Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] T.O responses

Expand Messages
  • David Dryden
    I hope you can bear with my questions. So are you saying that microevolution only deals with speciation, whereas macroevolution is an accurate term to describe
    Message 1 of 45 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I hope you can bear with my questions.

      So are you saying that microevolution only deals with
      speciation, whereas macroevolution is an accurate term
      to describe the way that biblical kinds diversified
      into groups on a higher taxonomical level than
      species, i.e., genus/family, which then diversified
      into species?

      If you are saying this, I believe I can understand why
      you would use the term macroevolution, despite its
      ambiguity. Just a small point, but I don't see it as
      too difficult to see superficially that a fox may be
      related to a wolf.

      I do wonder though what the difference between genus
      and family is. Is there now a clear definition of
      what a species is, since it used to be said that
      species are those who can interbreed, but there is
      said to be a lot of species amongst the dog family,
      but that they can interbreed?

      One last thing. Why must we use evolutionary
      biological terms? From my experience, evolutionary
      biology means the biology that deals with Darwinian
      evolution. If that is true, why must we use their
      terms?

      Thanks for your time.


      --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:


      ---------------------------------
      Despite the ambiguity, creationists are typically
      found using it as an absolute - stating that
      microevolution happens, but macroevolution does not.
      To describe the overall history of groups,
      such as the canine, as microevolution is a grossly
      incorrect use of that term. If we are going to
      use evolutionary biology terms, we should use them
      correctly.

      The fact is that the Biblical kinds have undergone Big
      Change. When creationists originally
      assumed that each species was a different Biblical
      kind, then microevolution was the appropriate
      term to describe their evolutionary history. We now
      recognize that multiple unique genera have
      developed from what was originally a single breeding
      pair. That's some pretty big change. It so
      big, we might still be clueless that the fox and wolf
      are related without the domestic breeding
      histories to show us what's possible.

      Again - macroevolution is a process which produces
      diverse groups (taxa) from a common ancestor.
      Macroevolution happens through a history of
      speciations, diversification, and species extinction.
      Based on classic evolutionary biology, the Biblical
      kinds have each undergone this level of
      change.

      Common descent is an inference based upon the fact
      that macroevolution has occurred in living
      populations like the canine kind. Although we disagree
      with the assumption of common descent, we
      can no longer dispute that this process has succeeded
      in producing taxanomic groups. By doing so,
      we are unwittingly disagreeing with a principle that
      we accept in reality.


      --- David Dryden <hesedyahu@...> wrote:

      > Please note that my essential point was the
      ambiguity
      > of the word macroevolution. Do you think that the
      > change in biblical kind is comparable to the change
      > documented by the theory of universal common
      ancestry,
      > i.e. Darwinism? Yet both are called macroevolution.

      > Yet the first, the biblical model, is much much much
      > smaller than the naturalistic macroevolution. I
      guess
      > it was my use of the word, subspecies, that diverted
      > your attention from my main point.
      >
      > On a superficial observational point of view, a
      rough
      > idea of a kind is not impossible. Maybe you are
      > thinking genetically or something. Your definition
      of
      > macroevolution is a lot more narrow than what the
      > actual word says. It simply means big change, and
      it
      > is used in the biological realm. So it basically
      > means grand biological changes. And I repeat it is
      > very ambiguous to use it in the debate between the
      > theory of common ancestry and that of diversity
      within
      > kinds. Diversity within kinds is a lot smaller than
      > the common ancestry diversification, and I don't
      > believe it is wise to use the word macroevolution,
      > since it is used to cover both.
      >
      > What do you think?

      Christopher W. Ashcraft
      Northwest Creation Network
      http://nwcreation.net







      ============================================
      CreationTalk email listserv
      Northwest Creation Network
      http://nwcreation.net/
      ============================================



      SPONSORED LINKS

      Personal creations
      Personal creation coupon
      Personal creation discount
      Personal
      creation promotional code
      Personal creation coupon code
      Personal creation com


      ---------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


      Visit your group "CreationTalk" on the web.

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
      Terms of Service.


      ---------------------------------








      ___________________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
    • steve matthews
      Obvious in life is programming technology from a vastly superior designer. Our super knowledge and AI systems are rinky dink compared to these and I fully
      Message 45 of 45 , Nov 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Obvious in life is programming technology from a vastly superior
        designer. Our super knowledge and AI systems are rinky dink compared to
        these and I fully agree on that. However, the basis of any program
        simple or complex is the underlying language infrastructure that cannot
        originate by chance (evolution. I contend this is the base foundational
        argument against evolution and secular humanism inside the realm of
        observable science, applicable to biochemistry, based on known and
        absolute true laws of science.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Alan C
        Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:20 AM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] T.O responses

        steve matthews wrote
        ...Again, Information Science and laws of code are the keys to this
        whole discussion. Have you noticed that any discussions of Intelligent
        Design are always absent of the problem with information’s origin in
        life. That should be our cause. Why are we not focusing on this aspect
        of the debate? We get drawn into all of the other trivial arguments when

        we have a superior one to make with modern knowledge not known in
        Darwin’s time. Like Gitt states, energy and matter do not make create
        code and that is a law of information science, repeatable and observable

        in every case....

        Alan Cassidy:
        ...I program computers and have studied some the issue of how
        Information Science relates. I agree, but there is a little more to it
        that might shed light on the subject the way Charles explained about
        planets. In a sense, the atttribute that living beings have that is the
        *intentionally designed* genetic adaptability of the gene pool,
        implemented at an individual level throughout the "gene pool", is just
        as much a part of the original design and the original kinds that were
        aboard Noah's Ark.

        My programs are business and accounting applications, but there are
        those who design some intricate "learning algorithms" that can even
        "design" programs based on a set of inputs. In other words, it gets fed
        information and produces algorithms that adapt. Others here have better
        understanding of Avida's details, but that might be an example.

        Part of an animal's or plant's adaptability (or that of a kind, or a
        species, however you define it) includes the *engineered* ability of
        "genetic variability". Of this I am now convinced, and it appears to be
        an observation. Of course the common-descent darwinist and the long-ager

        alike will look at this and claim it is the missing link they've been
        aching for that offers them relief for the way that mutations have left
        them high and dry.

        But it is an even bigger problem for them, yet again. History repeats
        itself. DNA boggles the scientific mind, IC has them reeling and dizzy,
        and now this.

        There is a coding system in DNA for sure, and there is information
        stored there, but there seem to be algorithms that can *add* to that
        information, processing inputs from the surrounding environment.

        We also can see that under either the "strict" definition or the "other"

        one :-) there has been a process of "speciation" between the Creation
        week and today which has resulted in more than one species for some of
        the original created kinds.

        >Like Gitt states, energy and matter do not make create code and that is
        >a law of information science, repeatable and observable in every case.
        >
        >
        "Code", or "the genetic language", would make a stronger point I think
        than just the word "information".

        --Alan




        ============================================
        CreationTalk email listserv
        Northwest Creation Network
        http://nwcreation.net/
        ============================================
        Yahoo! Groups Links







        --
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date:
        11/5/2005


        --
        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date:
        11/5/2005
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.