Macro and Micro Evolution

Sonic,I'm sorry if I seem to be butting in, but this topic interests me so forgive me for making an observation. So far you have provided a very arbitary distinction: if we ain't seen it in a lab, it ain't micro! You seem to be ignoring the evidence in both the fossil and DNA record that points to a graduated change in the life on this planet simply because it doesn't fit with your model.Maybe it would help if you could define what kind of modifications are accepted as 'micro' and what transitions you find unacceptable, more than the rather vague "new abilities". For example in message #62 you posted a website that had a diagram showing what the percieved difference between 'macro' and 'micro' was. What is stopping a sideways mutation turning into an upward one? The first step on the highly detailed fossil record of horse evolution was quite small and has been described as 'doglike'.Perhaps you could give us more examples of a 'proposed' evolutionary step (ie not an artificial cell to man one) that are a step too far in your eyes and explain why. You seem to be making a big deal of flight, but how many changes would really be required for a gliding/parachuting animal to start down the slope to feal flight?

Thats good, that is because alot of other creationist dont have a foundation which they are aware of, usally when they find something which appears strongly against their belief system they fall and run, they are afraid of this factor. (i.e. personal opinion)I would say it seems our understanding is the same except you seem to have a deeper undertanding of the words all though the same principle is their, that is, our understanding is similar.Congruence between Cladisitcs and Stratigraphics is a good idea, but since we all know that macro-evolution is a theoretic idea and this "Cladistics" is based from a theory which is not proven, it cannot be evidence of evolution. Similarites between species is fine inside and outside of orgranic evolution, and I dont think that similarites of species presents anymore then just a common creator.Thank You
SonicP.S. Too bad we dont have a GOD before us telling us what really happend. I think that would be just about the only peace of evidence that would be factual. Since organic evolution is entirely theoretic and all evidence such as the fossil record cannot be considered anymore then theoretic evidence, which means it may not be evidence at all(i.e. evidence that organic evolution occured), I conclude that organic evolution is not factual and the only other option is religon. I chose religon, because I can base my belief(i.e. imagination) from the kind of evidence which is more factual then that of organic evolution. That evidence is, millions maybe even billions of people present(i.e. testify) that they recieve revelation(i.e. answer to prayer) and as such, I also say that I receive answer to prayer, this is sufficent factual evidence that God does exist and the God of the bible/islam/judaism/ is the true God.[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

Let me try again,Microevolution: minor genetic alterations (horizontal change)Macro-evolution(i.e. organic evolution): Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theoryor macroevolution. (vertical change)I copy and pasted both of those from Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the FloodThank You
SonicP.S. I bet those definitions are not perfect as nothing is now days[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

Please, read post 168Thank You
Sonic

No new organs equal no macro-evolution, that is if I understand the differences correctly. Read post 168, that should be 2 good definitions and I hope it helps the understanding were the two split off (i.e. micro vs macro)Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

Post 168Thank You
Sonic

Sonic, Challenge met..... The screech of moving goalposts is a common sound here, Sonic.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Ok, since we have all the same organs as a mouse it isn't macro evolution? (btw you reversed vertical and horizontal) That might be one way to show "increased complexity" but now we have to define "different" and "improved". I'm not being funny here. You are using words in a very loose way and so far there is no way to tell what you mean.Every species has something "different" about all their organs so we now have no microevolution it is now all macro? "Improved" in what way? There are a number of ways in which a dog is a significant improvement over a human (try smelling your way home sometimes).

Sonic, Well, I made a prediction that you would seek reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than critically examine it, & I wasn't disappointed.Basically your mental gymnastics have led you to dismiss all of science. To paraphrase your argument, you can only have evidence of X if it has been proven. If it hasn't then it's just "theoretical". Why would you need evidence of something that is already proven?Going back 500 years, most things we consider as fact today would not be anything but mere speculation. Why? Because nothing can be evidence in favour of an idea, according to you, unless it is proven first. But it can't be proven without evidence, right? It therefore follows that you accept no evidence at all, if you are being consistent, that is.A corollory of this is that you don't accept that:1/ Gravity is associated with mass;
2/ Electrons are discrete charge carrying entities;
3/ There are such things as atomic elements;
4/ Elements are mostly made up of space;
5/ The sun is made of mainly hydrogen;
6/ etc. etc. etc.All of these things began as ideas that were subsequently tested. They aren't "proven", even today. It's just that they are so well supported that to withhold consent would be considered unreasonable. According to you they cannot have been tested, it is inadmissible, any such facts that support these ideas are to be dismissed on the strenth that they are mere unproven theoretical ideas. And if we listen to you they will remain so.This is a serious, serious, serious flaw in your reasoning.Science works like this, an inductively derived hypothesis is conceived on the strength of an observation. Predictions are made, potential falsifications are stated, & as other facts come to light, they either support or refute the hypothesis. That is what evidence does, it allows us to deductively test a hypothesis.In the case of cladistics, it is true that there is an evolutionary assumption, but that is the assumption that is being tested. If something is being tested then the results will either refute the assumption, or confirm it, to whatever degree (or be non-informative either way, of course).The results show an average 0.75 correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy, strong positive evidence of evolution. This is not a trivial observation. If evolution hadn't have happened there would be near zero correlation. If a global flood happened there would be a near zero correlation. The odds of getting an average 0.75 across 300 tested cladograms by chance is staggering. Staggering. As a result, the evidence is extremely good that macroevolution occurred. It's not sciences, nor poor old deceived evolutionists fault that there's such a good correlation rather than none at all. I'm just asking you to accept that it exists.The logic is sound. So when you don't agree with something, Godidit, despite the evidence?Unfortunately this is also untestable, unfalsifiable, & is therefore on the same intellectual & logical ground as fairies & unicorns. Let's be led by evidence, not speculation opposed by evidence, shall we? Interesting that you reject something supported by high quality evidence in favour of something with none.But just so you understand what you're up against, explain the correlation between stratigraphy & cladistics brought about by a common creator after the whole shithouse got mixed up by a global flood. Too bad that the entity talking to us hasn't been a priori "proven" to be a god in advance. Since because of this there is no evidence according to you that is admissible, that can be brought to support the "unproven idea" that the being is a god, right? Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

I think you're giving him too much credit. Every time I asked him about transitional fossils he ignored it. He knew all along that the evidence supported evolution and he's just been lying through his teeth.

PaulK,We'll see.It'll be interesting to see how he responds to the inconsistency of rejecting the evidence cited, but accepting the rest of science that is "guilty" of the same thing.Mark

I am not sure what you are implying but, I think the TRUE problem would be that no body really understood what I was representing concerning the differences of macro and micro, only recently I have been able to find what a creationist besides my self might word it, that is post 168. You might try to remember that NosyNed was asserting that I didn't answer any of my posts but I ran, so I found a definition and now that I found a definition that works you are saying I am moving my goal post. I dont think so. Read the forum again, then try again.Thank You
SonicP.S. Too me, new abilites are new organs(i.e. same thing), why, are they not to you?[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

Sonic, I have tried to point out the problems I have with the definitions that you have supplied so far. I'll try again.Can an organism have a new ability with an "old" organ? Are they really exactly the same?Does the organ have to be "new" or "different"? You've made both statements.How would I tell when an organ is "new"? Is an eye that can see color a "new" organ or a "different" one?How can I tell when an organ is different? At one extreme every individual human may have organs that are a little bit different from all others. I'm sure you don't mean that level.At another extreme a human really does have the "same" organs as a mouse. In fact, at a detailed level some parts of us are almost identical to a mouse. I'm sure you don't mean that level either.So just where do you draw the line of different and not different?

quote:

---

Ok, since we have all the same organs as a mouse it isn't macro evolution? (btw you reversed vertical and horizontal)

---

I updated the post. Thank you

quote:

---

That might be one way to show "increased complexity" but now we have to define "different" and "improved". I'm not being funny here. You are using words in a very loose way and so far there is no way to tell what you mean.

---

Ok, when you read the definition of macroevolution, it is pointing out that macroevolution would occur if a new organ(i.e. new ability) was formed.

quote:

---

Every species has something "different" about all their organs so we now have no microevolution it is now all macro? "Improved" in what way? There are a number of ways in which a dog is a significant improvement over a human (try smelling your way home sometimes).

---

Correct about how every species has something different about all their organs. How is this relevent? We are talking about the difference between micro and macro evolution, not how every species has different organs.Thank You
Sonic

You're a headcase, I never ran, I suppose that fits your reasoning though. LOL. Paul I told you specificaly (when you wrote that the fossil record represents evidence of macroevolution)that it is not evidence, and I disagree, and gave my resoning on top of that. You're still trying to tell me that I ran. Paul, when a person "runs" they wont object, they just dont answer, they don't say a word. Were are you getting I ran?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]