Macro and Micro Evolution

Can you show me where you got this information so I may read it.Thank You
Sonic

Sonic, No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Before radiometric dating came along geologists had the world ordered old to young stratigraphically. It is the relative position, not an absolutely dated position that matters.Even so, that's an incredible correlation between stratigraphy & phylogeny that "just happened", wouldn't you say? Why?Please explain why phylogeny & stratigraphy match so well.It really doesn't what denial you attempt. Phylogeny & stratigraphy show an incredible correlation. It is a FACT. An incredibly unlikely FACT if evolution weren't true. In the same way that getting just two 10 taxa phylogenies to match represents odds of 43,000,000 : 1, getting an average 0.75+ correlation across 300+ cladograms represents evidence of evolution that is vastly unlikely if mere chance ordering was involved.Mark

Sonic,I gave the cite & relevant quote in post 116.Mark

Then Sonic, what would YOU consider evidence for macro evolution. If you have to have a fossil of every single individual between one higer taxon and another then, of course, you aren't going to get those perhaps many 1,000's of individuals. If that is all you will accept then you are deliberately chosing to support your belief by closing your eyes.If however you would accept a series of fossils spread out in time with changes showing steps between two very high taxa then you might demonstrate a willingness to learn. Which is it?

Hello Sonic,It would help the argument to progress if you could answer one question as straight as you can. I think Nosy might have asked it already, but given that:-Mutation happens! The processes that are required for evolution are known to occur.-Small DNA changes lead to large morphological changes (as seen in pigeons and dog breeds).-There are no out of place fossils in the geological record. They follow a clear transition.What could possibly *stop* 'micro' turning into 'macro'?

Ned,Why don't you ask Sonic to name every man on the male lineage from him to Adam & Eve. He's big on having every stage, right?Mark

quote:

---

Then Sonic, what would YOU consider evidence for macro evolution. If you have to have a fossil of every single individual between one higer taxon and another then, of course, you aren't going to get those perhaps many 1,000's of individuals. If that is all you will accept then you are deliberately chosing to support your belief by closing your eyes.

---

No I am choosing to not accept my imagination, My imagination says the fossil record may support the TOE but my head or brain removing my imagination says that the fossil record does not, I have already pointed out that mark may have something, but I need to read up on it before I may accept it. I cannot accept a imagination. You people would not have won this conversation if it were not for mark, he is the only person which has applied my logic and found something which may dictate macroevolution. But I have to read it as I have already stated.Thank You
Sonic

The flood removes this great idea mark. This is also why I said earlier that PAULK and I were both theoreticly right, because we both have gaps in our ideas.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

I aksed repeatedly about the transitional fossils we have. You repeatedly refused to discuss them. So yes you did run from that discussion, and we both know it.As for calling me "BLIND" do you really think that adding one more to the list of your untruths is a convincing argument ?

Describe exactly where the imagination comes in please.If I see footprint in the snow with a specific tread pattern and size, that go up to a rocky bare area then I see footprints going out the other side that match the tread etc., am I "imagining" that someone walked over the rocks and beyond? If I did so in a court of law would it be taking as at least very reasonable imagining?There is an abundance of evidence that macro evolution (as you still choose to call it occured) you say it requires imagination. How much imagination does it take to think, for example, a global flood occured, when there is not evidence for it and there is evidence that shows it could not have happened?You still haven't answered a bunch of questions about the boundary between micro and macro evolution by the way. You still haven't said whether you accept current conventional taxonomy (which is all you have based your argument on so far). In other words you are ignoring information that might lead you into trouble.If that is what you want to do then DO NOT PRETEND to be ready to learn anything.

OK, cool, now you have a flood to support. There are threads for that showing that it couldn't have happened. Will you ignore those or jump in there later after you have finished up here?Then there is the problem of the age of the earth. I think you were one of those that suggests dating is "inaccurate" or "wrong" or something. But you haven't been able to defend that yet either. As, in fact, none of the young earth folks here have yet.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Whatever paulk, you are really funny and interesting at best. I dont think I may debate with you any longer as your logic is really funnyThank You
Sonic

Can we move back to Micro vs Macro please, When I am done if I am not convinced I will be happy to discuss the flood and whatever else comes to mind. LAUGHThank You
Sonic

Ah ha! You say his logic is funny but you haven't pointed out why. The run away tactic is a pretty common one. It isn't all that impressive though.Now if you'd back up and point out exactly where you believe the problems are that might be a little more impressive.You say both sides have holes in the arguments or evidence. Well, so far one side seems to have more evidence and more logic. Care to discuss which one?

I have answered all questions and have not ignored any. Hey Nosy, What about post 67 you never came back to any of my issues, whats up with that?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]