Macro and Micro Evolution

Natural selection and sexual selection are the mechanisms which produce evolutionary change. They do not prevent "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution".Here is a tutorial on evolutionary biology. Read it and tell us what you think.

Looks like this thread is going along without me. It's looking good, I probably couldn't add anything that has already been established.------------------
-chris

Chiroptera, Quiz and Sonic are experts in this area. That is why they are so sure that macro-evolution isn't possible. I would like them to explain what they are saying to me. Wouldn't that be fun? But it is pretty complex (pun intended) so we should give them time to work through each thing that they bring up as they bring it up at their own speed. They might get discouraged if we try to hurry them along.What do you think?

What about "the information theory"?------------------
-chris

Which "information theory" would this be? Maybe you could explain it.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

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.Thank You
Sonic

What about "information theory"? You brought it up, it becomes your job to explain why it is pertinant.What this one though, it might be starting to move to the topic of another thread. We are defining and talking about macro and micro evolution here.

I never said that macro-evolution didn't occur, I simply said that the evidence does not suggest such a occurance.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

I already have read that page and that is were I get my understanding of evolution.Thank You
Sonic

You didn't say it didn't occur? Well, do you think it does or do you think it doesn't? I certainly had the distinct impression that you didn't think it did. Why would you now say you didn't say it didn't? Was there some enormous misunderstanding from when you first started posting? If there was why didn't you correct it earlier? If there wasn't then even if you didn't say so in so many words you were, in fact, supporting that position. If that is the case why would you bother to say that you didn't say that? Unless it is just some twisting of the words which isn't really at the heart of the discusion.If you do think macro evolution occured, why do you? If you don't, why do you not?

Oh, well, to tell you the truth that has been apparent from your first post.Do you really think you can get an understanding of a major area of science from such a place and in such a short time? How likely is it that individuals who are fanatically against the whole idea are going to give you a correct understanding of it?They are either deliberately ignorant of the topic or are lying to you.This is a forum for fun and interesting debate. If you don't want to personally debate the issues then why should I bother?You don't have much of any understanding of evolution. I suggest that a good place for you to start to really understand evolution is http://www.talkorgins.org. You will find that everything (or almost everything) that is posted at any of the creationist sites is referenced there and linked to. For that reason you will get a lot of both sides of the argument if you start at talkorigins. I can tell you that you will not get both sides starting from the kind of places that you referenced.If you still think that your reference is a good one, then you can use it to learn more and explain the idea of "complexity" etc. It is, after all, a concept which they choose to introduce. You don't have to hurry, just let us know that it will take you awhile.

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.Thank you
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

I am well aware of everything you just suggested and just because I disagree with you does not mean I dont understand evolution, It just means I disagree, Yeah that is possible.Now yes, I want to discuss these ideas at a personal level, that is why I am here, to debate, to learn, that should be why you are here also. But apparently you know everything from the way you present your self, You seem to jump the gun and come to odd-ball conclusions, which I really dont understand ever, such as, where in the world did you get that I dont want to discuss these topics at a personal level?.Thank you
Sonic

Clear up complexity? Maybe you could explain what you mean by clearing it up, I think that idea should be obviouse for one such as your self.Thank You
Sonic

quote:

---

Chiroptera, Quiz and Sonic are experts in this area. That is why they are so sure that macro-evolution isn't possible. I would like them to explain what they are saying to me. Wouldn't that be fun?

​

But it is pretty complex (pun intended) so we should give them time to work through each thing that they bring up as they bring it up at their own speed. They might get discouraged if we try to hurry them along.

​

What do you think?

---

Apparently you are also.

quote:

---

I don't think there are two separate forms of of evolution so I don't have to show any connection

---

From that quote it seems that you are unsure about evolution your self. Perhaps a blind leap of hope, I would say.Quiz