|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
| talkorigins evidence
link or you could read How creationists
misuse macro and micro [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
You would find that he was very much a Christian, and very much
concened with macro evolution.
You might also want to carefully prove that the word "Day" wasn't
figurative,
as in heyday or era.
Off to ride my zorse, and go train giraffes.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
Even the most vocal young earth creationsists[sic] make a
distinction between micro and macro evolution.
The only issue with
a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is defining what the
distinction is. Since the concept-space it's addressing is a continuum, to make
a distinction requires an exact 'bright line' separating the two ideas. No such
bright line has ever been proposed; YECs have been challenged to produce some
definition, but so far they have refused to do so.
Such a definition would
perforce define how a sequence of micro-evolution steps is prevented from
becoming a macro-evolution step.
Micro evolution is valid
science and is observable in the real world within human lifetimes. Darwin's
work is almost entierly[sic] micro evolution.
Actually,
Darwin's work observing "micro-evolution" was done in a context where he was
making a synthesis between that and the "macro-evolution" that had been known
for years, studied in palaeontological expeditions and museum contributions from
such expeditions. Evolution was a well-known phenomenon in the 19th century
– Darwin's breakthrough was the understanding that the well-known
"macro-evolution" phenomena were merely a consequence of observable
"micro-evolution" steps.
Micro evolution is not
incompatable[sic] with creation. Drug resistant bacteria are micro
evolution.
Macro Evolution is single cell -> multi
cell -> invertibrates[sic] -> fish -> amphibians -> reptiles
-> birds -> mammals.
We'll not argue the errors in ancestry
here (e. g., birds are not ancestral to mammals nor reptiles to
birds).
Macro evolution goes beyond anything that could possibly be
proven by the scientific method and even then it is not incompatible with
creation (except to the young earth creationists) until you add
abiogenisis[sic]. Abiogenisis[sic] is straight out
anti-science.
But it's the YECs that add abiogenesis to the
discussion. The theory of evolution is invariant over all aspects of the origin
of the early forms of life — abiogenesis is neither part of ToE nor does
ToE depend on it (except to the extent that simple living organisms existed at
one time, some billions of years ago). The only prerequisites for ToE are
imperfect replication of organisms (e, g, each human has about 100
imperfections in its genes – differences between its parental genes and
its own) and an environment which can affect the likelihood of those genes
being further replicated, based on the particular effects of the genes within
the environment.
Abiogenesis is a specific area within biophysics and/or
biochemistry. Other fields of science may also have interest in it. What basis
could exist for a claim that such a scientific endeavour is "anti-science"?
Most of the people pushing Evolution in the public sphere,
particularly when it comes to teaching evolution below the college level are
explicitly pusing[sic] it as a disproof of creation/religion. It can not
stand as such a disproof without abiogenisis[sic] which is
unscientific.
Since abiogenesis is irrelevant to ToE, this last
statement is null. As to the teaching of science – ToE can never disprove
religions, and has never been realistically sold as doing so. What it does,
however, is to demonstrate that the creation conjectures of most religions are
(a) not necessary to an understanding of reality; and (b) contrary to
observation of reality. If a religion cannot stand the test of reality, its
adherents might well feel threatened – but it's not ToE that's the
problem, it's the contra-factual imaginings of the
religions.---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
