Always talking about micro-evolution?

I'm new to this website but have read a multitude of posts on various topics. Just a quick question: Why do so many folks who seem to be evolutionists conduct personal attacks (whether major or minor) again creationists. (the above name-calling is just one mild example). Is that a good example of "respect for others".[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-03-2004]

I don't understand what the issue is between micro and macro. An example of micro evolution is a coyote evolving into a wolf (or vice versa). An example of macro evolution is a frog evolving into an elephant. Or even more macro would be rocks or hydrogen gas (or just non-life) evolving into a human.

Good example, although not well applied. Using your terms, but in keeping with the spirit of my example, micro walking is like walking from Chicago to Milwaukee. Macro-walking would be like walking from Chicago to the south pole (visualize that). Why would you limit your macro-walking to just going to the next town?

The rocks to humans example comes from public school text books. Life originated after it rained on the rocks for millions of years, is what we're taught. That's where the so-called "broth" came from that the original microbes thrived in. The "rocks" really refer to the planet itself, which came from events in the solar system, which was simply a eventual result preceeded by an incredible amount of hydrogen gas. This is all basic stuff out of textbooks. Are you claiming to believe in evolution while ignoring the origins of that which evolved. E.g., you look at an elephant, and wonder what preceeded it. Once that ancestor is identified, you'll wonder what preceeded that. Soon, you'll be able to draw the elephant's family tree in full color (assuming the fossil record has no missing links). But where do you stop? When the fossil record runs out? Or when lightning struck the rock just before a living microbe appeared? How did you determine when evolution started? Why leave out the pre-galaxy hydrogen gas? I may sound absurd, but the question is still valid: "How did you determine when evolution started?"

I think you've approached it from the wrong direction. It's not that there's an observable barrier; it's that there is no observable connection that would allow for a casual walk to the destination. To say it's possible for an amoeba to evolve into an elephant simply because there's no observable barrier smacks of mild absurdity. The burden of proof is on the scientist who wants to show there is a connection. The gene, chromosome, and DNA "evidence" that you may present is flawed and changing every year, so please don't bother; even the atheist scientist community is in disagreement with itself over that constantly changing controversial "evidence." But let me be more specific in describing Macro-evolution. An amoeba to an elephant is really more like walking from Chicago to the moon; it would take ALOT of architecture and intelligence to achieve the goal. Certainly not an accident.

Absolutely not the case. It's because there documented inaccuracies and inconsistencies with DNA evidence. As to genes and chromosomes, an off-the-record scientists will freely admit that, even after many decades of research, we still don't understand it all. I recent quote by the scientific community detailed that fact that we probably haven't only identified only 10% of the microbes that exist just on the exterior of the human skin. Now how does that make you feel about the accuracy of modern microbiology? As to evidence of DNA evidence it flawed, see my response to a similar question by MrHambre below.

Um, beyond the shadow of a doubt? Scientists would squirm at that statement. Actually, the best defendable probability of DNA accuracy is just over a million-to-one. With six billion people on the planet, you would find 6,000 people that would appear identical. Hardly beyond any shadow. The trillion to one numbers that you've heard have been mathematically refuted many times.But further:
crashfrog wrote in post 38: Really, I suppose neither of you have heard of Raymond Easton of Swindon, a severely disabled man, was arrested for a burglary that was committed over 200 miles away. Why was he arrested for a crime that he couldn't possbily have committed? Yep, DNA evidence placed him at the scene of the crime.Or perhaps you've heard of Peter Hamkin of Liverpool who, in March 2003 was arrested for a murder that occurred 1000 miles away when he was nowhere near it. Again, DNA evidence placed him at the scene.Or the poor individual in Goettingen, Germany who, back in May of 2003, was placed at the scene of a murder by DNA results. The only problem? He was behind bars at the time of the murder.Oh, yes, of course when a full SGM+ profile is referred to, the random match statistic supposedly improves to 1:1 billion. That's a suspiciously round number; I would like to see their math on that one. (of course, anyone can produce math that supports their point. Figures don't lie, but you-know-who figures). But see if you can found out how often full SGM+ profiles are done. Please note that a DNA expert had to admit under oath that, the way the DNA matching was done, OJ's DNA evidence was accurate to 1 and 38,000. Or, uh, 1 in 300,000. No, wait; 1 in 600,000. Er, no; actually it was 1 in 6 million. Um, also a trillion was quoted. LOL. The testimony changed over and over depending on the different assumptions. My goodness. Of course, no photographs of actual DNA was ever presented into evidence. But I suggest we nevermind all that because it would force this topic into another one of the many furiously debated DNA discussions that already exist on the web, and I've seen some wild arguing going on (join the forum of your choice). I don't think this forum should be reduced to teaching everyone terms like "loci" and "allele frequency tables".
But to just keep it simple: Even the DNA experts insist that DNA is not 100% flawless and ..."must be coorborated with other evidence..." and tested in court. So much for DNA accuracy.If you have a sense of humor, trying researching DNA topics. You'll find the in-fighting of the scientific community quite amusing. I'm sure a number of erroneously convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, but I also wonder how many convicted criminals we've erroneously let back onto the street because of DNA evidence (while ignoring all other hard evidence). You can't can't convict anyone solely on DNA evidence, you can easily get 'em sprung.But if you're really interested; check on the transcripts of the OJ trial for the dates 6-22, 6-23, and 6-26 or so. There's too much to cut and paste, but much of the testimony is quite humorous (sort of Clintonesqe). For example, in one exchange: LOL! Oh, my ribs hurt! The entire DNA/genetics related testimony as a whole (I won't provide unfair sound bites of actual information) shows that the RFLP frequency estimations depend on amazing assumptions for both the numerator as well as the demoninator in ratios. I didn't ask to avoid DNA arguments because I wasn't interested or afraid of them; it was to keep this forum topic from morphing into an out-of-control monster. I promise, I won't be responding to any more DNA or genetics posts.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-04-2004]

Um, I don't recall bringing up this issue. Do you have me mixed up with someone else?

Interesting. That was much quicker than your predecessors.Ok, I'm open to education. Can you give me a more precise figure? "Almost zero" could mean "0.0001" just as easily as "0.00000001" depending on context, viewpoint, and purpose. If you could show me your math, I would appreciate that too.I thank you for your time. I may not respond back for a couple of days as I'm going away for a short vacation. But I will be checking for your response as soon as I can.Thank you.

My dear Mammuthus,
I believe we were already fully aware of your outstanding abilities to copy and paste. I really thought maybe I could have a decent conversation with you. Instead, you have reduced this discussion, like so many others, by going technical. Truly, I thought we could have avoided that. If all we do is copy and paste stuff off en masse off the web, well, I think you get the point. I'm here to pick the brains of other human begins and enjoy some authentic dialogue. So,Could we rewind and start over? I would appreciate an answer to my question of post #49. I thanked you for your time, and do so once again. I'll be back from vacation in a couple days.

I never said anything about "confuse." You did, and that revealed a little something about your motives. The subject matter that was
copied and pasted was already familiar to me, sorry about being a
little ahead of you. I made my statement because becoming "technical" in the way Mamuthus demonstrated would ultimately lead to a copy and paste war of others' research. You are the one who brought up the idea of "confusing" people, which indeed revealed a glimpse of your inner workings, intents, and methods of debate (whether you use those methods or just approve of those who do).Invariably, in a forum like this, someone always walks into that (and I mean every time). My suggestion to Mammuthus was sincere, yet designed with the standard fail-safe required to protect oneself from those who have no or virtually imperceptible debating skills. However, since you've claimed (in another topic board) to be (and I quote you) "pretty smart", I certainly wouldn't have thought that you would be the one to snap at it. Waitaminit. Aren't you the guy (from a different post) who offered his abilities to evaluate my debating methods? And then you generate a post like this? Had I hired you, I would now fire you. I haven't claimed to be a debater, you did (in a way).But can we get back to the question I asked Mammuthus?

Couldn't think of anything else to say, eh? Certainly sticking to the subject. Or did you mean to leave this post at http://www.standupcomedytrainingforthehumorimpaired.com. I've never been there, but the name of it sounds right up your alley.

I guess you knew better than to direct a straw man comment directly toward me, so you did indirectly? Since we've made reference to Hitler, it's humorous to not the Germans have a phrase for that: "...der sucht sich Kameraden..." (It invariably happens when someone can't stand on their own.)
I'm sure Mammuthus could crack a smile for that one.[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-05-2004]

No, actually I didn't expect anyone other than Ned to understand the post. There just seems to be some sort of pending, abstract issue that was triggered by something... I don't know what; I'm still awaiting an answer (from Ned). You see, on another topic board, Ned popped up out of nowhere (sort of like a superatom), and challenged me to join a topic board that dealt with some kind of flooding. He seemed to think that I was "smart" but boldy stated that he was "pretty smart". Which, I guess, seemed to imply the he was smarter. I would be glad to join a flood zone topic board, for no specific purpose on my part really, but first I was curious why he selected a topic on flooding over another topic. I was just curious. He hasn't responded to that yet, rather has chosen to just snipe at me occaisionally on whatever topic board he happens to find me. So, please don't misunderstand our form of communication.

I thank you for a great response. But, as has been previously declared elsewhere, I'm not as smart as Ned; could you help me understand this better?
Could I ask for an answer in the format of:
1 in a thousand or
1 in 10,000 of
1:100k or
1:400b or t?
Or maybe just a 1:1 with a number showing the number of zeros behind it?
Thnx.