Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Hi ok,Welcome to EvC. I am a farm raised person who has taken wild hogs we called piney-woods rooters that could survive on little food and water who weighed less than a hundred pounds. Through selective, breeding produced animals that weighed over 700 pounds that could survive on small amounts of food and water.Could the 700 pound product breed with the less than 100 pound variety? NoWere they both hogs? Yes.Are they classified as different species? Yes, go figure.To me they are just a different variety of the same thing. What instance of 'Macro-Evolution' are you talking about?You highlighted: "at or above the level of species," as if at speciation was the event of speciation. The definition would carry no such meaning. The at would mean that speciation has already taken place.So no My avatar is of a very large horse and a very small horse. They both are 100% horse with over 2000 pounds of flesh and bone difference. It would be physically impossible for them to breed. So according to the definition of species they are two different creatures.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi WK, In the early 1900's many tried to create a separate mule breed of animals. Was scientist interested is this no. But farmers wanted a work animal that could reproduce and be evolved into a bigger animal than the one produced by an ass and a horse.Now as far as my discussing DNA and information I will cease to talk about or answer posts that do in this thread. It seems to be pulling this thread further OT than intended. As I wanted to tie the two together.I will at a later date begin a thread on the origin of information, the information contained in the DNA, and its purpose.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

A grate dane cannot mate whit a Chihuahua and they are the same species though diferent breeds why?because a grate dane can mate whit a noter breed and that other breed can mate whit a Chihuahua.It is not about physical impossebility but genetic imposibility of mating

Hi frako, Source'Macro-Evolution' takes place after speciation has taken place.So when my two horse in my avatar could not breed 'Macro-Evolution' had not occured. It just got to the point they could not breed because of size of the animals. Do we have two fruit flies that can not breed?If we have two fruit flies that can not breed where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?We only have two fruit flies that can not breed. I remember my tobacco growing days and we had many species of tobacco. Some produced low tonage crops with high quality and othere produced high tonage crops with lower quality. But they were all tobacco with nicotine that would kill you in them. Why do you call them "multiple species of the house mouse"?Is it because they were all mouses?If they were all mouses where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? I will take your word for what you said above that I quoted.But if you want to present 'Macro-Evolution' you need to provide an instance of one critter becoming a totaly different critter.When that fruit fly ceases to be a fruit fly.When that mouse ceases to be a mouse.I would ask for something other than your word for that.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Stop messing with our heads changing your avatar to confuse us!ABE: now it's the horsy again!Edited by Larni, : Shock.

Just a slight hint:Mouse is not a technical scientific term. You can't use it to make the argument you are making in the above post.Really!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How different must this new critter be to be accepted by you as a new species?Im guessing you would classify a gorilla and man as diferent speciesWhy cause one has fur the other dosent, one has a slightly larger brain, and one has opposing thumbs, they walk a bit diferently and have diferent teeth though all of the above can happen whit micro evolution as you have said what makes them a different species than us.How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please

Hi Taq,

25 mya apes                                      195,000 tya homo sapiens
                  /                                                                /
                 /                                                               /
                /                                                              /
   Common ancestor
                                       \                           \
                                          \                          \
                                            \                          \
                                       15 mya monkey        545,000 tya chimpanzees

So I take a few skulls of apes, monkeys and chimpanzees and homo sapiens and says that is 'Macro-Evolution'. I have no idea what the common ancestor was, I don't know when it went extinct but if it went extinct before homo sapiens began to exist how do you tie them to the common ancestor? If the homo sapiens came from the same common ancestor that apes did then that common ancestor existed 195,000 tya. Why don't we have fossils of that common ancestor? Why don't we have a 25 my record of the line of homo sapiens back to the ancestor apes divided from?Where is the 'Macro-Evolution' history? What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans?You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments.The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion. I thought it said the multicellularity was induced.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

will this help Well no you can get some other information from this as well.Human like sculls whit almost the same brain capacity or at least volume.
No other modern sculls at those times they only arrive late.
A similarety of the the newer sculls and older sculls implying an evolutionary process Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Hi Taq, Skulls of different creatures does not verify 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.It verifies that there were creatures with different skulls. A man leaves point A and a man reaches point B where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?I am sure he changed a lot during the trip you described one being that he would be very, very, very old.But if he is still a man when he arrives no 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. Whether the journey took a week or a billion years, and no matter how many pictures of that man you had along the way.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

From Wiki: The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last individual, an african ape, that both humans and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of chimpanzee, the Bonobos and the Chimp, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens. So? (There are a lot more fossils out there than you might think.) False again. The evidence (and it is a lot more than just a few fragmentary skulls) forms a cohesive picture of the past. If this was a court, you could call it circumstantial evidence, which is a lot more reliable that eyewitness testimony.You have just closed your mind to any and all evidence that doesn't support your particular religious beliefs. But that won't make the evidence go away, sorry.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Aggain what is the minimal amount of change a species must undergo to become a new species?

Hi crash, Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured.In fact no good argumentation has been presented to support such a position.Circumstantial evidence along with assertions and bull headed conclusions has been presented in this thread as evidence of verifiable instances of 'Macro-Evolution' having occured.The problem is none of those are verifiable instances of
'Macro-Evolution'.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

In your eyes now tell me how much change must one species undergo (the minimal amount) for it to be called a new species in your eyes and i will show you F%&$ macro evolution. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Hi crash, 'Macro-Evolution' is the process that is proposed to explain how we and all other creatures extinct or living arrived on planet earth from a single cell life form.The history of 'Macro-Evolution' would be a detailed account of how that process took place to date.Anything short of a detailed account is a partial history.When you have gaps of millions of years you do not have a complete history. We do not have a 4.6 billion years of history. We have a book of 4.6 million years with many chapters covering millions of years missing. If you want me to look at it present your argumentation along with the link. I can then read your reasoning and check your link for confirmation.If you make an assertion and present a link, why should I even consider it?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."