nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 03:32, May 17, 2008
, 03:32, May 17, 2008→Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate: Direction, not size, is the difference.
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)