Do you live believe in microevolution?

[shackleton]

Were animals created with the ability to hide or defend itself from predation? Or are these the affects of micro-evolution? i.e. a bug that looks like a leaf. Did it evolve that way because all the bugs that did not look like leaves got eaten or was it orginally created this way? Are these the effects of the Fall? Or were animals created to prey on each other and other animals given a brilliant defense mechanism to give them a fighting chance?
The next logical question, long creation days or literal 24 hour creation days?

 

[caddy]

Yes, I believe all animals and bugs were created with these abilities. To what extent the fall changed things is a good question. The basic premise of creation-scientists is that God created basic kinds, or types, which subsequently diversified.

The best example of creationist microevolution involves the descendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of human species.

 

[caddy]

A day is a Day:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?oload=yes&q=Day+%22Yom%22&search=Go

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020614_123.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

 

[SRoper]

Yes, but it's always a loss of information, not a gaining of new information.

If you mean loss of information in the earth-sun system as a whole, I agree. If you mean in an organism, I disagree.

I see Behe referenced a lot here. If you read Behe he very clearly believes in macroevolution. He even believes that man as a species has evolved from more ancient primates. His irreducible complexity argument is actually rather modest in its aims.

 

[Mathetes]

One of the thing that I find implausible about macroevolution is this:

1. Supposedly, if one goes back far enough, the organisms that "started it all" were single cell (be they bacteria, or what have you)

2. Through incremental changes over numerous generations, you eventually start seeing a diversity of life and species evolve

3. Single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, that is, by splitting cells

4. Obviously, they eventually evolved - so we're told - into creatures that employ a male/female variety of reproduction

So, my sticking points are these:

How did male and female "evolve" compatible reproductive organs independently of each other?

and

How did they reproduce in the meantime?

 

[caddy]

...and my answer is: the evolutionsist just don't know *** exactly *** how this was done, only that it "was" done. They have plenty of elaborate theories--all built upon their particular brand of dogmatic philosophy. Rarely do you see an evolutionist saying, "you know, we just don't know the mechanism here...and we could be wrong." Think about that.

Look at Richard Feynman as a prime example of a truly scientific thinker and ask yourself what he would say about the following statement by Carl Sagan. The quoted statement comes from Sagan's book, "The Demon - Haunted World," the same book where he urged us not to be impressed by invocations of authority and to insist on asking whether claims put forward in the same of science are really testable:

I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9% of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings ( and all other species ) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.


​

Sagan here turns his baloney detector around. It's no longer a light to protect us from a snow job. IT's a club to browbeat us into believing, against our better judgment, that humans arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime. ( This central finding comes, mind you, from a scientific establishment that also insists that it isn't saying anything about God--or that it is neutral on whether He is there or not) The statement has the form of critical thinking--it speaks of people who ignore evidence and believe what they want to believe--but there is no real attempt to reason. Is it really likely that 91% of the public disagrees with Sagan for no reason at all, or Dawkins?





Psalm 11:3 if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?

So, my sticking points are these:

How did male and female "evolve" compatible reproductive organs independently of each other?

and

How did they reproduce in the meantime?

 

[caddy]

One of the best examples I know of the qualities that make an expert trustworthy comes from the late great physicist Ricahard Feynman, one of the unquestioned heroes of modern science. He states:

a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if your doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated...In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. SO you have to be careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [ more than ] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists,and I think to laymen.

 

[SRoper]

One of the thing that I find implausible about macroevolution is this:

1. Supposedly, if one goes back far enough, the organisms that "started it all" were single cell (be they bacteria, or what have you)

2. Through incremental changes over numerous generations, you eventually start seeing a diversity of life and species evolve

3. Single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, that is, by splitting cells

4. Obviously, they eventually evolved - so we're told - into creatures that employ a male/female variety of reproduction

So, my sticking points are these:

How did male and female "evolve" compatible reproductive organs independently of each other?

and

How did they reproduce in the meantime?

You are talking about common descent, not necessarily macroevolution. In any case your objection could be answered by looking at species that either have both male and female reproductive parts and those species that are able to change their sex.