"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
False analogy.sandy_mcd wrote:Exactly, you are correct, it is a setup, and you know where I am going, so you already have a response, which you can post as soon as I figure out how to include pictures rather than links.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I sense a trap....yes?
Humans have a penchant for putting things into boxes, even if there is a continuum of categories. For examples, race, grades, whatever.
Care to explain why ?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:False analogy.
I will leave that for the biologists to respond to as I am pretty ignorant in that area. But I can can ask you what the basis for your claims is. I gave you an example of how small changes can result in big changes without any obvious transitions. You say that such reasoning does not apply to animals which can only express some inherent range of types they started with. What is the basis for your statement ?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges.
You're going to have to supply the thousand words because I don't see what a sine wave has to do with macroevolution.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:[Sinusoidal plot with macroevolution-labelled dot on it.]
It was a joke referring to the fact you're talking about two different things...sandy_mcd wrote:You're going to have to supply the thousand words because I don't see what a sine wave has to do with macroevolution.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:[Sinusoidal plot with macroevolution-labelled dot on it.]
It is an expression, a figure of speech.But yes, I am comparing apples and oranges. Doesn't anyone of a biologic bent know what the last common ancestor of apples and oranges was (and when) ?
Yes, you have proven to all that one color can become another color through small changes.I gave you an example of how small changes can result in big changes without any obvious transitions.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, and, hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them (only I can do that). But, if I'm reading you right...which I'm probably not...it's because, as I saild, microevolution doesn't create new information nor does it create a new morphology, at al, or even come close to getting to something new...but macro requires those.You say that such reasoning does not apply to animals which can only express some inherent range of types they started with. What is the basis for your statement ?
I realize that. But when I was looking up some stuff to respond to you, I ran across this:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It is an expression, a figure of speech....comparing apples and oranges.
And I got to thinking, why not compare apples and oranges ? If this evolution stuff is true, then there must be some common ancestor to apples and oranges. I couldn't find anything on that (only something not too comprehensible on ancestor to flowering plants).http://www.floridata.com/tracks/misc/plant_names.htm wrote: Note from the heirarchy above that the crabapple is in the rose family, Rosaceae. Even though they don't look much alike, apples and roses are closely related. (You should never, however, compare apples and oranges.)
When Robert Frost learned how many different species were in the rose family was he was moved to write a poem:
THE ROSE FAMILY
The rose is a rose,
And was always a rose.
But the theory now goes
That the apple's a rose,
And the pear is, and so's
The plum I suppose.
The dear only knows
What will next prove a rose.
You, of course, are a rose -
But were always a rose.
Robert Frost
Sorry about that. I usually only edit to correct typos or clarify something and then only shortly after posting. I didn't think that one all the way through before submission.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them
Hmmm, no new morphology and no new information? Do you have proof for this?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I'm not quite sure what you're saying there, and, hey, no fair editing posts after I've begun responding ot them (only I can do that). But, if I'm reading you right...which I'm probably not...it's because, as I saild, microevolution doesn't create new information nor does it create a new morphology, at al, or even come close to getting to something new...but macro requires those.
