Re: Why Harshman Cannot Prove Macroevolution


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131131901.395968.201460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

>>
>> > Macroevolution: "The belief that living things originate from other
>> > living things and not ultimately from the God of Genesis" [source:
>> > paraphrase Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University]
>> >
>> Now, this definition has a problem: in our experience, living things *do*
>> originate from other living things.
>
> Who is *our* Steven ? Surely not me ?

Ray, have you ever seen any living thing, that did not originate from
another living thing?

>
> You mean Darwinian evolutionists....correct ?

Would not appear to be so.

>
> Why did Darwin delete bears can morph into whales absurd speculation
> from all editions of "Origin" after the first ?

Because it was not helping his argument. He had no need to continue to use
that speculation.

>
> Steven: animals in the wild hate each other except for their own
> kind/species.

Ray, have you ever heard of the term 'symbiosis'?

> What causes the hatred to suddenly disappear and for
> different species to mate ?

Whatever makes you think that "different species" mated? The definition of
species is (for sexually reproducing organisms) that they are unable to
interbreed with other species.

>This of course does not happen, and I know
> you agree.

So, why would you bring it up? Evolution does not say that different
species interbreed.

> To circumvent Darwinists retreat into the invisible
> molecular world and assert a random genetic mutation produces a
> slightly different variation which still faces the same problem
> described above x 2 since it needs a opposite sex mate to reproduce and
> for a random mutation to accomplish this in the same time and place is
> nothing short of a Genesis miracle. LOL ! Darwinists.

Ray, this demonstrates you are totally clueless about how evolution and
population genetics works. Normally, a single, genetic mutation does not
make an organism into a different species. Speciation normally takes many
generations of genetic isolation from the parent population before there is
enough genetic difference to call that population a different species. A
demonstration of how wrong you are, consider mixed breed dogs. Different
breeds of dogs will readily mate with other breeds, even if they are as
morphological different as a Basset hound and a Collie.

>
> Darwinian speciation is a myth driven by hatred of Genesis being
> perceived as true.

No, Ray, speciation has been observed both in the wild, and in the lab.

> You will undoubtedly produce a reply that will laugh
> or insult caused by a blind dogged determination to poison the logic
> based fact in the preceding paragraph.

The "preceeding paragraph" is based on a totally false perception of how
evolution works. Really, Ray, how can you presume to "destroy" a theory
that you don't even know the first thing about?


>No matter how you slice it there
> are natural barriers defining *kind* and these groups of kinds are
> sealed off from cross breeding by genetic homeostasis or any other name
> one wishes to label the barrier.

There is no "kind" barrier. Homeostasis is not a barrier to speciation.
Again, Gooogle on 'polymorphism', or "ring species".

>
> We know ape sperm cannot impregnate a human female.

In reality, humans are apes, so every human sperm is "ape sperm". We know
that it can impregnate a human egg cell. The question is can other ape
species fertilize a human egg? That remains an unknown, as no one has
performed the experiment due to ethical concerns. We do know that
different species can produce a fertilzed embryo, as in horses and donkeys
producing a mule.

> These are 2 kinds
> right here; case closed.

Non fertility cannot be considered a "kind" barrier, as other species that
Creationists consider the same "kind" are non-interfertile. Making
non-interfertility a "kind" barrier fatally increases the number of "kinds"
required to be on "Noah's Ark".

>
> Darwinians need to show why artificial breeding experimentation
> conducted over hundreds of years on animals and plants is somehow
> invalid in application to the wild.

This makes no sense. We see hybridization in the wild as well.

> Based on this gestalt of evidence
> Darwinian speciation is falsified.

However your "gestalt" contains a number of falsehoods, misinformation, and
misunderstandings. The only thing it falsifies is any claim you might make
about your competence to comment on the matter.


>
>> I, for example, according to all the
>> information available to me, was born through natural reproductive
>> processes
>> to my parents, rather than being created directly from the dust of the
>> earth, and this seems to be true of every human being alive today.
>
> Forgive the sarcasm but this argument deserves it: DUH !

Basically, that's all the argument you are capable of.


>
> The definition said "***ultimately*** from the God of Genesis".

Which science cannot dispute.

>
> We are one genus: modern human beings; from African pygmies to giant
> Samoans = one kind, and our origin is recorded in Genesis as being
> descended from Adam suddenly and specially created by God.

Modern humans are the one surviving species in the genus Homo. We are
closely related to other members of the family Hominidae, which includes
other apes, such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. The Bible contains a
religious legend, not a historical account of our creation.



>
>
>> Therefore, either no one alive today (or for the last several thousand
>> years) originated from the God of Genesis, or being a *direct* creation
>> of
>> God is not necessary for one to *ultimately* originate from the God of
>> Genesis.
>
> You are deliberately splitting hairs attempting to deny the central
> purpose and reason for being of Darwinian evolution: erase the God of
> Genesis from having anything to do with the natural world.

The only purpose of evolution is to explain the evidence. "Erasing the God
of Genesis" is neither the purpose, or the reason for evolution.

>
> My macroevolution definition silently says Genesis is true and overtly
> says Darwinian evolution says it is not.

The evidence tells us that Genesis is not scientifically accurate.
Evolution says nothing about whether or not Genesis is "true".

>
> You very well know this.

We know that's your misinterpetation.


>
>
>> But, of course, if being directly created by God, rather than
>> being produced by natural processes set in motion and sustained by god,
>> is
>> not necessary to ultimately originate from the God of Genesis,
>
> If "being produced by natural processes set in motion and sustained by
> god" is true then the only source for the Biblical Creator is wrong
> because that source/Bible says He did not create by the aforementioned
> process, but by special sudden creation.

The Bible does not say that God did not create a process. The Bible does
not claim "sudden" or special creation.

>
> Obviously, at issue; is Genesis correct. ?

According to the evidence, and by scientific reckoning, no.

> ALL of the available
> evidence says it is.

Unfortunately for you, all the evidence does not support a literal reading
of Genesis. In fact it refutes such a reading.

> Conversely; is Darwinian macroevolution true ?

It's a scientific theory, supported by a great deal of evidence. "True" is
not a scientific conclusion.

> Because the latter is the answer is no.

But the "latter" is not correct.


>
>> then there
>> seems no reason to suppose that evolving from common ancestors with
>> monkeys,
>> or from common ancestors with _E. coli_, prevents us from originating
>> *ultimately* with the God of Genesis.
>
> But Genesis says God created via special sudden creation.

Actually, no it does not. If you think it does, please give chapter and
verse.

> You have no
> source for these Creator assertions unless you radically change, alter,
> evade, ignore, erase, or re-write what the entire texts say
> consistently. Wait, you could go see your neighborhood TEist and he
> will do just that.

Theistic Evolutionists do not change, alter, or evade anything the Bible
says. We simply interpet it differently than you do.

>
>
>> Since you will not concede that Gene
>> Scott might be wrong, will you concede that what *he* calls
>> "macroevolution"
>> is not the same thing as what evolutionary theorists call
>> "macroevolution?"
>>
>
> They are exactly the same, EXCEPT when rivals are disccussing the
> issue, when the discussion is over they remain the same. IOW, you
> Darwinists are liars.

That's wrong, Ray. Darwinists are not the liars, it's the Creationists who
depend on lies.


> Please do not take that personally Steven. You
> cannot even admit what everyone knows evolution is about: denying the
> God of Genesis Creator credit.

That's because it's not true. Evolution is not about denying God creator
credit. The existance of theistic evolutionists refutes this.

> It doesn't matter; Darwin denied Him
> this credit as does every evolutionist.

False on both counts.

> Asserting He created via
> Darwinian evolution is not giving Him Creator credit because, like
> everyone knows, evolution only exists to falsify this claim.


Circular reasoning. "Everyone knows" is not evidence, but an unsupported
assertion. It's false on it's face.



> If
> Darwinists cannot even admit this foundational claim then on this basis
> you are admitted liars and everything else that comes out of your
> mouths must be a lie too:

False and ad hominem.



>
> ROMANS 1:25
>
> ***Who changed the truth of God into a LIE, and worshipped and served
> the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.***

Which applies to Creationists much more than any one who supports evolution.

>
> I have a source to call you guys liars; written in 58 AD - 2000 years
> in advance God wrote the script predicting your speciation bull***.

You have misinterpeted your "source". In doing so, you are making yourself
into a liar.

>
> The context is the wrath of God of the 18th verse. Darwinian evolution
> attempted to change the truth of God (that He is the Creator of
> Genesis) into the lie of chance and macro "creatures" are our origin.

Recognizing the fact that humans, like every other creature on earth are the
product of a natural process does not equate to "worship". Creationists
are worshiping the Bible, a creation of man, rather than the Creator.

>
> The verse is SO clear.

Only if you are so warped that you see what does not exist.

>
>> In strict usage among evolutionists, "macroevolution" is simply
>> speciation,
>> the production of two species sharing the same ancestor. Even if we take
>> the term in the sense of common descent, or radical changes in
>> morphology,
>> or both, that is not a statement about whether God is *ultimately*
>> responsible for what happens.
>
> Of course it is. Denying it only shows yourself a liar.

Denying it shows that your claim is false.


>
> This is nonsense, I will reply to you no further.

"Run away Ray" strikes again.


DJT



>
> Ray
>

.