Evolution Logic

How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.This is what the fossil record shows.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Where do you observe evidence for these limits, and how do you make predictions about what variation is and is not allowed?

What kind of change, how much, ... what is your definition of "maccro"evolution?You need to set the benchmark of what it is you want to see not just wave your hands at all the evidence. So you keep stating,but you haven't provided any evidence for HOW it cannot happen. Just repeating statements of incredulity and ignorance is NOT evidence. Why progressive? Evolution is evolution, it is neither "progressive" nor "regressive" - it is just change in species over time."Progressive" is an egotistical valuation of some changes compared to others from a purely human viewpoint, a viewpoint which - like your opinion - has absolutely no effect on what happens in the natural world universe. Nope. Again your assumption of "advances" is an erroneous valuation from your {egotistical} human viewpoint.We would just need a lot of changes, each one small and relatively insignificant in the grand scope of things, but by accumulation over time (3.5 billion years) amounting to "significant" enough for a vast and divergent ecology that happens to include us at this time. But you see, "decreases and loss" is once again your {egotistical} human viewpoint, and not of any importance to the natural universe. Is it a "loss" to get rid of extra baggage? Is it a "decrease" to stop wasting resources on a non-productive element?Is it a loss for a horse to lose extra toes so that it can stand taller on one extended and fused toe-foot? It's still standing isn't it? And that extra leg length translates into being able to run faster for the same amount of leg development: is that a decrease?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Another unsubstantiate assertion that is contradicted by facts.If you want to discuss this you can take it to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Or I can start another {Age Correlations, step by step} just for you.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.or you can try to ignore reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That link doesn't work for some reason...

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

What makes you so sure that the trilobites died out before the first modern ray-finned fish existed? Proof?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Nah, that's not what I would be interested in.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hmmm. Try Philip D. Gingerich and go to
Gingerich, P. D., N. A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. I. Shah.? 1983.? Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan.? Science, 220: 403-406. PDF down in the references.

Sure they can.See how much fun this is, when both of us make assertions and then don't provide anything to prove them?

So you keep saying, but you have yet to present ANY evidence.You are saying that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 does not equal 14.Saying it does not make it so.Until you actually present some kind of evidence for your assertion all it amounts to is your opinion stated over and over and over and over, and ... it has absolutely NO effect on the natural universe.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have already said what macroevolution would be.But, here are the major differences:*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism*Microevolution happens, it has been observed*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"*Macroevolution is the common belief "evolution" Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing. Willing to support this claim with proof instead of just saying it? And I mean about macroevolution, not microevolution. That was not meant to be an argument. I was just answering a direct question. Please check that out. I cannot deny that which NO ONE has showed me. No one has showed me how a feather would have evolved from other tissue. Want to try? Well if your claim is that a bird evolved from a reptile...I know your theory says it all happened slowly, with many changes, over many generations. But, you have yet to supply an example of macroevolution, or part of it, that would be definitely relevant and precisely showing macroevolution.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly. It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

IN EVERY REPRODUCING ORGANISM FOR THE PAST 2,000 OR SO YEARS! No one has observed evolution for these past 2,000 years! Dogs have remained dogs. Monkeys have remained monkeys. Humans have remained humans. Fish have remained fish. ETC...Edited by Someone who cares, : Misprint

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown