Macro and Micro Evolution

Ok,post 62: the upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man.
post 68: Macro-evolution would present that Bacterian became Man at some point, (i.e. a vertical change) which is much more then a small change(i.e. horizontal change) which would be macro-evolution. I present that change is limited to Micro-evolution according to all obervations and say that nothing supports macro-evolution not even the fossil record because the fossil record does not show the same intermediate changes as we see today in the skin color of man.
post 81: The difference between vertical and horizontal is a good enough destinction to say that it is theoretical to say macroevolution occured. The idea between the two differences is that natural selection explains that the dominate species will win and as such this permits a change but only a change in species present and allows mutation to a degree, and which wont allow mutation to progress in a positive way. And as such you cannot say that microevolution eventually leads into macroevolution.
post 83: I never said that macro-evolution didn't occur, I simply said that the evidence does not suggest such a occurance.
post 87: I can see that I confused you on my standpoint. I cant say without a doubt that macro did occur, but the way I feel about macroevolution is that it didn't occur, but that is based on evidence. Could macro have occured, maybe and maybe not. I am more inclined to think that it didn't. I hope that helps.
post 94: hard to understand what is being said other then the transition from fox to dog or dog to fox would be considered macroevolution. better understood if we read post 104 and also read
post 95: this artical has a link which explains microevolution according to sonic, i.e. post 96.
post 161: AIG would probably be writing about micro-evolution, a genus is nothing more then a classifcation of 2 or more species which could mate like the Wolf and Dog, or Donky and Horse,(i.e. a genera) Which would be considered micro-evolution, because there is no new formation of "new abilites" such as wings, which would allow the new 4 legged family to fly and even if a new species developed from interspecies relations, it would not be considered macro-evolution unless a new ability were formed.
post 168: Microevolution: minor genetic alterations (horizontal change)Macro-evolution(i.e. organic evolution): Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theoryor macroevolution. (vertical change)
P.S. I bet those definitions are not perfect as nothing is now days
post 170: No new organs equal no macro-evolution, that is if I understand the differences correctly. Read post 168, that should be 2 good definitions and I hope it helps the understanding were the two split off (i.e. micro vs macro)
post 177: read post
post 179: Ok, when you read the definition of macroevolution, it is pointing out that macroevolution would occur if a new organ(i.e. new ability) was formed.
post 185: can see why you are confused. The definition only applies to evolution. example, If you were to study my pair of eyes you might come to the conclusion that I can only see in black and white(pretend this is the same for every person on the earth). Then you would need to study my descendents for many generations to see if they all had black and white vision and also to look for one which could see in color. Then you would need to compare the organs of old to the organs of new, you would see 2 pairs of organs which dont match. 1 pair which were old and one pair which is new, the new would appear different then the old, That is the idea when the word different is used. Also note, if you made a discovery which matched this example you would have macro-evolution.
post 186: If I changed the meaning I would not still be agreeing with the old information. I added to the definition at a worse case scenario, but the truth is I never represented my ideas properly.Yes We are working with post 168 as definitions.
post 189: Ok, the example was a bad one. I am sorry bare with me please. The understanding of what organ which would require a change is a vital organ. The eyes are not vital organs.
vital organ:
n : a bodily organ that is essential for life
------------------------------------------------------------I have been watching this thread, and this is my conclusion of macro-evolution: Sonics definition of Macro evolution cant be observed at all ever, but you could say if you apply his definition to history, that this idea(i.e. macroevolution) is reported in the TOE. For Example: I am not sure but I think bacterian do not have a pair of eyes. We would ask ourselves first, at which point where eyes evolved(i.e. theoreticaly speaking). We would say dureing the cambrian explosion(I think). What life form had the first set of eyes would be the next question, and what fossil record from precambrian life to cambrian life represents (i.e. metaphoricaly speaking) this new ability (if all questions were answered in a since,we would, could observe metaphoricaly speaking macro-evolution). After we think about that we can see that Sonics definition of macro-evolution states that if a new pair of vital organs evolved it would be considered macro-evolution. In this example I have shown how eyes would be vital to life probably due to natural selection but in any case this also shows where micro-evolution would play its role, lets say this cambrian life went from being able to see in black and white to being able to see in color, this change would represent a micro-evolutionry change(small genetic changes). The problem with Macro-evolution is we wont be able to observe it because all organs are attached in our day. The only thing we may observe is Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution will never become factual because of this problem.Quiz

Sonic, The fossil record IS evidence of evolution because phylogenies match it to a much higher degree than would be expected than chance. This is a FACT. See below.That you won’t see that this is evidence is your blindness, not sciences. You are conflating evidence with hypothesis. A hypothesis is based upon evidence, it is still speculation until it has been deductively tested, ie. has other evidence brought to support it.It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution. It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution. Au contraire.You said you wouldn’t accept cladistics because it was based on a theory that wasn’t proven, a theoretical idea. All of the examples I gave were in exactly the same boat at one stage, yet you accept them. This is hypocritical. I expect you to withdraw your objection on the grounds cited, or reject the five well established scientific theories.It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution.FACTS are evidence, right? So why when the test supports evolution won’t you accept it? I’ll bet my bottom dollar you would be crowing over a negative result. Ah, this is my favourite bit. It isn't 75% evidence at all. It is 0.75 correlation across 300 evidences.From memory the average taxa number was six, giving you the benefit of the doubt let’s say only 66% of nodes match, for ease of calculation. This means that four cladogram nodes match the stratigraphic order of appearance. What are the chances of this occurring if evolution were not indicative of reality?You have four slots left, pick a taxa & there is a 4:1 chance of getting it right. There is then a 3:1 chance of getting it right for the next, & so on. This means that the average odds of getting a cladogram right by chance to the tune of a 0.66 correlation is 1*2*3*4:1, or 36:1. Already strong evidence of evolution. But hang on, aren’t there 300 cladograms?That becomes 36*10^300:1 (corrected by edit to add *10)7.77*10^466 : 1 (corrected by edit to add *10) odds that the samples tested match evolutionary expectations by chance the way that they do! Do you want to write that number in full? 7.77 with 466 zero’s tagged on behind it?Such is the multiplicative power of corroboration.So, tell me, what is more likely, macroevolution occurred, or the statistical evidence occurred by chance? It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution.Statistical evidence IS accepted by courtrooms. A nonsense objection. Methinks you are not competent to proceed. And wrong again, statistical evidence is accepted that is less well supported than this (relatively speaking). DNA paternity evidence, for example. Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses have been used in the courtroom to secure convictions. If the court accepts it, why not you?And you expose another inconsistency in your reasoning, this apparently IS evidence if microevolution is involved, but not if macroevolution is involved? So is it garbage, or not? It seems you are rejecting evidence based upon your preconceived notions, rather than honestly & critically examining it. If the evidence supports microevolution, fine accept it. If it supports macroevolution, reject it as garbage. Not very honest, Sonic? It is evidence or it isn't. You can't just reject it because you don't want macroevolution to have evidence. There really is little point discussing science with you, then, is there? If 7.77^466:1 isn’t rock solid statistical evidence, then nothing will convince you, especially as you see it as some kind of virtue to accept something with no evidence whatsoever. Bizarre. There is a 0.75% correlation between cladograms & stratigraphy. Explain how that FACT occurred despite a global flood.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-28-2003]

I want to add that I may be wrong, but please correct me if I amQuiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-28-2003]

Ok,I feel like you guys dont understand me. I am sorry if I appear to be lying, or insulting. I have tried number of times to tell you what I think the differences are between Micro and Macro and each time I have failed. Alot of confusion has entered because I have failed to properly explain what Micro-Evolution is and what Macro-evolution is.Micro-Evolution: All small genetic changesMacro-Evolution: Naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs.Please note that Macro-Evolutions difference to Micro is that in Macroevolution you would observe the evolution of a eye, or a brain, or a heart, organs which seem vital during time as time passes. Now Microevolution would occur if after the eye was formed a small change occured, such as being able to see in color and not just black and white.Different and new vital organs? Different and new mean the same thing, if a organ changed shape from the old shape like from a circle to a ovel then the different change, would represent a new shape. and vice versa if the new shape was different then before then it would be different then before.Now days the only vital organs are the brain and heart, if we where to observe macro-evolution in our time those would be the effected organs.Now regarding the problem between Paulk and I: Post 105 was answered in post 106 but I will re-state my self in a better way. I dont agree that the fossil record is evidence of evolution. Yes paul their are alot of transitional fossils but not enough. Now post 109 paul writes that the fossil record does not have the sort of resolution I say it needs and their are requirments which permit certain fossilization. My answer to this question would be that I Disagree and see no reason why it would not need the same resolution of fossils, regarding transitionals, as we see with skin color from black to white. Paulk also brings up microevolution and the fossil record and states that the microevolution fossils are the fossils which are missing. I would agree with you Paulk that perhaps their are alot of intermediate fossils related to microevolution missing, that is if it is factual that Macroevolution actually occured. Paulk asks about DNA, so regarding DNA I think the DNA differences are large enough to suggest common creator and not evolution. Sure DNA is similar for humans and apes but the different is big enough to suggest common creator instead of evolution. validation of my earlier responses are in post 110 regarding 109, and regarding Paulk, he says I dont like it and that is the reasons why I dont accept it, that is wrong, read post 112 and 114, then if you may read post 115 were pausl states: I would say it seems we disagree not that I didn't answer him or that I ran. But eather case I am trying to answer him again with this post. Now all are aware that I didn't run Paulk. I want to add that after 115 our argument became like little kids fighting. I apologize for this rambling. You also find more rambling later in this thread and that is why I chose to post this post, so that it is final I answerd his questions, now we await his response.Thank You
SonicP.S. I missunderstood what the webpage was saying. Please dont discredit the idea of Macro and Micro and there differences because of my lame attempt at explaining them.

Wow, Well I will accept the possibility of evolution. I hate it, Just thinking that I wont be with my family when I die, but it is possible. Just puts a dimmer on faith. I am gonna have to look into this idea more then I have in the past Just to see where it takes me.Just for a practical joke, Can you show me the ods again. This time with the calculation and sumThank You
Sonic

Sonic, Evolution in no way precludes an afterlife. It does falsify a literal reading of the bible, however. Evidence is supposed to. Who has the stronger argument, the man who claims there are discrete charge carrying entities called electrons, & cites a wealth of evidence. Or the man who denies the other mans claim on the strength that it contradicts religion? I already did. But I've noticed an error. In a six taxa phylogeny there are 5 nodes, not 6. So, again for ease of calculation, we'll asume an average correlation of 0.60. Three out of five nodes correlate. Meaning 1*2*3:1 = 6:1 odds of getting a 60% correlation in one cladogram. For 300 cladograms it becomes 6^300:1, or 2.79*10^233:1 odds of getting the correlation with stratigraphy by chance.Of course the actual correlation is 0.75, which is closer to 4 out of 5 nodes correlating, in which case 1*2*3*4 = 24:1 = 1.16*10^433:1In a cladogram with 5 nodes we might expect a 20% chance per node of it being "right" by chance. This adds up to a one node "got right" by chance alone. In other words, there is a 1:1 chance that one of the nodes is "correct", & it's just "noise". So even if we go back to the most favourable calculation for you (the 5 node 0.60 correlation) & subtract the "noise", instead of 1*2*3, it becomes 1*2 = 2:1 chance of a "pure signal", which becomes 2^300 : 1 = 2.04*10^90 : 1 of there being the impression of a statistical signal due to chance alone. Is that all? Don't you mean, "I accept the amazingly powerful corroborative evidence in favour of macroevolution?"There are now over a thousand cladograms tested, but I'll let you do the sums!Given the quality of evidence supporting my argument, I put it to you that it is unreasonable on an evidential basis to deny the occurrence of macroevolution.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-28-2003]

I think PaulK that you are reacting too quickly. Let us give Sonic the benefit of the doubt. He is, I think, actually trying to answer the questions. I believe that he is not answering because he doesn't understand the questions, is getting too much stuff to keep up with and doesn't understand the weakness in his own arguments.I suggest that you take it easy, please.

Why? The ToE says nothing about faith. The majority of Christians have no problem believing God choose mutations and natural selection as His method for allowing life to survive the changes on earth.It is only the radical fundamentalists who think the facts that science uncovered are damaging to religion. Do not let them put you in this position.

Sonic, don't get too carried away on using definitions as a point of argument. If you decide that the dictionary definition you want to use for the word evidence doesn't include what we have then we will change the word to 'data' or something like that. What we do have to do is have a clear mutual understanding of what we are looking for.You most recent definition includes the synonym "indication" by the way, which brings it in line with dictionary.com anyway. That is evidence, in one of it's dictionary definition does *not* have to include "proof". As has been explained elsewhere we are not dealing in mathematical proof. We are dealing with the very best explanation for a set of facts that we currently have.Now then down to getting clear what you are talking about: You have not defined complexity in any useful way at all. You sources talk about it increasing or not but don't know how to say if something has increased or not. More advice from ol' mouthy here: Creationists use this word all the time but I have yet to see any of them define it. You have been fooled by an incompetant into thinking there is something meaningful here. [qs]Now days the only vital organs are the brain and heart, if we where to observe macro-evolution in our time those would be the effected organs. Sonic! This is, obviously, not true. Even if we were talking about just humans, which we are not, this still isn't true.However, look again at the liine of skulls. Do you see a change in brain size? Yes you do. That is even your very restricted form of macro evolution occuring.Different and New: Yes they can be mixed together to mean the same thing but the reason I had to ask more than once is that the words do not connote the same thing. If two creatures both have a heart but one has more chambers than the other they are 'different'. If a flatworm has no heart and a relative has a small pumbing chamber then we have a 'new' organ. I hope you will learn that some precision is required in what you are saying. Then what would be enough? Didn't you say (or link to a site that did) that there are no transitionals?I'll leave the resolution issue to someone else. Both let them have fun and rest my fingers. If we showed you a bigger difference between organisms that creationists think are the same kind would you agree that humans and apes are the same kind?Additionally, it is not just the number of differences. The creator put some very odd messages in the DNA of us and our nearest relatives. But that is another fairly large topic for a bit later. I don't think you misunderstand the web page. It is junk. Brown hasn't got a clue what he is talking about. He is trying to fool people who don't know very much about the topic. His material was never intended to stand up to real scutiny like it is getting here.

Sonic, The same respose as WILLOWTREE got.Based on what maths do you arrive at the conclusion that there should be a lot more transitional fossils? Clearly, to arrive at an informed opinion you will have taken into account biogeography, (species ranges, dispersal patterns etc), local taphonomic considerations based upon the organisms natural environment, & the subsequent chance of such a fossil being exposed at the surface in the Holocene.Show your working.If you can't do that, then I put it to you that your subjective opinion (when opposed by high quality evidence that macroevolution occurred) isn't any great danger to palaeontology, & evolutionary theory in general.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

First, there is nothing in the idea of descent with modification that rules out an afterlife; some of us could be reincarnated dinosaurs or anomalocarids. I'm not sure about what Sonic has in mind -- a big jump that happens in one generation? These evolve from simpler structures; one can see a variety of complexities of eyes, brains, and hearts in present-day creatures -- including none at all. I'm reluctant to call that a "small" change, since that requires the origin of a new photoreceptor. But such an origin can easily happen by way of gene duplication. We'd need a LOT of medical assistance if we were to try surviving without many of our other organs. Though several of them we need because we are just plain big. If we were protist-sized, we would not need lungs or kidneys or a circulatory system or even a very fancy digestive system; diffusion would accomplish all those tasks very nicely. How does one work out the boundary line? Creationists have had a variety of opinions on what's in a "created kind" or baramin.Some creationists think that Felidae, the cat family, is one created kind, even though felines have come in a variety of sizes and even though some felines have/had divergent features like long saber fangs, roaring, sociality, and maned males. Present-day felines share an ancestor that lived about 10-15 million years ago, and the ancestors of sabertoothed felines like Smilodon had diverged earlier.So this means that the most divergent felines have had greater genetic distances than human-chimp.Some creationists have proposed even larger baramins, like IIRC all bacteria(!) The genetic distances between many "species" of bacteria are gigantic by human-chimp standards.

I have been involved in a similar discussion on another message board.Since fossilization is such a rare occurrence, it's not great problem if there is a lack of fossils in any single lineage. We're pretty lucky to have any fossils at all.The strength of evolution lies in that we can make predictions about the transitionals if and when they are found. For example, take whales. There is no reason (based on Biblical creationism) that any fossils linking whales to more ancestral animals should be found. And if links are found (because God is such a whimsical character?), there's no reason why we shouldn't find a series, say, of fossils that "show" a direct evolutionary path directly from fish.But evolution makes specific predictions about transitionals. Whales are clearly mammals - they are warm blooded, bear live young, embryos are connected to a placenta, they nurse their young, their front flippers have five-finger skeletons that look for all the world like the hand bones in humans, except for relative proportion, and so on. So, one can make a prediction - if we are lucky enough, we will find a sequence of fossil animals that show intermediate characteristics between the terrestrial mammals and modern whales. Sure enough, such fossils have been found:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
No webpage found at provided URL: http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen.html
Also note that the fossils occur in the correct order: more terrestrial species occur earlier than more whale-like species.
Another prediction: no fossils will ever be found that will show "in-between" characteristics of fish and whales - that is, we will never find a sequence that connects whales directly with fish. Although not finding such things do not prove they never existed, it is note-worthy that all transitionals found to date confirm the traditional phylogenic tree - there were no truly bizarre discrepencies.Now, currently, as far as I know, the earliest bats date the the Eocene and are clearly bats. There is, as yet, no record of the evolutionary history of bats. But it is known that bats are mammals. Furthermore, there is taxonomic evidence that link bats to tree-shrews and primates:
Eutheria
Prediction: if we are lucky, there will be a sequence of fossils linking early tree-dwelling mammals with modern bats. If such fossils are found, this will be yet another confirmatory piece of evidence for evolution.
Prediction: we will never find a sequence of fossils that seem to link bats with, say, birds. Finding such fossils would pose grave problems for the theory of evolution.[Corrected a minor spelling error and a grammatical awkwardness.][This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-28-2003]

Sonic, isn't sure what Sonic has in mind. He jumped into this thinking it was simple. It will take awhile before he realized how complex it is and how bad the information he has been fed is.But he shows some perserverance and a willingness to try that is rare, to give him some time to sort it out.However, I'm reasonably sure he doesn't think it is one jump. He just hasn't been exposed to how you can get a large change out of small ones.

Well no, the problem is not that you're being misunderstood it is that you aren't dealing with the real issue. Just as I said.You have agreed that the "missing" transitional fossils are examples of microevolution - which you accept - and that their absence is a limitation of the fossil record.So their absence does not mean that we have "too few" transitional fossils at all. We have TOO MANY to be attributed to chance. So we need an explanation - and macro evolution is the best explanation. Ergo they ARE evidence for macroevolution.Here's one example:The change from the reptilian to mammalian jaw is illustrated herePage Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of Newfoundlandand explained in more detail here
ADW: Not FoundThis document gives an overview of the eovlutionary history
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Lecture%207.pdfBones from the jaw - including the joint - have shunk and migrated to the ear taking up a new role. So of course a new joint was also needed. And indeed we find a double joint in some fossils - a necessary stage, if the jaw is to remain usable througout the evolutionary process.But since you've studied the fossil record you know all this - right ? And you must have a much better explanation than just asserting that "there are too few transitional fossils" - an assertion that you can't support and had already been rebutted. So what is it ? After all you'd have to be able to deal with a well-known example like this to say that the fossil record didn't support macroevolution.As for the DNA you need to make a case, not state your opinion. Claiming that DNA does not contain evidence for macroevolution just because you say so is not a valid argument.

- MARK24,
post 201 True The man carrying the evidence, I also thank you for the wonderful calculation I will study more and for now I will only say that it is highly possible.- ADMINNOSY,
post 202 I am trying very hard to answer all the questions with the best english that I know how, of course if I am incorrect the I am incorrect. I will accept the fall if I must but it is only on a MUST situation. I thank you for atleast giving me the benefit of the doubt. You may be right as to the "logic given" behind why I may not be answering all the questions correctly and may appear that I am lying or trying to decieve.- NOSYNED
post 203 True, I tend to agree now that I think about it more the way you are mentoning it. I just need to do more study, I thought I understood things but it appears that I MAY not understand them completly.- NOSYNED
post 204I agree, It is basicaly like this, When a huge dragon is getting killed by a warrior the dragon is not going to go down without a fight even if he goes down with a whaling and gnashing of teeth. (I would be the dragon who is looking for any possible means to defend himself, even if it is obviosue that the warrior is going to win the battle) I use this method all the time because I FEEL it is the best method to reveal the truth, because it removes all possible errors.
-regarding macro- I believe what BROWN is trying to say, on the webpage, is speratic development, in other words The eye just appears out of no where with no indication of evolution, that is, when it comes to the organs. That would be macro-evolution, and that is why Brown is saying does not occur. Thinking of it this way gives the complexity idea better understanding.
Regarding vital organs and your comment in post 204, I agree, perhaps those are not the only vital organs
Regarding the my answer on the transitional fossils, I believe if we had aleast 1% of the entire set of fossils we have today, that would be enough transitional fossils to indicate that organic evolution occured. I get my 1% from the idea that we probably only have 1% of the fossils when we think about organic-evolution, so I will assume that we should only need 1% of those 1% of fossils. It is built from an assumption which may be bad, but could be good. Anyways I really dont know how many actual fossils we have concerning mathimatics but 1% of them should be transitional fossils in order to indicate evolution.
Regarding DNA, I dont believe that similarites of DNA between different species is enough to show evolution.
Regarding BROWN and his webpage, I dont really think that brown is 100% correct but when trying to keep your belief system in tact it is easy to take for grantid what a authoritve creationist might say and find anyway to defend your self. I still think their is a difference in Micro and Macro. I think Micro would be considered the same as we see in the definition of the word Evolution perhaps and extended out to speciation and small genetic changes, and Macro would be considered the same as the Theory of Organic Evolution or the TOE. So if since evolution is factual so is Microevolution and if the TOE is theoretical so is Macro-evolution. Understand?- MARK24
post 205Mark24 please regarding your question in this post 205 check out my response to NOSTNED for post 204. Please note that that assumption is based on the least possibility to help it be more correct.- LPETRICH
post 206 Perhaps you are right, or wrong. I think you idea behind this theory is correct though, evoltion may not remove the idea of a afterlife. for example, maybe we become spirits like people say they see in haunted houses. Just an idea but probably not accurate. Yes, for the most part(i.e. that is just directed towards macroevolution), You might want to check out my response to NOSYNED in this post concerning his post in 204. Refer to understanding in NOSYNEDS part of this post(i.e. post 204). Agreed, I ment small change in the direction of small genetic changes like posted in the definition in post 168 of this entire thread.
regarding medical assistance, You are right, I perhaps had a bad conception of what vital organs are. To me a vital organ is something that is going to cause death if removed.
Regarding dna and creationist working out a boundary line, thats simple, creationist rather assume that the similarites in DNA represents a common creator instead of what evolutionists assume(i.e. evolution/microevolution).- CHIRPOPTERA
post 207Please refer to NOSYNED(post 204) in this response/post when wondering about the fossil record and my opinion or thoughts. Regarding DNA please refer to understanding under post 206 in this response.-NOSYNED
post 208refer to other responses to you, in order to understand what I have in mind.- PAULK (-Last but not least)
post 209 Same difference, but depends on the person looking at it. You can eather say I am lying which would be the similar to saying I am not dealing with the real issue, or you can say I missunderstood which means the same as I am not dealing with the issue.
-Moving on and forgetting our differences-
Regarding amount of fossils needed please refer to my response to NOSYNED(204) as I have referd all so far when regarding to mathamatics of required fossils in my opinion to substantiate the claim of organic evolution when we see the metaphoric representation considered in the fossil record.
Regarding DNA and a case, there is no case except the similarites which can be assumed as eather common creator or evolution. It depends on the side, if you are a evolutionist sure you would assume evolution if you are a creationist you would assume creation or common creator. No big deal with this understanding.- I thank you all for awaiting my response, and baring with me and giving me the benefit of the doubt.Thank You
SonicP.S. Please forgive me on the format of this post, If you have problems understanding my response refer to the post you posted then apply my response.[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]