Macroevolution: Its all around us...

What you're talking about is micro-evolution, the only testable, observable, and proven aspect of evolution (also known as a variation). When fish, or insects inter-breed it may form a new species but it's still a fish, it's still an insect, it's still the same kind of animal. Science is observable and testable. Macro-evolution is not.

Thought provoking never thought about that. I would say that if you were to show a picture of a tiger to a small child he wouldn't say it was from the feline family, he would probably tell you that it's a tiger. I would keep it simple and specify each kind by the first simple answer that pops into your head. If you see a trout the first thing that comes to mind is "fish" but if you see a great white you're going to think "shark".

quote:

---

1. It doesn't. It's not supposed to. Simplicity is the common denominator between us all.

---

Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what "kinds" of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that.It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful.So, a child might think that a bat is a bird. Does that mean that bats are bird "kind"?

quote:

---

2. No. Relatedness between species simply states that we have the same Creator

---

So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are?Modern science uses these animals in certain experiments precisely because they are so similar to humans genetically and physiologically. We have the exact same broken gene that prevents both humans and chimps from synthesizing our own vitamin C, as well.Are you telling me that none of these factors point to relatedness at all?

quote:

---

3. I already answered that. We are man kind and monkeys are monkey kind

---

So, please explain to me why we should ignore genetics completely when determining relatedness between species.Better yet, can you tell me if you accept the results of DNA paternity tests as accurate?Why or why not?This message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 05-03-2005 10:15 PMThis message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 05-03-2005 10:16 PM

quote:

---

Well, if it has no predictive value or a basis in anything other than a simplistic, child's notion of what 'kinds' of things are related, then is is simply a fun thing to believe, but nothing more than that.

---

I was speaking metaphorically about commmon knowledge.

quote:

---

It's a story you tell but is otherwise not useful.

---

Metaphors can be useful if you figure it out. It saves a lot of complicated explanation that, other than the point, is usually not necesary.

quote:

---

So, should we stop using Chimps and other primates in medical testing because we have no way of determining how closely related various species are?

---

No. I never even remotely indicated that. Actually I was agreeing that humans and animals, some animals more than others, have similarities but they are not the same species, and until a reptile gives birth to a bird, or a hyrax gives birth to a suvivng mutation that looks like a horse I will not believe evolution. Furthermore I will believe the oldest document until it is proven wrong. That document is the Bible. It is the only document that says the earth is round way before Colombus figured it out.

quote:

---

So, please explain to me why we should ignore genetics completely when determining relatedness between species.

---

You tell me. Someone asked 'Should we ignore'and I said no. Now you're asking 'Why should we'. So if you're asking my opinion, I already gave it to you.

quote:

---

Well if it isn't useful for classifying forms of life, what is it good for?

---

By saying 'Simplicity is the common denominator between us all' I was referring to common sense. In order to understand the complex you must first understand the simple. To understand the simple you need commmon sense. Uderstanding the complex is what takes intelligence. In other words what this "system of simplicity" does is to help show us the simple leading up to the complex.

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that 'relatedness' could 'state' anything,
but it certainly implies linkage between living things, by definition.

---

So you're weren't aware that relatedness could state but you're aware that it could certainly imply. Of course, wanting to keep on the subject, I agree. I never said I didn't.

quote:

---

you can now say that organism A is more related to B than to C.

---

What is so useful about that

quote:

---

So we are no more related to monkey kind than we are to 'algae kind'or 'bacteria kind'? I am sure we all have some very similar enzymes and other proteins in common, but the number of differences are few between man and monkeys. In fact "Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical. So similar, in fact, we probably belong in the same Genus.

---

Same genus? I wouldn't be surprised, but we're not the same species. That is the whole point. Though we have similarities we're not the same. Yes we are more closely related to monkeys than algae. But we are still man kind and monkeys are still monkey kind.

quote:

---

You need to read more outside of your Sunday school assignments. See:
Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says

---

And you read national geographic? The people that said a theory is'nt really a theory but a fact accepted over time? Just to get people to believe their so called "science"?

quote:

---

Is Homo erectus man kind, monkey kind or Homo erectus kind? What are Australopithecines?

---

Have you ever seen a Homo erectus besides in the text books and in magazines and plaster exhibits in Smithsonian? How do you know they ever existed. No one ever even found a comlete skeleton. As for Australopithicines they could possibly still be alive in Africa. I've never seen them but I do study Cryptozoology and it is a possibility. That is if they ever existed at all.

quote:

---

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this is how evolution works? You have some rather major misconceptions that a little information should rectify.

---

Some theories state that evolution happened quickly like in the case of reptiles and birds. Such on and such on
I haven't gotten to all your questions yet. If you haven't noticed I already have about a zillion questions to go through from the second page. I don't have 6 hrs to spare going through all these questions you probably already know the answer to.

quote:

---

You say that my housecats and a Siberian tiger are both "feline kind", correct?

---

incorrect. I never said that either. I'm not sure where you got that idea. Apes, monkeys, I thought about specifying the difference but I didn't think we were getting that technical.

Columbus didn't "figure out" that the Earth was a sphere. This was known by the Greeks through Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Ptolemy.the Bible was still around back in the time of the philosophers or whatever you prefer to call them.There are too many questions flying around. Let me make my point clear
Macroevolution-Evolutionary change involving large and complex steps resulting in a different KIND of animal
Microevolution- a change within a single species resulting a different species or subspecies.
kind- if it looks like a housecat it's a house cat. If it looks like a tiger it's a tiger if it looks like an ape its an ape if it looks specifically like a human it's a humanWhat I'm saying is that you are talking about micro evolution not macro.

quote:

---

We'll see what he says if he ever returns

---

Fisrt of all I'm a she. Second, There are six different parts of evolution, two of which are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. The whole reason I brought this up was because it seemed that you were just a little confused on terms. It looked to me like you were talking about micro-evolution, which I agree with because it proven and observable, and calling it macro-evolution, which is not. Even evolutionists should agree with this. With the exception, of course, that some still believe the miller experiment (oxygen would have terimnated the experiment and as we all know living things cannot survive without oxygen so they didn't really come close to creating life) Along the lines of micro and macro, it would seem that creating a new fish wouldn't claim anything for macro-evolution unless it formed legs. Same with a new type of insect. Wouldn't that be micro-evolution because it is still an insect and not an arachnid. This is just a thought but I'm still not sure that two insects mating would improve the species any. If you have an example I would like to see it, on a non-critical level.(if there is such a thing)This message has been edited by eclipse, 05-06-2005 02:18 PM

Anaerobic bacteria obtain oxygen from the food they eat

quote:

---

Only the classic creationists say there are six parts to evolution.

---

How many parts do you say there are

quote:

---

There is only one Biological Theory of Evolution.

---

Maybe so but it seems there would be a difference between a cow or elephant or whatever becoming a whale and a large feline being bred down to a domestcated housecat. Each different family like felis, canis, equis, and vulpes is a different kind of animal.

quote:

---

Life could have been "poofed" into existence by your God and it would not change one thing about the evidence for Evolution.

---

It wouldn't change the evidence against it eitherThe Bible says "He sits on the [disc circle sphere] of the earth" It sounds to me like it was saying that the earth was in the shape of a disc, sphere or whateverSorry my replies are a little late, I was out of town for a little bit.