Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by ushomefree
Alliance-

In response to your last message: I support micro-evolution; it is scientifically based and countless examples of such are avaliable in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with bias views would deny micro-evolution as a matter of fact. On the other hand, MACRO-EVOLUTION is false; it is not scientifically based, and their are certainly no examples of such in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with extreme bias views would support the theory of MACRO-EVOLUTION as fact.

"macroevolution" and "microevolution" are not words that hold any more credibility in science. They are archaic and havent accurately described the theory since the 1920s. Nice of you to swing with the times.

Originally posted by ushomefree
A cell is NOT a simple structure.

Originally posted by ushomefree
A cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules at different times and under variable conditions.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, and communication are functions that take place in virtually every cell by means of molecular machines with highly coordinated moving parts.

Yup...highly coordinated moving parts that must move accordingly given their chemical environments.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Cells are more advanced that any man-made machine on the face of the planet.

I don't really think cells and positron colliders are comparable....

Originally posted by ushomefree
MACRO-EVOLUTION fails miserably to explain (not only the "origin" of bio-matter) but the construction of such bio-matter into complex, functioning organisms. And we haven't even questioned the origins of bio-chemical information (DNA) yet, which... does not consist of matter. Where did it come from?

Why does where it come from matters? Science is not in the practice of making outrageous claims for which there is no evidence to support. Thats the job of Religion.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Nonetheless, my challege to you -- since we were talking about genetic mutation -- was to give one example of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism as a result of genetic mutation.

Any organism that has ben genetically studied over a period of time. I'll give you an easy example that I don't even need a paper for: Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

Alliance-

In response to your last message: I support micro-evolution; it is scientifically based and countless examples of such are avaliable in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with bias views would deny micro-evolution as a matter of fact. On the other hand, MACRO-EVOLUTION is false; it is not scientifically based, and their are certainly no examples of such in nature. Only uneducated people and/or persons with extreme bias views would support the theory of MACRO-EVOLUTION as fact.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

"macroevolution" and "microevolution" are not words that hold any more credibility in science. They are archaic and havent accurately described the theory since the 1920s. Nice of you to swing with the times.

The terms: micro and macro-evolution -- despite having other relevant terms -- are most prominent (and commonly seen in most text books regarding evolutionary theory today). Archaic or not, this has absolutely nothing to do with examples of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism by means of genetic mutation.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

A cell is NOT a simple structure.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

I spend my life studying them...I know.

No you don't, and it shows. We're all so impressed with your credentials.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

A cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules at different times and under variable conditions.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

Through one mechanism...

No... you mean through "numerous" mechanisms. And these mechanisms can be called, "molecular-machines." Without them, you and I would not be having this debate. We'd cease to exist.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, and communication are functions that take place in virtually every cell by means of molecular machines with highly coordinated moving parts.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

Yup...highly coordinated moving parts that must move accordingly given their chemical environments.

No... highly coordinated moving parts that must move accordingly given their "function," not chemical environments! Ever heard the term, "irreducibly complex?" It's not just a good idea, its what molecular biologist directly observe through electron microscopes.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

Cells are more advanced that any man-made machine on the face of the planet.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

I don't really think cells and positron colliders are comparable....

Your right, and either is your statement in comparison to the complexity of a cell being superior to any man-made machine.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

MACRO-EVOLUTION fails miserably to explain (not only the "origin" of bio-matter) but the construction of such bio-matter into complex, functioning organisms. And we haven't even questioned the origins of bio-chemical information (DNA) yet, which... does not consist of matter. Where did it come from?

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

Fail I'll tell you why later when I have time.

Why does where it come from matters? Science is not in the practice of making outrageous claims for which there is no evidence to support. Thats the job of Religion.

Exactly... so we won't be looking forward to your views regarding the "origin" of bio-matter (and its stages of development to functionality) and bio-chemical information (DNA) since such remains an utter mystery in all respects to science.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY USHOMEFREE

Nonetheless, my challege to you -- since we were talking about genetic mutation -- was to give one example of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism as a result of genetic mutation.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ALLIANCE

Any organism that has ben genetically studied over a period of time. I'll give you an easy example that I don't even need a paper for: Bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.

Bacteria resistant to antibiotics are still simply bacteria; this example is insufficient, for it is one of "micro-evolution," not macro-evolution as requested. Please, try again....

haermm There comes a point where this is not worth my time.

You know, I really hate that laughing smilie. I'm not sure why.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The terms: micro and macro-evolution -- despite having other relevant terms -- are most prominent (and commonly seen in most text books regarding evolutionary theory today). Archaic or not, this has absolutely nothing to do with examples of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism by means of genetic mutation.

You should read your "modern" Bio textsbooks again and see how the term "macroevolution" is used, if used at all. Because the definition you are subscribing to it is old and dead.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No you don't, and it shows. We're all so impressed with your credentials.

I'm thrilled.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No... you mean through "numerous" mechanisms. And these mechanisms can be called, "molecular-machines." Without them, you and I would not be having this debate. We'd cease to exist.

Actually, the mechanism by which PROTEINS are synthesized is one mechanism.

Originally posted by ushomefree
No... highly coordinated moving parts that must move accordingly given their "function," not chemical environments!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Ever heard the term, "irreducibly complex?"

Originally posted by ushomefree
It's not just a good idea.

Originally posted by ushomefree
its what molecular biologist directly observe through electron microscopes.

REALLY! If you've discovered a way to observe the evolutionary past of organisms through an electron microscope, you'll get a Nobel Prize. Would you prefer Medicine, Chemistry, or Physics?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Exactly... so we won't be looking forward to your views regarding the "origin" of bio-matter (and its stages of development to functionality) and bio-chemical information (DNA) since such remains an utter mystery in all respects to science.

Correct. I can only tell you what we know. "Utter mystery in science" is overreaching.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Bacteria resistant to antibiotics are still simply bacteria;

Did you expect it to become something else?

Until you can give me a relevant defenition of "macroevolution" I can't provide an example of a concept that does not exist.

Originally posted by Alliance
haermm There comes a point where this is not worth my time.

Originally posted by Alliance
The terms don't mean anything.

You should read your "modern" Bio textsbooks again and see how the term "macroevolution" is used, if used at all. Because the definition you are subscribing to it is old and dead.

I'm thrilled.

Actually, the mechanism by which PROTEINS are synthesized is one mechanism.

🤨 Protiens move according to chemistry. In thier given circumstances, they MUST act as they do.

Yes, and its crap.

Its not even an idea...its just crap!

REALLY! If you've discovered a way to observe the evolutionary past of organisms through an electron microscope, you'll get a Nobel Prize. Would you prefer Medicine, Chemistry, or Physics?

Correct. I can only tell you what we know. "Utter mystery in science" is overreaching.

Did you expect it to become something else?

Until you can give me a relevant defenition of "macroevolution" I can't provide an example of a concept that does not exist.

I flip=flopped

It saved me from stats homework. 🙂

I think that "macroevolution" = "the process by which completely new organisms arise from existing organisms; for instance, the evolution of single-celled organisms into multicellular organisms."

That is incorrect. That defenition is no longer used and was disregarded almost a century ago.

Irregardless, there are several fallacies. Evolution has nothign to do with the appearance of new organisms, that is reproduction. Speciation is also only a limited aspectof evolution.

A modern defenition refers to macroevolution as "evolutionary change above the species level, including major evolutionary developments that are used to define higher taxa"

The ironic part here is that I could construe "the evolution of single-celled organisms into multicellular organisms" as a form of macroevolution."

Two points, however.

1. Macorevolution in no way reffers to speciation.

2. This "modern" definition is total crap imo. There is no way we are discussing "evoltution" ABOVE the species level. Totall BS and I'm actually shocked that term is still floating around, albeit, its in my very general bio textbook. It dropped out of actual discussion decades ago.

Originally posted by Alliance
[B]That is incorrect. That defenition is no longer used and was disregarded almost a century ago.

Irregardless

I know what he means by "macroevolution," I'm just not going to indulge his archaic fantasies.

Its not rocket science people. 🙄

creation -> evolution.

they go hand in hand.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Its not rocket science people. 🙄

creation -> evolution.

they go hand in hand.

Though not necessarily.

Cause...either could go without the other...and to be fair...Evolution has the scientific backing.

I'm curious...if "macroevolution" isn't regarded as anything, then what is the proposed theory of how life has arisen on Earth? It feels to me like this is pussy-footing about and using wordplay/semantics to avoid the actual issue, to me, so I'd like to understand more.

Its the historical concept of the word. Macroevolution is a pre-synthesis word. Its tied to old dead science and the concept is no longer something that is scientifically credible. The ironic part was, a lot of the old creationists in teh 1920, like William Jennings Bryan, argued against it. When the new-wave creation cropped up, new creationists read the old creationist argument. Unfortunately for them science had changed.

I'm not trying to be pussy-footy about word usage. But its like you asking me for a piece of pie that I'm sold out of, when you really want a slice of cake. It may not seem like there's a huge difference in the word choice, but there really is. I still, obviously, get what you're saying. The problem is that speciation is now regocnized as a very small step in evolution, albeit one that is interesting. Pre-synthesis, the origin of variation and evolution (more along the lines of "macroevolution"😉 were very seperate concepts. Now they are integrated into simple "evolution."

The ironic part is, there is still a giant disjunction in evolutionary theory, that can be construed to fit the old "macroevolution-microevolution" debate and thats the discuntion between the molecular mechanisms of evolution and population evolution. Being a molecular biologist myself, I have a biased perspective...but more on that later.

As far as origin issues, Carl Woese's theory is very influential, I will write on that later tonight when I have more time.

I...

AM...

IRON MAN!

Originally posted by Alliance
discuntion

Freudian?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I...

AM...

IRON MAN!

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why do you even come to this thread?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Why do you even come to this section of the forums?