Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Spliffman
hey man I only smell a lil 😛

and hey!! i cant be stoned 24/7 man dont pressure me!!!

😆 A little goes a long ways. 😘 😆 jk

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 A little goes a long ways. 😘 😆 jk

it sure does 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that dividing evolution into micro and macro is arbitrary. But to be honest, I'm not really sure. When I learned about Evolution, they didn't micro and macro evolution, so I'm sceptical.

The reason that it's difficult to divide evolution into macro/micro is that, potentially, microevolution over a long period of time yields macroevolution...or somesuch.

LET'S PARTY!

"potentially" but macroevolution is NOT speciation.

We already learned that there is no such thing as a species, so, duh.

Originally posted by FeceMan
We already learned that there is no such thing as a species, so, duh.

Really? Where did you lear that?

I lear'ed it from you.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I lear'ed it from you.

Well, I may have over stated that a little. There is something going on in nature, but the text book set of species have been found to be incorrect at times. An animal that they thought was in one family tuned out to be in another. All I was trying to get at was that there may not be as sharp line between species as what is taught in schools.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I may have over stated that a little. There is something going on in nature, but the text book set of species have been found to be incorrect at times. An animal that they thought was in one family tuned out to be in another. All I was trying to get at was that there may not be as sharp line between species as what is taught in schools.

if by overstate a little, you mean blatantly misrepresent concepts...you're entirely correct.

Reclassification is not a big deal...we can actually look at things genetically now, as opposed to grouping everything that has fins into similar families.

That doesn't destroy the definition of species. There are problems with it, but you haven't hit on any of them.

Originally posted by Alliance
if by overstate a little, you mean blatantly misrepresent concepts...you're entirely correct.

Reclassification is not a big deal...we can actually look at things genetically now, as opposed to grouping everything that has fins into similar families.

That doesn't destroy the definition of species. There are problems with it, but you haven't hit on any of them.

No, that is not what I am trying to say. Let me put it this way: Just because a dog is a canine, does not mean it used to be a canine in the remote past or will remain a canine in the far future. Spices are just a snap shot of an on going process. The point I'm trying to get at is that animal, humans included, are not static, we change over time.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean there is no concept such as species.

Ahh, he is talking about reincarnation. However, even if someone goes from being a frog, to a tree to a baboon doesn't mean that there are no species.

I think hes more talking about speciation without diversification (wrong term but I don't remeber the correct one)

Originally posted by Alliance
I think hes more talking about speciation without diversification (wrong term but I don't remeber the correct one)

Well, I have absolutely no idea what the real term would be but I know what you mean.

However, I really must ask Shakyamunison his ideas behind the creation of earth, and man.

Why do they matter? he's not using them as science.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why do they matter? he's not using them as science.

They matter because his faith is interesting.

oh.

interesting, eh?

Well, we speak about it now and then and I am curious how he treats science in relation to Buddhism. I am aware that he doesn't think they conflict but there must be instances, either way, makes for good conversation.

I think what Shaky is trying to say is that species are an anthropic principal, and that when you look at the history of life without the perspective of the human observer at this time and place, they become more of a continuum rather than discrete items.