|
08-19-2011, 09:16 PM
|
|
|
|
2,031 posts, read 2,838,862 times
Reputation: 1379
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
We've observed micro-evolution. Bacteria "evolve" to lose the ability to react to something. But they're still bacteria.
Let me know when you can give me an example of a lizard growing wings and feathers. Until then I'll not believe in your fairy tale.
|
The "micro" and "macro" evolution claim is a canard. There is simply evolution -- the change in frequencies of alleles within a gene pool. It's like claiming that travelling to the moon is "micro" space travel, but travelling to Jupiter is "macro" space travel, has never been done, and is thus impossible. Which is, of course, every bit the nonsense that are the silly "micro" and "macro" evolution claims.
We see evolutionary change. What you insist on calling "macro" evolution, to suit your agenda, is nothing but a lot of evolutionary change, clearly observed in the fossil record and fully supported by the molecular DNA record. |
|
08-22-2011, 04:16 PM
|
|
|
|
6,486 posts, read 6,381,017 times
Reputation: 1275
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
The "micro" and "macro" evolution claim is a canard. There is simply evolution -- the change in frequencies of alleles within a gene pool. It's like claiming that travelling to the moon is "micro" space travel, but travelling to Jupiter is "macro" space travel, has never been done, and is thus impossible. Which is, of course, every bit the nonsense that are the silly "micro" and "macro" evolution claims.
We see evolutionary change. What you insist on calling "macro" evolution, to suit your agenda, is nothing but a lot of evolutionary change, clearly observed in the fossil record and fully supported by the molecular DNA record.
|
I'd love to see some of that "proof" of evolutionary change from the fossil record. Do you have some?
As for the molecular DNA record? I see that as proof of a common designer. |
|
08-22-2011, 04:28 PM
|
|
|
|
3,426 posts, read 3,096,171 times
Reputation: 3319
|
|
|
|
|
08-22-2011, 04:58 PM
|
|
|
|
6,486 posts, read 6,381,017 times
Reputation: 1275
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
|
Let's tackle these 1 at a time. Don't give me your scattergun approach and hope that somehow you've won by virtue of simply flooding me with overwhelming numbers, yet inadequate "proof".
What's your best 1 proof for evolution? |
|
08-22-2011, 05:17 PM
|
|
|
|
3,426 posts, read 3,096,171 times
Reputation: 3319
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Let's tackle these 1 at a time. Don't give me your scattergun approach and hope that somehow you've won by virtue of simply flooding me with overwhelming numbers, yet inadequate "proof".
What's your best 1 proof for evolution?
|
You don't get to make up the rules, Calvin. Here is how it works. If you have a question, you do research on the subject of your question and try to find the answer that best solves the question. This usually takes more than five minutes, and certainly takes more time than it takes to spew a fifty word post on a public forum.
Your question was what evidence is there that the fossil record demonstrates evolution. I have provided you with a VERY good starting point. But here's the issue, Calvin. It took Darwin a lifetime to formulate the theory of evolution, and that was only after spending that lifetime searching for and documenting the evidence. It took me years of college to reach the level of education and training that enabled me to competently publish in my field. And you expect to learn something tangible about the field in a forum such as this?
If you truly want to understand the theory of evolution, you are going to have to become much more diligent in your effort to learn about it. Now, I've provided you with many hours of reading from a few of the best publications available on the paleontological evidence for evolution. If you are unable or unwilling to invest in the time and effort it takes to develop even a modicum of competency on the matter, than perhaps you should give it up altogether.
Calvin, if you truly want to learn about the fossil evidence, I will make you the same offer Ive made every creationist I've ever discussed evolution with. If you want to see the fossil evidence, I am offering to take you on a geology field trip any time you are available to do so. The only stipulations are that it has to be done in my region of the country, and you have to pay for the gas. That is a fair offer, since I offer my time freely. All you have to do is show up, fill the tank up, and then try to keep up. |
|
08-22-2011, 07:35 PM
|
|
|
|
7,885 posts, read 9,787,228 times
Reputation: 3233
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
looks like a bird to me. And we didn't watch it evolve. We see a finished product.
|
There is no "finished product." All forms are transitional.
Your posts consistently show that you do not even understand the very basics of how evolution works.  |
|
08-22-2011, 11:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Richardson, TX
8,720 posts, read 13,294,975 times
Reputation: 3800
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
We've observed micro-evolution. Bacteria "evolve" to lose the ability to react to something. But they're still bacteria.
Let me know when you can give me an example of a lizard growing wings and feathers. Until then I'll not believe in your fairy tale.
|
Since bacteria is an entire kingdom, that is the same as saying that an animal evolving is still an animal.
As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by, e.g., Wells (about none) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", suggested to be about a family in conventional classification) versus Behe (full common descent). It also allows any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution.
In biological usage, macroevolution tends to refer to the idea that different processes are involved at the species-level and higher rather than the ordinary, everyday population-level evolution. Thus, someone who thinks that standard population-level evolution over 3.5-4 billion years is enough to account for all organisms might say they reject macroevolution, whereas someone like Gould would argue that there are some different things that play a role at higher levels. However, both would reject the micro/macro difference as it appears in antievolutionary claims.
Although the most prominent young earth groups seem to accept evolution of species and genera, this is rejected by a number of ID advocates who persist in claiming that no species can arise from another species.
Antievolutionary advocates frequently attack even examples of change within a species, such as the peppered moth, so the claim to accept "microevolution" is not entirely credible. |
|
08-23-2011, 09:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,746 posts, read 16,089,574 times
Reputation: 14881
|
|
|
Ignoring the fact that this thread has turned into yet another debate about the beginning of the universe, this article is actually fascinating. I recall reading another article (possibly concerning the same researcher?) that mentioned that unborn chicks have extra vertebrae in their tails, more similar to some dinosaurs. I'm not sure I'm remembering that completely correctly, unfortunately. The research currently underway in genetics is truly mind boggling to me.
|
|
08-24-2011, 08:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: The Woods
18,163 posts, read 25,252,729 times
Reputation: 10986
|
|
|
Yeah, debate over how life came about aside, I think this is fascinating. Some have speculated some birds could be reverse engineered, so to speak, into small dinosaur ancestors of them. I'd love to live to see the day a dinosaur is alive again. The way science is progressing, it may not be too far fetched eventually.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
