Allah.
Therefore, I would say that Allah and God of the Bible
are not the same.
|
And this position disagrees with what I posted how, exactly?
The bit about Jesus the son is irrelevant to my post and in
no way supports your conclusion that
muslims cannot thave the same experience as you.
Why cannot the exact same circumstances exist for a muslim?
Was it a unique set of physical circimstances, temperature,
cloudiness, people around you, the colour of your shoes, and
the amount of money in your purse? Or do the physical
circumstances have nothing to do with it?
Was it a unique set of emotions that a muslim could not
have? and how do you know they could not have them? Is there
a difference between the love a muslim mother feels for her
newborn and the love a christian mother feels in the same
circumstances? and how do you know there is a difference?
Was it some supernatural circumstances that deny a muslim
the possibility of having the experience? Again I would ask,
how do you know that they cannot feel what you feel.
Given that you apparently accept that there is only one god,
and even Paul suggested to the Greeks that the unknown god
they worshipped was the one and only god, isn't Allah in
that case merely another facet of the the one and only god
in exactly the same manner? particularly given that muslims
directly identify him as the same god as the god of A, I &
J?
Are you further suggesting that your god, who, I assume you
accept, can do all things, is not capable of having a muslim
experience the same things as you merely because one aspect
of their belief does not align with yours?
If a muslim cannot experience the same thing as you because
they do not accept Jesus is the son of god, under what basis
dos your epiphany have any significance, as it is apparently
the experience that brought you to the conclusion that jesus
was the son of god, and thus you had the experience without
the belief, and yet you seem to be denying the same benefit
to a muslim in the same circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Shane
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:15:30 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
| Quote: |
"Shane" <remarcsd@Netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1tspkt9p4bm7x.1qoy80v2wluaj$.dlg@40tude.net...
|
[...]
| Quote: |
Then her testimony is contradictory. She didn't know him, she knew a
feeling that she later had identified to her bat another person.
I don't agree. She said she knew him. After she could
communicate and when Annie went with her to some
place where someone was telling all about Jesus, and
after she had learned to speak, Annie was spelling into
Helen's hand what the speaker was saying. Suddenly,
Helen jumped up and outloud exclaimed "I knew him!
I knew him! I just didn't know his name!" What the
person was describing was the description of Jesus'
nature. It sounds to me and to others that she really
did know him - personally - as a very real presence in
her heart and mind.
|
And what about that story tells us that if the speaker had been talking
about Allah that HK would not have identified him as the source of her
feelings?
| Quote: |
How can anything be any
clearer?
It is very clear. You are reading more into her testimony than is
actually there.
Quite the contrary, it's the opposite...
I'm just going by what she actually said. I have no
opinion further than what she said. Since she said
that she knew him, that's enough for me.
|
Its not enough for me, and as I have said all the way through this
discussion why is Jesus apparently able to instill all sorts of feeongs
into people, but not his name, especially since his name is more
important thatn the feelings?
| Quote: |
No one could communicate with her when
this happened. During that time, she didn't know how
to communicate, and the people around her also did
not know how to get through to her. But eventually
Annie Sullivan did, but that took a long time. You
sound like you don't know her life story.
You appear like you are seeing only what you want to and not what is
there. As further evidence of this we will examine, a little further
down, your refusal to see the plain words of the Koran.
No, I'm not seeing only what I want to see. I'm seeing
only what she verbally and literally said. The K. has nothing
to do with it.
|
I agree that the Koran itself does not, but your refusal to acknowledge
that the Koran says something that you specifically said it did not is
very much something to do with this discussion.
[...]
| Quote: |
Shane, no. Allah does not have a Holy Spirit that he
places in a person who puts their trust in God.
How do you know, and further how could you possibly know, this?
OK...now listen to me and I will put a spotlight
on my thoughts concerning the verse that you
said the K. says. This is exactly what went through
my mind concerning this..
As I read the Koran, the Holy Spirit "spoke" to me
about it. That means that he brought thoughts into
my mind that were from him. He reminded me of the
biblical word "love" and what it means. He brought
to my mind what I did express already to you about
the word "love" as it was used in the K. about what
A. was to have said, and that is that he would love
someone *if* they followed him. The Lord through
the Holy Spirit then brought to mind that Satan
said the same thing nearly to Jesus at the "Temptation."
He said to Jesus "All the kingdoms of the world will
I give you, if you will bow down and worship me."
A. is claiming "I will love you *if.*" The Lord then
brought thoughts into my mind that he loves us
unconditionally and with a selfless kind of love, which
is an agape kind of love. Agape is the ultimate form
of the word love in the Greek. The biblical kind of love,
which God has for us is the Agape kind. Ergo, although
the K. says that A. *will* love you *if*...that is not
what the Bible describes as love. It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
|
Where in any of that is an answer to either of the two questions I
asked? And why do you consider that what you claim to have experienced
whilst reading the bible or the koran does not happen when a muslim
reads either?
And finally under what basis do you consider that Allah does not love in
the Agape manner?
| Quote: |
Why do you think in such negative
terms about people?
Well for a start, you have demonstrated elsethread that you
play fast and loose with the truth and that you move
goalposts. Those sorts of thing tend to colour my judgement
of people somewhat.
I have not moved any goal posts, you have. You say
one thing, then you add to it later. You said you'd like
to know of a person that the Lord got through to that
had not been told about him by another person. HK is
such a person.
Here is my second response to you in this thread. Note it includes what
you ignore, the appeal for the person to also know the name of jesus
without any outside influence--something the HK story fails to provide.
I think that what she said does show what you
asked for and I think it shows it very well. I'm
sorry that you don't understand her words which
I believe were so clear.
|
They are clear, they explicitly state that she had a feeling but no
name. I repeat that right from my second post in this thread. I have
asked why the name is apparently never communicated untiol after contact
is made with a person or a bible?
| Quote: |
----------------------
So how come there is not one extant story of a native christian
preceding a bible or a missionary into a newly discovered country?
The story of Helen Keller does fill the bill for this
example. She was not in a foreign country, but she
was completely in a darkened world completely
enclosed and not able to comprehend the people
around her at all, for years.
|
I beg to differ. Under what basis was she a christian? Did she pray, did
she acknowledge jesus as her personal saviour, did she have any concept
of those matters that comprise christianity--baptism, consectration,
grace, the symbols of bread and wine, etc. etc. etc.
| Quote: |
Why
does it seem that Jesus manifests himself only to those previously or
newly exposed to the bible/christianity.
I don't think it's true that he does that. However,
when possible he expects people who are his
children to tell others about him, as Peter does
in Acts, chapter 2, to the people present at
Pentecost that were not believers. He leads some
to be missionaries, so he wants us to take part in
sharing the gospel with the whole world.
|
Why does he need missionaries?
| Quote: |
Whilst I am familiar with the
thinking behind your response, you have comprehensively failed to answer
my questions.
I answered you. You just didn't accept what
things I've said to you.
|
You responded, that does not necessarily mean you answered.
| Quote: |
What about the experience would lead someone who has never heard of
Jesus, the bible or christianity to conclude that certain events inAt
their life were designed to lead them to someone they have never heard
of?
I think that probably what would lead a person
who had never heard of Jesus would be the
presence of the Holy Spirit, knocking at the door
to their heart simultaneously at the same time as
they were hearing a testimony, or even just reading
it. I think a person would notice this, normally.
|
Which merely endorses my point--apparently the HS cannot do it alone, in
everycase I have ever heard of a person was needed.
| Quote: |
Why has no explorer, it seems, ever recorded a homegrown christian
from a newly discovered native population? And why, even in the unlikely
event of someone amongst those untouched by any sort of familiarity with
jesus/bible/christianity, feeling that jesus is the answer when they
finally hear about him, has jesus been signally unsuccessful in
communivcating his name to them, when his name is all so important to
the whole salvation process?
It seems that would normally be a difficult thing
to find out. How many people would report to
some location and swear in a testimony as being
previous to the arrival of a missionary?
|
I couldn't quite parse that one, but I would have thought it would have
been considered a truly remarkable event that would have been recorded,
especially by a missionary going int the unchartered areas of South
America, Africa, Australia, and to a lesser extent Asia.
| Quote: |
Acts 2:21: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be saved.
Accts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
For example in South America, is there, apparently, not even one
recorded instance of anyone knowing anything about Jesus prior to the
advent of christians going in and telling people about him?
------------------------------------
Please indicate where the goal posts have shifted.
You spoke of someone finding out about Jesus
before a person spoke to them, such as if the person
was in a foreign country, submerged in a foreign
religion, etc. I offered the example from Helen Keller's
own words. You did not believe them, I guess, and tried
to attribute what she said to just being a "feeling," when
what she said was that she KNEW him. Then you said
that I didn't answer your questions when in fact that
example did...but you just didn't receive it.
|
That example did not fulfill both requirements, especially that of
knowing the name.
| Quote: |
After that
you started saying that she didn't know his name, like
that cancelled out everything that she had previously
said before she knew his name was Jesus. Now, you
may have had that in mind, but you did not express it.
That's why it sounded/s to me that you "moved the
goal posts." Because you added a new twist on it, that
you now are wondering about them not knowing his
|
That requirement existed right from my second post in this thread, so
was in no way a new twist, or a goal post move.
| Quote: |
Or are you conveniently forgetting where you said,
emphatically, that the Koran does not say that Allah loves
people, and when I posted a surah? from the Koran that uses
those exact words, you both denied it again and then
goalpost shifted to say the Koran does not "teach" that
Allah loves people.
A. does not love people. A. says that if they follow
him, then he will love them.
Do you not see the massive contradiction in what you just wrote?
Read what I wrote below this sentence. You ignored it.
|
No I didn't I responded to it, which can clearly be seen.
| Quote: |
That's not love. Love is what
God did. He loved people while they were yet in their sins,
and he came to earth and died on the cross in their place.
Allah never did that. According to what verse you came up
with, it is obvious that what he calls love is conditional.
It's not Agape love.
But you did not specify Agape love, bringing that up is merely another
goal post shift on your part.
I was clarifying what you did not understand.
|
I understand about the different types of love, you did not specify a
type and nor does the Koran sugest that Allah's love is not Agape love.
| Quote: |
What A. says
is conditional (which I said),
|
And all that is lacking is the evidence that what you said is correct.
The quote from the Koran is not unique in that the bible contains no
similarly worded verse. The bible is full of conditional reponses from
god to people.
| Quote: |
and what God the Father says
in the Bible is unconditional (love). Agape is a later explanation
to what you say that you didn't understand. It had nothing to do
with goal posts. The goal posts were set by you when you spoke
in the first place about how you thought that no one ever heard
of Jesus apart from someone's telling them about him. What
brought that up in the first place is a wondering on your
part about God being fair even to that person that lives far
from any one or anyplace that would let him hear about
Jesus.
|
Well not quite, but I'll let that slide.
| Quote: |
But lets contrast the two deities shall we? It is your contention that
god loves everyone, even sinners. and Allah loves only those that follow
him.
Yet scripture indicates that the end result of the two deities is the
same, either toe the line or die. One, apparently, comes right out and
says it, the othe, apparently pussy foots around and tries to package it
nicely but in the end, its toe the line or die. either in this life or
in the afterlife judgement. please do feel free to explain how, at the
end of it all, there is any difference.
The end result of A. is not the same as the end result from
God the Father. God doesn't say "toe the line or die."
|
Matt. 7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven.
Matt. 13:41: The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
iniquity;
Matt. 18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.
Matt. 21:43: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Now those few of many such sciptures, say in no uncertain terms, toe the
line or die.
[...]
| Quote: |
Now, as indicated above, lets examine your blindness shall we? (note I
have manipulated the indent level for clarity as this excerpt covers
three rounds of posts.
----------------------------------
Suzanne makes a bold, emphatic statement.
The Koran does not
tell a person that God loves them.
Shane asks for her credentials to make such a statement, to ascertain if
she knew this first hand or from another source.
Have you read it?
Suzanne says she has read it, thus implying that she has not found any
statment in the Koran that suggsts that Allah loves a person.
Yes, I have.
Shane after two minutes of googling found this surah.
From:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=72808
[3.31] Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and
forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, MercifuL
Suzanne in response to the plain words of the Koran, both ignores the
plain words of the sura that exactly fulfill what she emphatically
stated does not exist and changes the position of the goalposts to now
say *teach* where before she said *tell*.
No, Shane, it does not teach in the Koran that Allah loves
y ou. What I said was that the Bible teaches that God loves
us .
Now you can do a faux doube take or whatever manoeuvre that you like to
do now. but when you posted this you set a very low level of honesty.
Making sure that someone does not call something
love that is not love, is not being dishonest, it's
someone trying to communicate in all sencerity.
Saying that someone is posting with a very low
level of honesty because they are trying to clarify
terms only, is a cheap way to speak to someone
that has tried to accomodate your lack of
understanding.
|
Absolute tosh. The word that you said wasn't there, clearly is. You did
not say the concept, the ideel, or any other such thing, you said the
Kooran does not tell a person that Allah loves them. Yet clearly it does
tell them exactly that, i spite of you putting your meanings on the
word, and you can hardly be said to be either a scholarly or unbiased
source based on what we have seen here.
Dishonesty I called it and dishonesty it remains until you acknowledge
that the word you said was not there is actually there. Then you can
apologise for not being clear in your original statement and we can move
on.
[...]
| Quote: |
but she didn't know his name, which in spite of your protests that I
have shifted the goalposts is part of my original claim. Note that you
still have not offered any way of telling that what she felt was Jesus,
is in fact Jesus.
I don't need to elaborate on what Helen said. She
made what she said very clear. I also don't need
to explain to you how anyone would know that
she was meaning Jesus, since I told you that
she was hearing Jesus being described, as Annie
spelled the words into her hand that the speaker
was speaking.
|
how do you know that what HK was feeling was not the presence of Allah,
which because of the particular circumstances she was in she mistakenly
ascribed to Jesus, do you think anyone told her Allah was an option?
| Quote: |
Er, no, as she did not know the identity until after another
person told her. If she lived in Saudia Arabia and that
person had been a Muslim, she would, almost without a
doubt--based on what is well known, that children usually
follow the religion of their parents--have identified that
feeling as Allah.
You are being dishonest.
What part of my statement is dishonest. Don't just make the
accusation, be specific in pointing out the dishonesty.
Are you saying that Helen Keller knew the name of Jesus
before someone told her?
Shane, what part of "I knew him, I just didn't know his
name" do you not understand? I guess all of it. : \
I am merely trying to find out what prompted your accusation that I was
dishonest out of the two subjects raise din my statement.
Apparently I was not dishonest in this part.
You are being dishonest to try to make out what she said
in a different way than what she said.
|
Which I have not done, and I note with interest that in spite of your
protests above, this is exactlyt what you did with the small piece of
the Koran I quoted. and you still refuse to acknowledge that is says
exactly what you claimed the Koran did not say.
| Quote: |
You change what
she said. You did not take what she said at her word. She
said I KNEW HIM. What does his name mean, Shane?
What is his name anyway? His name means Salvation.
It's not even the English "Jesus." It's Yeshua in Aramaic.
It's spelled Jesus in Spanish, but it is pronounced there
"Hey-Soos." It's spelled and pronounced differently in
many languages. So why are you insisting that she didn't
know him because she didn't know his name in English
since she didn't even speak English or any langauge in
her dark world?
|
She didn't know his name in any language until someone told her.
| Quote: |
And/or
that children generally do not follow the religion of their
parents/society?
I know a girl who was raised a Buddhist, and she
is a Christian. I know a Muslim that became a
Christian. In fact I know a few of them. I know
children raised in Christian homes who are not
anything and never became a Christian.
And the overwhelming majority of christians alive today had christian
parents, and the overwhelming majority of muslims alive today had muslim
parents, and the overwhelming majority of baptists alive today had
baptist parents. ditto catholics, buddhists, confucianists,
zoroatrianists, sikhs, shinotists, sunnis shiites etc. etc. etc.
You still haven't pointed out where I was dishonest?
Yes I have and I've answered it several times above.
|
Er no, all that is there is accusation but not any detail. I will take
your inability to actually cut and paste my supposed dishonesty as
basically that it is not there.
| Quote: |
However, why do you not want the story
of God's son to be spread by people?
I don't. I would just like to see even a halfway unequivocal
story of someone who came to identify jesus without any
external help from either a bible or another person.
I gave you one. You threw it back in my face and
said I was "self-serving." So, you would not believe
anyone who showed you someone like that.
Nope, your story said that HK only identified Jesus *after*
someone told her about him. Prior to that it was just an
unidentified feeling. This stems from an earlier point that
I made that said that Jesus seems to be not particularly
capable in inspiring people with his name, in spite of the
supposed importance of that name.
This is what you are being dishonest about,
Where dishonest. I mentioned it in the second post I made in response to
you. Dishonest how, exactly.
You deny that she could not have known him if she didn't
know his name - in English!
|
Do I? where do I do that? Just cut a paste the relevant bits.
[...]
| Quote: |
So you are now saying HK knew the name of Jesus before she heard of him
through any other physical source? Does this not contradict what you
posted above, when you wrote this:
"Shane, what part of "I knew him, I just didn't know his name" do you
not understand? I guess all of it. : \"
Please do try and keep your story straight.
Whether his name is "Whaaaawahhhhaahhh,"
or "Jesus," or "Yeshua," or "Yehoshuah," or
"Ieosus," or "Yeshua," or "Yehshuwah," or
"Yashua," or "Yahshuah," or "Word," or
"Adonai," or "Hey-soos," or "Yeowha," or
"Yevah," or "Yeohwah," Helen did not know
his name (in English). I don't think she even
knew yet that there was such a thing as lanuage.
|
I agree, that she did not know his name in any language and that is what
I have been trying to get you to see.
[...]
| Quote: |
Becaue it is germane to the discussion. If your contention is that
certain feelings are indicative of one thing only, you should be able to
defend that contention against people who ask how do you know, and why
can't they be indicative of this similar thing? The fact that you either
choose not to or cannot so defend has, of course, a number of possible
explanations, but the obvious one is the most likely.
I don't have any need to defend anything, Shane.
|
1Pe:3:15: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always
to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that
is in you with meekness and fear:
[...] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Caranx latus" <karode@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:daee5109-fe13-4638-a310-7be0c77574ae@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 14, 3:48 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:g01cl8$8nr$1@aioe.org...
Suzanne wrote:
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:proto-830471.11300801052008@70-1-84-166.area1.spcsdns.net...
In article <1ig9oqa.1oyzw3z1bkvj53N%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au>,
j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
I was speaking on behalf of Rayray. He seems to think anyone who
disagrees with him, up to and including the head of any Christian
denomination, is an atheist (but note my original spelling - those
who
are most athy).
Heads of major denominations may be atheists. Who would put a
believer
in charge of an institution the size of the Roman Church for example?
You know, Walter, that is possible. We are taught from
the Bible that there can be wicked people in high places.
I can think of some very disgraceful people that did many
evil things in the name of Christianity, that surely were
false believers.
Nice. Walter talks about 'atheists', and you immediately translate that
to
'wicked'. Do you actually consider those to be equivalent, or was your
response to Walter a non sequitur?
I'm sorry, I never intended it to be that way. That
was not my intention at all. You are right to
correct me.
I always appreciate it when a person takes responsibility for the
words that they're written. You've done that. Nevertheless, it would
be best in future if you didn't write things you don't mean.
Thank you but I don't want you to be confused about |
what I wrote. Please allow me to explain. When it was
pointed out to me as above it was said, "Walter talks
about 'atheists', and you immediately translate that to
'wicked'." I was horrified to think that anyone might've
thought that I meant that. What you did not understand
is that above I wrote (see several paragraphs back above),
"evil things in the name of Christianity, that surely were
false believers." I did not say anywhere in that, anything
about atheists being wicked. A false believer is usually
a person that believes in God, but that has never accepted
Jesus' payment for their sins on the cross as their ticket
into heaven. Instead they believe they can get to heaven
on their good works. An atheist is certainly not a false
believer. He is not a believer at all. An atheist is an
ordinary person just like I am an ordinary person, but
who does not know that there is a God.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cj
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote in message
news:TpRWj.114$Q57.24@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
"Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:kY-dnS9mL-lx8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@supernews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:jrpq14111gk5hdhl6pqhus699kv563f3oa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On May 2, 4:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5836f45e-5eaa-4f23-9669-8857071552a4@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:12 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
snip
And sometimes the conflict is intentional to make a point.
Any examples of this?
Atheists
deliberately evade these simple explanations for obvious reasons.
How is that a 'simple explanation'? You are assuming you know the
reasons
why someone wrote something, thousands of years ago, in a different
language.
This comment presupposes that historical evidence in abundance does
not exist to know these things, whereas evolution deigns to tell us
with certainty what happened millions and billions of years ago.
Evolution has the fossil record to support it Dishonest Ray. What have
you got supporting you? Nothing.
I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place.
When they say that, they mean that new species do not form. Allowing
microevolution but disallowing macroevolution apparently appeals to some
abstract sense of justice but it has no support whatsoever and does not
even pass a simple logic test. There is no reason to think that whatever
characteristics determine species identity are not ultimately embedded in
DNA just like all other characteristics and therefore subject to the same
evolutionary changes as everything else. To make the case that
macroevolution does not occur one would need to show why the species
identity traits are not subject to evolution. I have not heard anybody
offering any explanation and conclude that the people who say micro yes
but macro no have not even thought about the implications.
He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.
No, microevolution is evolution within a species. Variation, at least as
presented by Darwin, are variations in offspring in a single generation.
According to the dictionary, "evolution" is a change
from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more
complex, or better state." This is what I just explained.
The rest of the world sees evolution as being a macro
change, not a micro change. When people say "I do not
believe in evolution," they are not saying that they are
denying that things can change within a species, and
they are equating minor change as being just variation.
Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level. Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs. Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem. Some Creationists agree with that
also.
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution is actually a false dichotomy.
Then if you believe that, you probably are saying
that you believe evolution is just changes that
take place until you accumulate enough of them
that it pushes the lifeform into a higher, more
complex state in their offspring.
Suzanne
|
It is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that 100 cents doesn't equal a
dollar. Macroevolution is the same as microevolution except that there's
more of it. You're getting back to the silly creationist tactic of debating,
and confusing, definitions of words.
Cj |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:17 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
<eroot@swva.net> wrote in message
news:d4767d26-da91-4fd5-aeef-6797cdd6cff2@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On May 10, 10:15 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
(snip)
It also shows that
A. is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
God the Father, whose son is Jesus Christ.
Not true. He very specifically _is_ the God of Abraham, etc. "Allah"
is just the Arabic word for "God," used by all Arabs, whether
Christian, Jewish or Muslim. It is just as dumb to say Allah isn't
God as it is to say Deo or Gott isn't God.
Also, Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God, just not that he
was _identical_ with God.
I used to think that what you are saying is true |
until I read what the Koran says about God and
about Jesus.
| Quote: |
The Bible says that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son," |
in John 3:16; John 1:18; John 3:18; 1 John 4:9.
(God) begets not, nor was He begotten. (Qur'an 112:3)
| Quote: |
The Bible also says that the Son, Jesus says that he |
and the Father are one. "If you've seen me, you've
seen the Father." So he says they are identical with
one another, while the Muslims teach that the Son
if not identical with God. The Bible also teaches
that Jesus Christ IS God in John 1:1.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact that Ray Martinez can grasp |
|
|
On May 15, 9:21 am, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 12, 11:09 pm, er...@swva.net wrote:
On May 12, 4:33 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 12 May, 02:07, er...@swva.net wrote:
On May 5, 7:39 am,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 4 May, 00:41, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
On 5/3/2008 3:57 PM, Ray Martinez went clickity clack on the keyboard
and produced this interesting bit of text:
Many people here, including me, have said it's foolish to place trust in a
book that has writings from as late as 100 AD (or so) and as early as
1500 BC that have been translated through various languages several
times.
Um, which languages might that be?
And why do you think it better to base your life on hearsay culled
from whatever some journalist in ABC thinks would suit him for you to
know?
Not only that, but it's been abridged several times. Just take
a look at the Council ofNicea.
The ignorance of those who attack the bible about its history never
ceases to amaze me. You'll have to tell us what you imagine, in your
ignorance, the First Council of Nicaea has to do with this. You'll
have to produce evidence of the bible being 'abridged' several times,
before you go any further.
And again, while producing all these excuses for ignoring "Thou shalt
not commit adultery", you might like to explain why just believing
whatever those who control the climate of opinion in your little
country and period of history is a rational way to behave instead?
After all, those who can't articulate a rational alternative don't
deserve a hearing, do they?
Where are the missing books which are mentioned in the old testament?
Which missing books? Document their history, etc. <smile
You've been wriggling around with so many excuses it's comical.
Not half as amusing as watching you pratfall so many times on simple
matters of fact that any google search would correct.
First you say that the book of Genesis should be taken literally ...when
you've been trying to tell us that it's the divine word of God and is
absolute.
Yeah, better to just do what the TV says, eh? :-)
I guess he is obtaining revenge on creationists who he perceives to
have misrepresented complex evolutionary theory the same way. These
observations explain his Biblical misrepresentations.
Revenge? REVENGE? You're killing me, Ray! The words that come out of
your mouth are hilarious! Are you for real? Do you REALLY believe what
you type here?
Hmm. An evasion! What dirty little secret are you hiding, I wonder?
Any fool can vituperate. But this sort of low-rent atheist excuses
for drink and fornication went out with the ark. Argue rationally for
whatever religious position you live by (but can't discuss), or get
off the floor. No-one is much interested in hearing 'clever' fault-
finding.
??? Vernon didn't mention drink or fornication at all, let alone try
to excuse it! What is going on between your ears? Your whole post is
a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs.
Don't be cute; we all know what and why atheists are.
I was not being cute, you rude twerp;
Atheism... first the dishonesty, then the abuse.
... it looks like you are making a rude, veiled accusation.... (abuse, demands)
Piss off, you dishonest little prick.
Roger Pearse
|
Bzzt! You lose again, for the dishonest and dishonorable stunt of
attempting to shoot the messenger instead of doing the adult thing and
recognizing and admitting that you did wrong, and correcting your
misbehavior. In the past you gave the impression of being a valuable
contributor, what with your Biblical knowledge, but now, you have just
crumbled down into another dime-a-dozen jerk. At least make some
attempt at accepting constructive criticism.
Eric Root |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Suzanne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
"Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote in message
news:y5SdndPl69PcYK3VnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@gwi.net...
| Quote: |
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote in message
news:TpRWj.114$Q57.24@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:kY-dnS9mL-lx8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@supernews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:jrpq14111gk5hdhl6pqhus699kv563f3oa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On May 2, 4:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5836f45e-5eaa-4f23-9669-8857071552a4@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:12 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
snip
And sometimes the conflict is intentional to make a point.
Any examples of this?
Atheists
deliberately evade these simple explanations for obvious reasons.
How is that a 'simple explanation'? You are assuming you know the
reasons
why someone wrote something, thousands of years ago, in a different
language.
This comment presupposes that historical evidence in abundance does
not exist to know these things, whereas evolution deigns to tell us
with certainty what happened millions and billions of years ago.
Evolution has the fossil record to support it Dishonest Ray. What have
you got supporting you? Nothing.
I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place.
When they say that, they mean that new species do not form. Allowing
microevolution but disallowing macroevolution apparently appeals to some
abstract sense of justice but it has no support whatsoever and does not
even pass a simple logic test. There is no reason to think that
whatever
characteristics determine species identity are not ultimately embedded
in
DNA just like all other characteristics and therefore subject to the
same
evolutionary changes as everything else. To make the case that
macroevolution does not occur one would need to show why the species
identity traits are not subject to evolution. I have not heard anybody
offering any explanation and conclude that the people who say micro yes
but macro no have not even thought about the implications.
He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.
No, microevolution is evolution within a species. Variation, at least
as
presented by Darwin, are variations in offspring in a single generation.
According to the dictionary, "evolution" is a change
from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more
complex, or better state." This is what I just explained.
The rest of the world sees evolution as being a macro
change, not a micro change. When people say "I do not
believe in evolution," they are not saying that they are
denying that things can change within a species, and
they are equating minor change as being just variation.
Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level. Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs. Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem. Some Creationists agree with that
also.
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution is actually a false dichotomy.
Then if you believe that, you probably are saying
that you believe evolution is just changes that
take place until you accumulate enough of them
that it pushes the lifeform into a higher, more
complex state in their offspring.
Suzanne
It is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that 100 cents doesn't equal a
dollar. Macroevolution is the same as microevolution except that there's
more of it. You're getting back to the silly creationist tactic of
debating,
and confusing, definitions of words.
Cj
Sorry Cj, but I missed this post somehow...so here I am |
answering a month later.
--
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms. Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change. Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level. You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA, then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate. This is a crude example, but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John Harshman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Suzanne wrote:
| Quote: |
"Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote in message
news:y5SdndPl69PcYK3VnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@gwi.net...
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote in message
news:TpRWj.114$Q57.24@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:kY-dnS9mL-lx8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@supernews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:jrpq14111gk5hdhl6pqhus699kv563f3oa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On May 2, 4:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5836f45e-5eaa-4f23-9669-8857071552a4@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:12 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
snip
And sometimes the conflict is intentional to make a point.
Any examples of this?
Atheists
deliberately evade these simple explanations for obvious reasons.
How is that a 'simple explanation'? You are assuming you know the
reasons
why someone wrote something, thousands of years ago, in a different
language.
This comment presupposes that historical evidence in abundance does
not exist to know these things, whereas evolution deigns to tell us
with certainty what happened millions and billions of years ago.
Evolution has the fossil record to support it Dishonest Ray. What have
you got supporting you? Nothing.
I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place.
When they say that, they mean that new species do not form. Allowing
microevolution but disallowing macroevolution apparently appeals to some
abstract sense of justice but it has no support whatsoever and does not
even pass a simple logic test. There is no reason to think that
whatever
characteristics determine species identity are not ultimately embedded
in
DNA just like all other characteristics and therefore subject to the
same
evolutionary changes as everything else. To make the case that
macroevolution does not occur one would need to show why the species
identity traits are not subject to evolution. I have not heard anybody
offering any explanation and conclude that the people who say micro yes
but macro no have not even thought about the implications.
He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.
No, microevolution is evolution within a species. Variation, at least
as
presented by Darwin, are variations in offspring in a single generation.
According to the dictionary, "evolution" is a change
from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more
complex, or better state." This is what I just explained.
The rest of the world sees evolution as being a macro
change, not a micro change. When people say "I do not
believe in evolution," they are not saying that they are
denying that things can change within a species, and
they are equating minor change as being just variation.
Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level. Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs. Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem. Some Creationists agree with that
also.
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution is actually a false dichotomy.
Then if you believe that, you probably are saying
that you believe evolution is just changes that
take place until you accumulate enough of them
that it pushes the lifeform into a higher, more
complex state in their offspring.
Suzanne
It is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that 100 cents doesn't equal a
dollar. Macroevolution is the same as microevolution except that there's
more of it. You're getting back to the silly creationist tactic of
debating,
and confusing, definitions of words.
Cj
Sorry Cj, but I missed this post somehow...so here I am
answering a month later.
--
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms. Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change.
|
I don't know where you get this, but it's wrong. Both macro and micro
involve DNA changes, and we call those mutations.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level.
|
Yes, but it's a matter of convenience in definition, not some empirical
break point. There is some argument within evolutionary biology whether
there is really a separate thing called macroevolution as distinct from
microevolution, or whether there are any macroevolutionary processes
that aren't just accumulated microevolutionary processes. I think there
are, but it's very technical and has little to do with what you're
talking about.
| Quote: |
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA, then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate.
|
There were definitely English words in that sentence, but it didn't add
up to an English sentence. It is, however, true that speciation is a
process (usually) involving the gradual accumulation and fixation of
mutations. That is, all the processes involved in speciation are
microevolutionary.
| Quote: |
This is a crude example, but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
|
Nor is it a very good analogy to speciation. It's more like taking a big
glass of water and adding salt gradually. When you have added enough
salt, you have saltwater. That's not a very good analogy either. Water,
cola, and organge juice don't have DNA. (Well, orange juice probably has
some.) They don't have mutations. They don't reproduce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark VandeWettering
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On 2008-06-27, Suzanne <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Cj" <Cj@mist.net> wrote in message
news:y5SdndPl69PcYK3VnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@gwi.net...
"Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net> wrote in message
news:TpRWj.114$Q57.24@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Rusty Sites" <SpameYouToo@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:kY-dnS9mL-lx8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@supernews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:jrpq14111gk5hdhl6pqhus699kv563f3oa@4ax.com...
On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:36:29 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
pyramidial@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
On May 2, 4:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5836f45e-5eaa-4f23-9669-8857071552a4@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:12 pm, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
snip
And sometimes the conflict is intentional to make a point.
Any examples of this?
Atheists
deliberately evade these simple explanations for obvious reasons.
How is that a 'simple explanation'? You are assuming you know the
reasons
why someone wrote something, thousands of years ago, in a different
language.
This comment presupposes that historical evidence in abundance does
not exist to know these things, whereas evolution deigns to tell us
with certainty what happened millions and billions of years ago.
Evolution has the fossil record to support it Dishonest Ray. What have
you got supporting you? Nothing.
I believe from observation of these posts that there
is a misunderstanding going on on both sides of
the argument. If a creationist says that evolution
does not take place, what he is meaning is that
macroevolution does not take place.
When they say that, they mean that new species do not form. Allowing
microevolution but disallowing macroevolution apparently appeals to some
abstract sense of justice but it has no support whatsoever and does not
even pass a simple logic test. There is no reason to think that
whatever
characteristics determine species identity are not ultimately embedded
in
DNA just like all other characteristics and therefore subject to the
same
evolutionary changes as everything else. To make the case that
macroevolution does not occur one would need to show why the species
identity traits are not subject to evolution. I have not heard anybody
offering any explanation and conclude that the people who say micro yes
but macro no have not even thought about the implications.
He does not
consider microevolution to be evolution, but I can
see that the evolutionist does consider microevolution
to be evolution. Microevolution is a name that was
given to what formerly was called variation.
No, microevolution is evolution within a species. Variation, at least
as
presented by Darwin, are variations in offspring in a single generation.
According to the dictionary, "evolution" is a change
from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more
complex, or better state." This is what I just explained.
The rest of the world sees evolution as being a macro
change, not a micro change. When people say "I do not
believe in evolution," they are not saying that they are
denying that things can change within a species, and
they are equating minor change as being just variation.
Macroevolution is an allele change above the
species level. Creationists do not believe that
macroevolution occurs. Some evolutionists
believe that the definition of "species" is a
problem. Some Creationists agree with that
also.
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution is actually a false dichotomy.
Then if you believe that, you probably are saying
that you believe evolution is just changes that
take place until you accumulate enough of them
that it pushes the lifeform into a higher, more
complex state in their offspring.
Suzanne
It is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that 100 cents doesn't equal a
dollar. Macroevolution is the same as microevolution except that there's
more of it. You're getting back to the silly creationist tactic of
debating,
and confusing, definitions of words.
Cj
Sorry Cj, but I missed this post somehow...so here I am
answering a month later.
--
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
|
Sigh.
| Quote: |
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms.
|
Sigh.
| Quote: |
Macro is supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does not have
a DNA change.
|
You can't have evolution at all, either micro or macro without DNA
change. DNA is the medium by which change is passed from generation
to generation.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has occurred above the species level, and
micro is something that happens within a species' level.
|
This is true, but they occur by the same mechanism.
| Quote: |
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA, then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate. This is a crude example, but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
|
That's because it's a very, very idiotic example that
has nothing to do with biology.
Mark
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:09:30 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@flash.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
|
Yes it is.
| Quote: |
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms.
|
In scientific circles there isn't. The single word "evolution" is
enough.
| Quote: |
Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change.
|
Wrong again, as usual. There can't be any change without a change in
the DNA.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level.
|
It is all evolution. Macro is, in effect, just a lot of micro steps
along the evolutionary path - there is no dividing line.
| Quote: |
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA, then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate. This is a crude example,
|
And a very stupid one.
| Quote: |
but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
|
It is an impossible thing to happen because no DNA is involved.
You really do need to study what is meant by speciation. You would do
well to start with:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rupert Morrish
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:56 am Post subject: Re: Evolution is not a fact |
|
|
Suzanne wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: |
Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution.
If it were, then macro would be called micro, and there
would be no need for two different terms.
|
This is true. Most of the people drawing a distinction are
evolutionists, who, unlike brave Ray, have abandoned their previous
position that (micro-)evolution doesn't happen, and retreated to the
currently more defensible position that macro-evolution has not been
observed (although it has, for the definition of macro-evolution
accepted by biologists).
| Quote: |
Macro is
supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas micro does
not have a DNA change.
|
If you don't change the DNA, what you have is a clone. I don't know your
family circumstances, so I suppose it's possible that you are a clone of
your mother, but the rest of us are a fairly random selection of alleles
from each of our parents, plus a hundred or so mutations unique to
ourselves.
| Quote: |
Macro is something that has
occurred above the species level, and micro is something
that happens within a species' level.
|
Yes, these are the usual definitions.
| Quote: |
You evidently believe
that the process is the same and that when a lifeform in
one species gets enough variation changes within it's
DNA,
|
Not really. There is variation within species (as I explained above).
Sometimes, a breeding population gets split in two. It can be
geographical, perhaps if one half of the population crosses a river or a
mountain range, or it could be that the two sub-populations are
exploiting different niches, such as nut-eaters and seed-eaters in
Darwins finches. Whatever the cause, the two populations are now
affected by different environments, and micro-evolution will take them
in different directions.
| Quote: |
then the DNA changes and it becomes another
species, capable of producing offspring with the
supposedly new DNA change, within the supposed
new species estate.
|
At some point, the two populations stop breeding with each other. It can
be that they have accumulated significant mutations that hybrids are
sterile. It can be that hybrids are not able to exploit either niche as
well as pure-breds, and so do not thrive. It could just be that the
hybrids are unattractive, and do not find mates. Once that happens,
there are two new species.
| Quote: |
This is a crude example,
|
This shows your lack of breeding ;) Oddly enough, evolution is all about
breeding. You are different from your mother, and the chimpanzee at the
zoo is different from her mother. Without any daughter ever being
significantly different from her mother, your great^300,000-grandmother
and the chimpanzee's great^300,000-grandmother are the same ape.
| Quote: |
but it
would be about like me taking a liter of cola, and
pouring it into a giant glass, bigger than people
drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice
because the DNA changed. That is not a very likely
thing to happen.
|
It's more like taking a group of wild rock pigeons, and from them
breeding short-faced tumblers, giant runts, and other sorts of fancy
pigeons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pigeon_breeds
| | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
