Micro- vis-�-vis Macro-Evolution

[jordanriver]

So-so attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it a 5 out of 10.

pssst,
um, you're not fooling anybody , sitting there at the judges' table.

everybody knows you're one of the contestants ,

[HMS_Beagle]

pssst,
um, you're not fooling anybody , sitting there at the judges' table.

everybody knows you're one of the contestants ,

You can't be a judge unless you know the topic better than the competitors.

Is there any one thing on that big list of Creationst PRATTS you'd like to see disemboweled yet again? Start a thread on that one thing if so and we'll oblige.

[jordanriver]

You can't be a judge unless you know the topic better than the competitors.

Is there any one thing on that big list of Creationst PRATTS you'd like to see disemboweled yet again? Start a thread on that one thing if so and we'll oblige.

list of what?

are my citations on a list somewhere?

where?

[klaus54]

are you projecting?

speaking of moving the goal posts, is there going to be an eventual time limit for the 'fishapod' crawling out of the water, or are you going to add another 20 more million years each time you find tetrapods that existed before your fishapods.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-walking-land/


oh, well, whats a million years in light of billions to work with, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real time.

and then there was the Nested Hierarchy goal post


well it happened,

"gammaretrovirus-like groups (PtG1 and PtG2) occurred in chimpanzees but not in humans"
ok, not a problem.
But they also appeared in baboons, from the Old World Monkeys group.
Look, if they are in both baboons and chimps, then, the erv should have passed down from the common ancestor of Old World Monkeys and the Apes and Great Apes groups. But it missed us humans.
FALSIFICATION?
nope, just 'proof' of HGT, horizontal gene transfer (AKA LGT, lateral gene transfer)
"...This appears to be an example of horizontal transfer of retroviruses with occasional fixation in the germ line..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1346942/

already posted this BTW, here

and like The Borg, Talk Origins adjusted and now have a nice new bush instead of Darwin's Tree and the cladistic tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macr...utionvines.jpg
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1684[/ATTACH]

ok, that's ok, but where is the goal post now?

How about the biochemical goal post, the FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT, for divergence modern humans and other apes.

BUT THEY COMPROMISED to the morphologists (the paleoanthropologists) and added a few more million years


five million to eight million, A SIXTY PERCENT INCREASE to accommodate the powerful paleoanthropologist lobby..

....and a good thing too, for them, otherwise you could forget about Sahelanthropus tchadensis @7mya and Orrorin tugenensis @6mya.

Powerful paleoanthropologist families like the Leakeys resisted Sarich and Wilson's molecular clock:
...oh, and this next source is also a reply to your earlier claim that creationists don't know about the hominid fossil record

were you projecting that time too.
I think some of us creationists have read a little about it
I KNOW there is quite a large collection of "hominid" fossils. I read about Donald Johanson's drawer after drawer of mostly Hadar fossils (in Cleveland), and an interesting account of Stephen Jay Gould's visit (Gould recovering from Cancer) to Richard Leakey's Nairobi "Hominid Vault" in Delta Willis's 'The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Origins':


But at least Richard Leakey did eventually concede and cited the original FIVE MILLION YEAR LIMIT:



SO before you attempt to pull the mote out of our eyes, better first remove the beam from your own eyes.

My answer was not "odd" since your persona is that of an anti-evolutionist.

You're anti-macroevolution, no?

You certainly mock macroevolution.

So my comment was on target.

Oh, well...

K54

[klaus54]

list of what?

are my citations on a list somewhere?

where?

It's difficult to argue with someone when you don't know their stance.

Go surf to an anti-evolution propaganda site, pick your favorite PRATT, and we'll discuss it.

K54

P.S. That "judgment table" crack sounds familiar.

[jordanriver]

It's difficult to argue with someone when you don't know their stance.

Go surf to an anti-evolution propaganda site, pick your favorite PRATT, and we'll discuss it.

K54

P.S. That "judgment table" crack sounds familiar.

well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.

ok, ....my "stance"?


why its the same as yours,
....almost

I believe "evolution" is occurring , I think you believe evolution is occurring.


we're just haggling over how many "trunks" of trees, and the shape of the trunks.

[klaus54]

well you see...
I do not go to "anti-evolution" sites, propaganda or otherwise.

I do not need to.

I can't remember the last time I met a Darwinist who knew as much about their "science" as I know.

ok, ....my "stance"?


why its the same as yours,
....almost

I believe "evolution" is occurring , I think you believe evolution is occurring.


we're just haggling over how many "trunks" of trees, and the shape of the trunks.

So you are an expert on evolution? You know more about the "science" than most "Darwinists" you've met.

Fascinating!

Now, what's a "Darwinist", and did any of them you've met understand the science (no scare quotes) of evolution? Do YOU know the science of evolution?

I doubt.

So, please go to your favorite propaganda site and yank out a PRATT to discuss. Perhaps you can make mince meat of us "Darwinists" here.

Sound like a good deal?

K54

P.S. Don't you mean we agree on the "shoots" but we're haggling over whether the trunks grew from seeds or were plunked in the ground like Hollywood props?

[jordanriver]

P.S. Don't you mean we agree on the "shoots" but we're haggling over whether the trunks grew from seeds or were plunked in the ground like Hollywood props?

Hollywood??

ehhh, I think more along the lines of a hamster habitat

or a zoo habitat.

meh, , for I all I know this might be a matrix program
...and Bishop George Berkeley was right after all.....

ha, I guess I ended up in Hollywood after all.

[jordanriver]

So you are an expert on evolution? You know more about the "science" than most "Darwinists" you've met.

Fascinating!

I was one of you.

where you are,

I am a "been there done that"

[klaus54]

I was one of you.

where you are,

I am a "been there done that"

Wow, you got me there. Who can counter that argument? Our friend Jorge tells us the same thing.

So, I forgot -- did you ever attempt to answer the question about the micro/macro boundary? Since you've "been there done that" you must have had a clear notion of that boundary, else you'd still be doing that.

What is it then?

K54

[jordanriver]

Wow, you got me there. Who can counter that argument? Our friend Jorge tells us the same thing.

So, I forgot -- did you ever attempt to answer the question about the micro/macro boundary? Since you've "been there done that" you must have had a clear notion of that boundary, else you'd still be doing that.

What is it then?

K54

I did answer
I said ZERO

sheesh, I read that the 'god' of this world blinds people, but are you really not seeing my posts?

[klaus54]

I did answer
I said ZERO

sheesh, I read that the 'god' of this world blinds people, but are you really not seeing my posts?

Well, no boundary then.

I'm wondering why all the fuss and bother from you? You know, the "Darwinists" and "science" remarks. e.g.?

So your contributions to this thread were worthless then, since I asked anti-evolutionist where the boundary was.

I loathe to ask, but I must. Since you believe there's no boundary between micro and macro, then do you have a problem with evolution as being part of the creation process - theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or whatever?

K54

[jordanriver]

Well, no boundary then.

I'm wondering why all the fuss and bother from you? You know, the "Darwinists" and "science" remarks. e.g.?

So your contributions to this thread were worthless then, since I asked anti-evolutionist where the boundary was.

I loathe to ask, but I must. Since you believe there's no boundary between micro and macro, then do you have a problem with evolution as being part of the creation process - theistic evolution or evolutionary creation or whatever?

K54

as the atheists and agnostics say
I don't know.

I claim I know the first human being was one special 'creation'

I don't know that by any 'scientific' process.

I know it by a different category; HISTORY. (recorded history)

But I do not claim to know how the other animals originated.

some new word I learned this past week, er, "baramin" or something
votever dot mins

I don't know what I don't know.

[klaus54]

as the atheists and agnostics say
I don't know.

I claim I know the first human being was one special 'creation'

I don't know that by any 'scientific' process.

I know it by a different category; HISTORY. (recorded history)

But I do not claim to know how the other animals originated.

some new word I learned this past week, er, "baramin" or something
votever dot mins

I don't know what I don't know.

So macroevolution is possible, but you don't think it happened because "history" says otherwise? (See I can use scare quotes too!)

Or is that you don't know?

But you do know that humans were specially created, apart from the evolutionary process. Or you don't, Or "history" says otherwise.

You are quite the confusing individual.

K54

P.S. Again, can another anti-evolutionist (but NOT an anti-evolutionist evolutionist like JR) please address the micro/macro question?

[rogue06]

So macroevolution is possible,

Of course macroevolution is possible -- and has even been observed both in nature and in laboratories.

Macroevolution is defined as being evolutionary change at or above the species level. This means that speciation ( the splitting of a single lineage into two or more genetically independent ones) is by definition a form of macroevolution. And even your major YEC organizations and spokespersons admit that speciation takes place -- some even recognize that this is macroevolution.