Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring

Hey, long time no reply Brad. Hope things are going well.

quote:

---

I have been looking over Gould's "Species as Individuals in the Hierarchical Theory of Selection" in his THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY and given my own few or many quircks of interpretation I can not understand why Gould seperates for a "macro" perspective multiple issues which in these quick quircks I find only one process and only a meta or labeling scheme being proposed by him. It is nice that Gould "spaces" out his understanding of concepts for any one to read but I can not make out his idea into its "strong" form NO MATTER HOW HARD I TRY.

---

I confess that I haven't read Gould's work (time to get a library card again) but it sounds like there may not be a concrete meaning. Perhaps micro and macro are more fluid and can never really illustrate differences, or even quantifiable degrees of evolution. I am shooting in the dark here, but I find this quite often in scientific literature and it may be the case here. Macro and micro seem subjective instead of objective.

quote:

---

There is more evidence for [a global flood] than against it, I assure you.

---

If I only had a nickel for every time this unsupported assertion was trotted out. Usually its prefaced with "I have little knowledge of geology, but . . .", which actually adds a little humor.How about this . . .There is more evidence for Werewolves than against them, I assure you.Kind of a weak statement, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

---

Now, as I've stated earlier, I resign. I know what I know, and no person can convince me otherwise. Peace.

---

I know little, concede nothing, and will forever be wrong. Not a position I would like to put myself in. Close mouthed and close minded are fertile fields for brainwashing and fanaticism. Of course, it may be that this site is not worth your time. Anyway, whether here or elsewhere, learning about the natural world is a great joy and I hope you enjoy your journey.

quote:

---

Most creationists will believe what's given to them without analyzing its details, and evolutionists do likewise.

---

Are you familiar with a term in psychology called "projection"? Check it out. Evolutionists are evolutionists because they have analyzed the details. In fact, many ex-creationists admit that they gave up on special creation and a young earth because they started analyzing the data. This is why most creationists are afraid to stringently test their theories given the track record of their previous efforts (see helium in the atmosphere).

quote:

---

You can say that Ron Wyatt is a crackpot, but you won't KNOW that he's a crackpot until you've gone to one (or all) of his supposed findings and find nothing.

---

If I told you I had seen space aliens, UFO's, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, trolls, ogres, hobbits, etc. would you believe me? Or would you call be a crackpot? What if I had nothing to prove what I saw, would you still take it on face value? You believe Ron Wyatt because you WANT to believe that he saw those things. Just like when we were all kids, Santa Claus had to be real otherwise the presents wouldn't show up.

quote:

---

Ron Wyatt isn't attempting to prove some crap someone made up. He's simply investigating something that people have been believing for over 3000 years. Wouldn't you do the same?

---

Belief in fairies, trolls, and ogres goes back thousands of years as well. Native Americans have oral traditions that may predate the penning of the Old Testament, but I don't see anyone looking for the bears that created mountain ranges. If I were to investigate the mythology of any religion, it would not be an investigation to discover the actual artifacts of the mythology, but rather the roots of the stories and how they relate to neighboring civilizations.On another note, I believe the Ark of the Covenant was a real artifact. I am not totally against you here. However, Noah's Ark is obvious fiction, and it could be argued that it was considered fictional mythology to the authors of the Old Testament as well. For me, events that take place well before the exodus of the Jews from Egypt can probably be considered mythology. Also, the earth opening up and revealing the Ark of the Covenant at the site of Jesus' crucifixion seems a little far fetched to me. Added to this is Wyatt's own retraction of some of the other stories that he told. I think that his followers are prone to wishful thinking and may hinge to much of their faith on tangible, physical evidence.That being said, we are drifiting off topic and anymore discussion should probably be moved to the appropriate thread. Feel free to respond to this message, but I will probably not respond in kind within this thread. I will check in on the "The Great Fabricator: Ron Wyatt" thread if you want to continue this discussion.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-04-2004 02:39 PM