Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Hi Tanypteryx, I will highlight what they said for you. Source1. Macroevolution is evolution above the the species level.2. There are no first hand accounts to be read. (There is no direct evidence we can produce).3. Once we figure out what evolutionary events we think happned. We try to figure out how we think it happened.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Ahhhhh, I see where I went wrong now. Thanks for setting me straight.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

How is this any different than using forensic evidence to recreate the commission of a crime that has no eyewitness? How is this any different than matching a suspect's DNA to the crime scene and then figuring out why the suspect did it?

all evolution takes places on generational level, below the species level. "macroevolution" is a strawman creationists made up so they can pretend that speciation somehow doesn't compound. there are first hand accounts of (indeed, lab-produced) speciation. still having problems with turning dependent clauses into sentence fragments, i see.

---

אָרַח

Hi arach,Since you can't read a post before you coment I will repeat the post you are answering to in post 364. SourceIf you don't like the words that are enlarged and bolded why don't you take it up with Berkely?If it is a strawman as you claim it was created by scientist not creationist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I don't have a problem with the following:"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."We have figured out that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and that both humans and chimps evolved from that common ancestor. Genetics and the fossil record are clear on this. Now we are trying to figure out the environmental pressures that resulted in the divergence of these two lineages. Don't you agree?

that's great. firstly, they're not exactly talking about what you're talking about.second, what you're talking about is still not an actual biological concept. evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution -- everything actually happens on the species level. most biological sources that use the word "macroevolution" are referring to speciation -- change that happens above the species level, ie: by introducing a new species.this is, however, what creationists refer to as "microevolution".Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

What do you base the statement that there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution"?Douglas Theobald a biochemist at Brandeis Univ. writes:"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constitutencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the 'grand scale' resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).29+Evidences for Macroevolution, Douglas Theobald June, 2007This expert states that there is a very big difference between micro and macor evolution. Do you disagree with him, and if so on what Basis?

notice that "micro" is anything below the species level, and "macro" is the species, or above (ie: the compounding of species-level changes).this is not what creationists mean.

Micro and Macro, just like species itself, is simply a human construct used for record keeping. It is an after the fact label we stick on things to make communication easier.The process though is exactly the same for both.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

An often used analogy for evolution is that if you take one step in front of another you can eventually cross the united states from east to west coast. As I think of it, 'microevolution' is akin to staring at your feet through the journey, noting the gradual transition in terrain along the way, whereas 'macroevolution' is looking up every now and then and realising how much ground you've covered.
As I pointed out in Message 350 the transition of hominid skulls appear as examples of microevolution, with gradually increasing cranial capacity and less protruding jaw. But it's only when you look at the modern consequences of these changes i.e. humans and chimps, that you can identify a macroevolutionary change.

Hi ICANT, I'll try once again ... You really need to read the whole paragraph. When you zoom out on a tree from a single branch to see the whole tree, do you see any process that does not occur in the single branch being used in the formation of the tree? No, what you see are multiple branching events, with each branch formed by the same process, and where the overall structure is made up of the formation of multiple branches. What is different is the time focus - the growth of a single branch starts in a single season, while the growth of the tree involves many many seasons.Another way to look at it is to use the analogy of the snapshot vs movie film: we can look at the individual pictures of a movie as a series of snapshots, and we can note in detail the "micro" changes that occur from one snapshot frame to the next; then we can run the film through a projector and see how all the micro changes add up to the "macro" effects of all the little changes merged into a document of the motion captured by the film. Once again, the major difference is the time-scale used to look at the evidence: in the micro view we are looking at the frames one by one, slowly, and concentrating on the differences seen before moving on to the next frame, while in the macro view we are looking at the flow of the frames as they merge into the overall picture of motion that appears from the passage of the individual frames viewed for a brief moment, motion caused by the accumulation of the little changes from one frame to the next seen at a much faster scale of time. Personally I disagree with this opinion. This is a first hand account of macroevolution: It is written in fossils: it shows the ongoing "micro" evolution, with the changes in hereditary traits in the breeding population/s from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and it documents the overall "macro" evolution picture of increasing diversity, as branches form and become separated, different from the other branches by the long term accumulation of the ongoing "micro" evolution changes. Without "micro" evolution the "macro" evolution does not occur.Enjoy.btw - [size=1] makes the type smaller than normal and fixes it so that it doesn't adjust when you globally adjust the size of the fonts on a whole page.Edited by RAZD, : p

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

just quick question here, dont mean to interupt. if these are the changes from the Chimpanzees to humans and chimpanzees are still here, where did all these intermediate types go? Is it possible that all of them went extinct? Shouldnt there be atleast one example of them still in existence if we still have all types and examples of primatesi mean it just seems impossible that every example of these intermidiate types should go extinct, in such a short period of timeNow ive seen a few people that could pass for one of those primortial goomers, but then i said, ahh noJust a thought. any suggestions?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Don't you realize that some of those species evolved into the next species?They didn't go extinct but changed.An example: didn't you grow from an infant to a child to an adolescent to an adult? Those earlier forms of you didn't go extinct, they changed.This is a pretty good analogy for evolution. The main line from the common ancestor of chimps and humans was just such a series of changes. There were a few side branches that went extinct, but the main line leads from that common ancestor directly to us.So there is one example still in existence--us!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

human and chimpanzees are both crown species of the primate family tree. one did not evolve into the other; we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.and yes, all of the species between the common ancestor and either crown species are extinct. no, the vast majority of species in this planet's history are now extinct. in any case, if you pull the lens out a bit, and examine the bigger picture, chimpanzees are very much like a transitional species between other primates and humans. they aren't that species, but they retain a lot of the significant features.

---

אָרַח