Summations Only

Hi Percy, Within the bounds of science surely. If he claims that macroevolution is cows turning into whales that then give birth to zebras, then it becomes obvious that he is not talking about evolution in any form, but fantasy based on misinformation.If he wants to post a definition from a scientific source and cite the reference then we can discuss what the differences are and how valid they are.The biggest problem I see idscience having is in thinking that macroevolution is an hypothesis, when actually it is a term defined to apply to certain processes of evolution, to separate those processes of evolution from the processes of microevolution in discussions on evolution and the theory of evolution.Likewise microevolution is not a theory, it is a process.When we study microevolution we study the process of change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.When we study macroevolution we study the process of the development of new species, via arbitrary speciation or discrete speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies of descent of new species from common ancestor populations, and the increase in diversity of life.Conflating either with the theory of evolution leads one to misunderstandings of what explains which. The definition of macroevolution explains what it is, just as the definition of microevolution explains what it is.Enjoy

the only answers to the eye, are blanket statements of this evolved to that. No scientist anywhere has discovered a chemical pathway from nothing to a photoreceptor. That was my only question. Nothing to do with the eye. Please keep your replies specific to the topic or it will get very confusing.How does mutation get to the photoreceptor? no one knows, it is just excepted and expected. That is not the science you would let an ID'r use for proof.

Another post with no information. The def of macro is changes above the level of species. According to many evolution experts, speciation is macro-evolution, so that is no help. Does not get me to my questions.photoreceptor pathway?
flagellum motor?how are they built by a blind undirected process?

Really? that is your answer?When I posted here, you guys were all over me about citing sources. With all the jibber jabber that has gone on since, only one dude has offered a paper for me to look at.Since there are a hundred of you shooting from the hip and only one of me, I am only going to respond to relevant replies with sources to back up any rebuts. I can't spend the day here.My purpose was to give evolution a fair shake on my site with the best evidence it has to offer. I was hoping I could have got that here, but it seems like your more interested in slagging ID, that sharing specific reasons why you believe what you believe.

Evolution's explanation for the origin of new information is mutation. DNA contains the information, only mutations can change, augment or diminish that information, so mutations is the answer.But we're not here to explain evolution. You were asking about the evidence for macroevolution, and now that a moderator has stepped in (see the announcement at the top of the page as well as Message 79) I think we should be able to get you an answer.--Percy

Because speciation as stated before, is considered (by scientists) to be macro-evolution, it does not get me to the evidence I am looking for. A fish, that's only difference to another is that it cannot breed with it, is not much of a change.Fortunately evolutionary scientists have come up with a definition that allows them to claim macro as a fact. If everyone agrees that is the line between micro and macro that still doesn't answer morphological change.It is only a logical not a scientific argument that micro and macro are the same only that one takes billions of years. That is an argument of convenience, not science.Does anyone have a pathway to develop a photoreceptor, or a flagellum motor?I can accept for argument sake that evolution does not have a pathway yet to explain those particular systems. Not having an answer to those does not destroy the hypothesis. So I would be interested in any complex components or systems that have been built by a Darwinian process.macro is a hypothesis because it is based on assumption that similarity = common ancestry. It stands on assertion, not facts. Untitled Document

You didn't really look at it, though. You gave it the once-over and then claimed that it didn't count because it didn't demonstrate that public lice evolved from pocket gophers, which is not anything that any biological scientist thinks is what happened. With that track record, why would anyone else go to the effort of showing you any research at all?Based on your nonresponse to the Geomyidae and Geomydoecus, you've got enough on your plate as it is. Why don't you take a stab at providing the design explanation for the unlikely congruence of their completely independent phylogenies?

wrong, that is not what I said. You guys are doing a great job of bogging this down and trying to define the conversation on your own terms. I will continue to wait and see if there are any actual legitimate points.

That is common design. My point that you so expertly side stepped is, a birds wing and a lizards leg, are not similar and if macro does not have to produce novel structures....???? You spend a lot of time asking me for defintions and explanations while providing non.

Hi IDScience,Could you please give some indication that you've seen the announcement at the top of the page as well as Message 79. I'm trying to put this thread on a constructive basis.If you do not reply to this message soon then I will assume you still haven't noticed my efforts at moderation and I will temporarily remove your posting permissions. If that happens then please send me a PM (Private Message) by clicking on the link immediately to the left of this message that says "Send Private Message."

Are you saying this is an example of transition? What about all the other living fossils that have survived hundreds of millions of years with no changes. I would not say the plat is an example of macro, no. How about the mouse is still a mouse. No morphological changes, no intermediary structures or systems. What about all the different species that can breed together? human and Neanderthal for one example. I would consider this micro. A variation, not a transformation.

Hi again idscience, Yes, because you were incapable of providing the definition the administrator for the forum had to step in and do your work for you.I take it from this response that you do accept this definition without reservations or quibbles. au contraire. Now that we have a definition of macroevolution to use and to compare evidence against there have been several posts that provide you with examples that show that macroevolution occurs, that it is a fact that it occurs.See Message 81, Message 84, and Message 85, just for starters. With just these posts your questions are answered for this thread topic, even though there is a lot more evidence avaiable.Macroevolution in biology and evolution is not an hypothesis or a theory, it is a process that is defined for the purpose of discussing different levels of evolution that we see in the fossil record, in the historical record, in the genetic record and in the world around us.The theory involved with evolution is the theory of evolution.Now if your questions still aren't answered, it's could be because you did not frame them correctly, mixing up macroevolution with the theory of evolution and having false expectations, based on a (demonstrated) incomplete knowledge of biology in general and evolution in particular. This is not macroevolution, nor is explaining this to you in any way connected to providing you with evidence for macroevolution. If you want to discuss these you need to start another thread.There is a lot more evidence for macroevolution that we can discuss, however you need to focus on your issue of evidence for macroevolution, review the evidence already provided and confirm or deny that they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined.If you feel they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then your questions for this thread are answered and it can be closed.If you feel that they do not meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then you need to show why they don't and substantiate your assertions with evidence.If you don't understand how they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then feel free to ask questionsEnjoy.

That is my point, inference, guess, speculation, conjecture. There it is again infer.
I am not arguing that variations can effect species. The problem is the extrapolation to those changes will over billions of years turn a dinosaur into a bird, or, what ever you think that horse came from into the horse.The fossil record has its tree, molecular biology has their tree/trees. When DNA is followed it points to one tree, when RNA is followed it points gives a different picture.I sure would like a response to the photoreceptor and flagellum.

Sweet, this is what I am talking about. I will give this a read and get back to you thanks.The 29 evidences, I have read some of them, all of which were variations but I will go through all of them.

Wow, yurrr shuuur hung up on the definition thing M8. Now, how about giving it a shot at answering my questions on complexity being built by Darwinian means, yes, even your definition of macro-evolution.If I am understanding you correctly, with the current definition of macro-evolution on the table, as long as evolutionists can cite examples of speciation, no other evidence is required to prove common descent? Can I quote you on my site?I don't care so much about what you call it, I am interested in how it occurs? Something a little more substantial than, changes of millions of years, and a little deeper than, one fish can't seem to breed with another one.