Macro and Micro Evolution

Oh Spetner's "theory". All he does is fiddle the figures enough to CLAIM that any example is a decrease in information. Hardly a convincing argument. If you think otherwise feel free to start up a thread to discuss it.

LOL, I am thinking about it, I have seen much of the fossil record, I have studied it. That is partialy WHY I am a christian. I thought about using my imagination to fill in the gaps of what the fossil record does not dictate, and I would be lieing to my self if I accepted macro-evolution, and I cannot do that.Thank You
SonicP.S. I should call you "wiseone" as you know all, you must have been on the earth from the begining. Or wait, it seems that the fossil record is your GOD, even funnier. LOL[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

Sonic, Then please respond to post 116. The beauty of cladistic analyses is that they use what we do have, & don't hide behind what we don't.As is clear from the correlation between cladograms & stratigraphy, evolution, & yes, that means macroevolution, did indeed occur. Pretty much any evolution of familial level & above requires macroevolution. And it is as supported as microevolution in the fossil record.No act of denial is required, no imagination is required. You have been presented with solid evidence of evolution. Please feel free to interpret the 0.75 average correlation a different way rather than with evolution. But since it was phylogeny itself that was being tested, I think you may have trouble. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you couldn't interpret the results any differently without "lying to yourself", or using your "imagination".Thanks,Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

quote:

---

Right, except that specifically, Biological Evolution is defined as "a change in the alelle frequency of a population over time."

---

Does not mean that it points in the direction of macroevolution because those change from generation to generation and the difference is observable.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

​

There is only one Theory of Evolution, currently referred to as the Modern Synthesis ever since the inclusion of Genetics.

​

There are always gaps in our knowledge with every single scientific theory.

​

However, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) has been tested and for a century and it has survived. However, scientists are still debating the exact mechanisms by which evolution happens. That is why we now know about gene flow, genetic drift, PunkEek, etc.

---

I can see that now, I understand that the TOE is one theory and Micro and Macro are of the same theory. I believe sonic has made a good point about the fossil record and since scientist base conclusion of evidence I would think they would see the evidence sonic has clearly pointed out.

quote:

---

Um, no. There is only one ToE.

---

Agreed

quote:

---

Quiz, in the other thread you agreed earlier in this very message that the ToE deals with life once it got here. So why do you then in the very next breath try to say that the ToE covers Biogenesis when you just agreed that it only covers life once it got here???

---

How does biogenesis remove the idea of life once it got here?

quote:

---

Forbidden

---

I understand that the idea is theoretical and obsolete, that is one of the mechinisms of the TOE not mine, which is another erason why I fail to understand why the TOE could be correct.

quote:

---

So, are you saying that mutation and recombination are not facual, since they are mechanisms of evolution?

​

Sorry, mutation and recombination are, in fact, the observed facts that Evolutionary Theory explains.

---

No, I am saying that they dont support the toe to the imagination of Macroevolution.

quote:

---

Except that you are still terribly confused.

​

See this site which deals with how science works:

​

science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

---

Why because your logic is the only logic? or because I fail to agree with you? Where do you get that I am confused?

quote:

---

No, these are all just parts of Evolutionary Theory.

---

I have learned something else. I agree with these being parts of the TOE now.

quote:

---

You are very confused.

---

Or the logic could be that I am not confused, Just because the mechinisms which support evolution that is microevolution, are factual but then the mechinisms which support macroevolution are not does not mean that I am confused it is just someone pointing out where the TOE contradicts its self.

quote:

---

Is the belief that germs cause disease and the belief that the Sun is the center of the solar system the same kind of faith as faith in God?

---

if you are going to continue to use this kind of logic which is not comparible logic then I need to say I understand who is confused.Quiz

Quiz, Great, maybe you can shed some light on post 116, then?Mark

quote:

---

In my view the best evidence of evolution in the fossil record is based upon the high congruence between cladistics & stratigraphy.

---

Are you saying that your best evidence of evolution in the fossil record is based upon the high "agreement" between the "order" of the findings and the "timetable"? So in other words when they find a fossil then date it, it fits in order in-between other fossils?Quiz[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-23-2003]

You need to read a little bit more carefully. Has was pointed out to you in post 109 Note that because the resolution isn't terribly high the fossile record doesn't record micro-evolution (as you call it) very well at all, but does record what you call macro-evolution. When you are shown the intermediates for transitions higher than species BOTH in the fossil record and that have been recorded as happening in RECENT times will you finally admit you have it wrong? You see if you pick the species as the magic boundry you get in trouble in two ways: the ark problem (which it seems is why a lot of creationist organizations gave that up) and how easy it is to show such changes in shorter period of time.And now that you have an ark full of individual species you can go and cram some millions of pairs (and 7's) of animals on the ark.
Noah's Ark is a physical impossibilityAnd to support that you have to go to this thread
EvC Forum: Pseudogene, relic or functional?
Read up on it and explain the pseudogenes from a creation "science" perspective. If it is common creation the creator sure has some odd ways of doing things. It would appear that just like he "faked" an old earth to fool us, he also has done a very good job of looking like evolution happened. It seems he has quite a sense of humour does the old guy.

Yes, That is what he is saying. The problem is the dating techniques and even if the dating techniques were accurate and correct this does not support the idea of macroevolution even if it removes the idea that everything was created at the same point in time.Thank You
Sonic

I never once said that the fossil record supports any sort of evolution (i.e. microevolution) Matter of fact I dont believe it supports evolution at all. For Noahs ark, the point is that only 7 different breeds of one species is needed. So from the dog species, only 7 different breeds, from wolf species, only needed 7 different types, and so on, if you calculate this out their is alot less then millions, perhaps not even a million.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

But Sonic, most creationist organizations believe that what you choose to call macro-evolution has occured. Not only that they think it has occured at an enormously rapid rate that is much faster than the biologists believe has happened. So you have decided to be in disagreement not only with scientific evidence, the majority of Christians but ALSO the fundamentalist Christian minority that believes in "creationism". You're kinda in pretty select company there. You may choose that postiion but I just want to clarify that you are actually taking that position.

You are wrong when it comes to creationists, Perhaps few do support macroevolution but I have not found any christians which understand the difference between micro and macro correctly. Matter of fact most creationist oppse the idea of evolution and don't even bother to agree with any scientific idea. You said your self that creationists do drive by postings all the time with information against evolution and now you are saying that they agree, which one are you saying?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

You think that Sonic has a good point ? If so then why is he running from discussion of the intermediate fossils we do have ?In fact it's pretty obvious that all he has is a closed mind and a deficiency in the honesty department.

I am seeing that you disagree with him, I dont see how you are anymore right then he is. Matter of fact Sonic is making alot more since then you are.QuizP.S. For the record nosyned, I am a christian which agrees with Sonic

Quiz, No.A phylogeny is an inferred evolutionary tree based on character data. If evolution didn't occur, they wouldn't match at all. They do.It has nothing to do with dates, just relative positioning stratigraphically. The phylogeny is not inferred with any knowledge of where the fossils are from, stratigraphically speaking. But by an amazing coincidence there is a correlation that is far and away beyond anything expected by chance. Why?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

I never ran from any discussion paulk, I know what we do have and what we dont have, and what we do have is not evidence of macroevolution. You are simply BLIND my friend but that is ok. Now what mark is talking about might be something but I have to read it to see what I think after words.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]