Evolution Logic

Your question doesn't make sense, dork. Micro- and Macro-evolution are not different types of evolution, such that you could choose one or another. Macroevolution results from an accumulation of microevolutionary changes.

If you mean a human individual born from a monkey individual, or a bird hatching from an egg laid by a reptile, these are not things that are expected according to evolutionary theory. They are silly creationist straw-man ideas of what evolution is. What you want is not macroevolution (which is really just the result of an accumulation of microevolutionary changes), but something more like saltationism.

Actually, no. I believe you're referring to Message 46, where arachnophilia said this:

quote:

---

so you have no problem with the fact that whales are even-toed ungulates? in the same "kind" with hippos, pigs, llamas, camels, deer, sheep, goats, and antelope?

---

Not that they "came from" hippos, pigs, etc., but that they are related cladistically. Whales apparently evolved from primitive even-toed land ungulates (order Artiodactyla). It sounds like you mean "vertebrates" or perhaps "tetrapods." Insects are also very much like other arthropods. The idea that Neandertals walked with a stoop is based on a faulty reconstruction of one of the first complete Neandertal skeleton by Pierre Marcellin Boule in 1915. That individual did happen to have evidence of arthritis, but the reconstruction (which also featured a falsely divergent big toe) appeared to be influenced by Boule's ape-man preconceptions.We now have many neandertal skeletons of many ages and physical condition, and their anatomy shows that their posture was much like that of modern humans. So much so, that many of your fellow creationists insist that they were "completely human."source links, for more info:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neander_misconc.html
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Neandertal Manthe Changing Picture | Answers in Genesis Of course, many long threads have been devoted to this issue alone, and if you want to continue that line of discussion we'd probably want to start a new topic. All the same, I suggest that you provide a source for the claim. This is quite silly. Any mammal can get tooth decay, regardless the amount of sugar in the diet. Ask a veterinarian. No, it still wouldn't make much sense in the context. Humans share common ancestry with all of those, the common ancestor with the butter bean plant (Phaseolus lunatus) being the most distant.In any case, this is in reference to the following paragraph in your essay:

quote:

---

“Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.” “Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.” “Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.” “On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative.”

---

This is mostly nonsensical. Cholesterol level tests?? As in, garter snakes have similar cholesterol levels to humans, and this is supposed to say something about ancestry? How exactly would you compare the blood chemistry of a plant?Genes are the primary units of heredity. It makes sense, therefore, to make comparisons of DNA to make conclusions regarding ancestry. This is an odd question. According to evolutionary theory, the octopus and human share a common ancestor. This does not mean that the immediate ancestors of the two groups are the same. The harmful ones tend to be culled out by natural selection. The neutral ones have no effect (unless other factors later make them harmful or beneficial). Beneficial mutations will be selected for, and increase in prevalence. We actually do see examples of single-cell organisms showing primitive multicellularity under certain conditions. Consider Dictyostelium, for example, unicellular amoebae which form a multicellular assembly when the food supply runs out. Abiogenesis is an important topic, but it is a different topic from evolution. Even if God did make the first life form (or it fell from a meteor, or developed through natural processes), that does not impact evolutionary theory, which involves what happened after the first life appeared. Your personal incredulity aside, evolution is not a random, chance process. He is not saying that an increase in complexity cannot occur in evolution. That is one aspect or mode of evolution. It is not, however, necessary for evolution. Evolution is simply change, there is no assumption of an increase in complexity in all cases. An assumption of optimum reproductive rate is foolish, because there are many factors limiting that rate (ETA: You might want to google "sigmoid curve"). In any case, IMO we do currently have way too many humans. This is a stunningly ignorant statement. There is no kingdom of life for which we do not study phylogenetic relatedness.Edited by Belfry, : marked addition

Zoocentrism rears its ugly head again... I see it all the time on the forums.

ALL the plant types? It would be hard to fit everything on one chart. If you haven't come across a plant phylogeny, you haven't looked. Folks talk about animals in these debates more because they are easier to relate to, I suppose (or perhaps animal evolution is more threatening to creationists). Try doing a google image search on "plant phylogeny." Here are some that I found within a few minutes:Phylogeny showing some major groups and relatedness to other kingdoms: Charophytes to Seed Plants: Vascular Plants another one for bryophytes and vascular plants, includes more detail of angiosperm and gymnosperm clades: These are, of course, very general. You can find finer detail of pretty much any group you wish; it is extensively studied.

LOL, it's funny to see you grab wholeheartedly onto the AiG party line, once you're made aware of it. Monkeys are another matter. Neandertals certainly weren't monkeys. I suggest that you educate yourself on these words before using them to "refute" the whole body of modern biological knowledge. I assume you're talking about the Nutall precipitation, which is a way of comparing the similarity of blood proteins. Since these proteins are ultimately based on DNA templates, it is an indirect way of looking at genetic similarity. It's a simple technique that can be used in science classes with kits you can order.However, we do not rely on Nutall precipitation tests. In fact, we now have mapped the entire genomes of both chimpanzees and humans (and other organisms, too). Again, this is referring to chimpanzees and other non-human apes, which are not monkeys. They have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans have 23. We now know that this is because at some point after the divergence of the human lineage, one pair of chromosomes became fused with another at the telomere (see this page, which includes literature cites that you can check out for more info). It's actually not unusual for closely related organisms to have different numbers of chromosomes, and we know a few different mechanisms by which that can happen. We don't. PLEASE educate yourself on what an ape is, and what a monkey is, and what evolutionary theory says about the history of the human lineage. Without this knowledge, you're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against a straw man that you have built from creationist sources. Of course not. You can't sum up the entire evolutionary history of the human race in a forum post. That's why you have to take it one step at a time. When you start with unicellular organisms, a reasonable next step is to look at the origin of multicellularity. No one thinks that humans arose fully-formed directly out of a one-celled population. No. Non-random does not equal "directed, specific, and purposeful." Natural selection is not intelligently directed, or purposeful (except in the case of human cultivation), but it is not random. That's not what I said. This is ridiculous, respond to what is written in the post, not to your own misconceptions of what you think is probably meant. LMAO! This statement shows a profound ignorance of ecology, and even a lack of common sense. It's so ludicrous, I don't even know where one would begin to respond. A number of plant phylogenies have been posted, the best one by WK in Message 240. Although I applaud your effort to respond to everyone, it's still advisable to scan ahead and see if your questions have already been answered. Phylogenies don't "show evolution," they chart the relatedness of organisms, which supports the theory of common descent.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.