tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post7898297494799384896..comments2023-10-18T05:31:21.249-07:00Comments on Peregrinations: Micro vs. MacroRick Gerhardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10478878021692544533noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-55055678086536599332008-06-03T14:34:00.000-07:002008-06-03T14:34:00.000-07:00Thanks for your response Rick. It appears that I ...Thanks for your response Rick. It appears that I have much to learn on this subject. For example, I don't really know how biology/life is classified, such as defining what a species is. I will research this.<BR/><BR/>I let Mike know that I'm going on a 'fast' of sorts with regard to philosophy, apologetics, evolution, debates, etc. It has been consuming too much of my time. I'll return sometime. Again thanks for your comments!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-32598307846119153672008-06-03T07:26:00.000-07:002008-06-03T07:26:00.000-07:00Ben:You're right--there isn't a clear line separat...Ben:<BR/><BR/>You're right--there isn't a clear line separating micro- and macroevolution. And that is what is exploited by Darwinists to make grandiose claims unsupported by the evidence.<BR/><BR/>You said, "It wouldn't be controversial if the evidence overwhelmingly refutes it." This gets at the entire problem in biology today. The evidence is not central to the debate, as it obviously should be. <BR/><BR/>Were the evidence allowed to settle the issue, we would long ago have abandoned the theory of macroevolution. But instead, ideology obscures the issue. If it were admitted that the evidence refutes Darwinism, then we'd be right back to considering theism (and especially Christianity) as credible accounts of the universe. We can't have that, so we make up stories and fanciful scenarios and allow them to obscure the evidence and carry the day for naturalistic evolution.<BR/><BR/>I never said that speciation was impossible. Macroevolution really refers to the origination of new families, orders, classes, and phyla, and most biologists arguing against it do not take a stand against the reality of speciation. But 'species' is really a rather artificial and nebulous concept, with some two dozen different definitions for what constitutes a species.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're interested enough to search these links. As you read the contrary positions, pay attention to the integrity of the arguments--the logic--involved in each. You will (I expect) quickly discern some rather fallacious arguments on the part of the Darwinists.Rick Gerhardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10478878021692544533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-88844842678027853132008-06-02T11:28:00.000-07:002008-06-02T11:28:00.000-07:00Here is a Critique of the 29+ Evidences for Macroe...Here is a Critique of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution located at trueorigin.org (Interesting spin on the site name)<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp" REL="nofollow">A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s,<BR/>29 Evidences for Macroevolution</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-83860134158611241872008-06-02T11:06:00.000-07:002008-06-02T11:06:00.000-07:00Wow, below is another link to TalkOrigins.org. Pr...Wow, below is another link to <A HREF="talkorigins.org" REL="nofollow">TalkOrigins.org</A>. Pretty interesting website.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc" REL="nofollow">29+ Evidences for Macroevolution</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6410615559824660051.post-85163217703301192212008-06-02T10:41:00.000-07:002008-06-02T10:41:00.000-07:00I'm still confused as to the difference between th...I'm still confused as to the difference between the two. There isn't any clear line. I think we have to accept that species change or not accept it at all.<BR/><BR/>"What IS controversial is [macroevolution] ... the evidence overwhelmingly refutes the idea that macroevolution occurs."<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't be controversial if the evidence is 'overwhelmingly' refuted. How is it refuted?<BR/><BR/>I am not greatly knowledgeable on the subject but below are some links I found with documented examples of speciation, which you appear to be claiming is impossible:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html" REL="nofollow">Observed Instances of Speciation</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/102408.php" REL="nofollow">More Evidence</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html" REL="nofollow">Speciation / Macroevolution Evidence</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306" REL="nofollow">Genetic evidence for complex speciation</A><BR/><BR/>Just type in "evidence speciation" at Google to find more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com