Macro and Micro Evolution

Well if you were really interested in the difference beteen micro and macro then why do you keep changinfg the definitions ? It seems that you were trying to PICK a difference you liked so that you could claim that the evience didn't support macro evolution.If you REALLY want to knwo the difference then stick with the definitions most commonly used by biologists.Microevolution : Evolution up to the level of sepecies
Macroevolution : Evolution of new species and of higher taxaThe evolution of the mammals is macroevolution by that defintiion - and the fossil record shows that it happened.As for the post you were replying to, your "1% claim" is still an unsupported assertion on your part.And you STILL aren't addressing the evidence I presented.Isn't it interesting that you keep making the same "mistake" ?

Sonic, Um, no.1/ Inbreeding would reduce variation by introducing homozygosity, you would thwen have to wait for new variation to arise. It would take longer to "macroevolve".2/ Drift is non-adaptive anyway. IT is NOTHING like natural selection.Mark

Paulk, Honestly I dont know what it is that I am not answering. I see me answering all of your questions. Does anyone else see me not answering pauls questions?Thank You
Sonicp.s. regarding the macro and micro differnces where does it say that micro stops before new species? and that macro starts with new species?

post removed, sorry for confusion.Thank You
sonic{A note from Adminnemooseus - Not a big deal, but... Sonic, I note you did not edit this message. If you start a new message, and then decide you don't want to post it, you can just back out (use "Back" button, or close window or something). Just because you start a message, it doesn't mean something must be posted.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-29-2003]

Sonic, Genetic drift is a mathematical FACT. But it doesn't fill the gap. Genetic drift is a statistical artifact that basically states that allele X will occasionally find itself in the next generation in a higher frequency than the typically expected ratio due to chance alone. Alleles can be fixed & eliminated in populations in this way. It is random by definition, & is non-adaptive.Genetic drift occurs at the micro-level, & pretty obviously at the macro-level too, since macro = lot's of micro. It isn't sandwiched between levels.I think it's time to drop your personal definition of macroevolution & adopt the word in the way science does. After all, science coined & defined the term in the first place.Macroevolution is the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank (Levinton 1983).Or more simply, but potentially more confusingly, macroevolution is evolution above the species levelNote that organ changes aren't diagnostic of macroevolution in either case, because the signifier is change in taxonomic rank. To be sure, the character changes will often include organ changes, but given that most species are unicellular, & that they are ranked taxonomically too means that macroevolution doesn't = organ changes. You have already seen the fantastic statistics that support the notion that macroevolution occurred. If you wish to present evidence that overturns such evidence, please do so. Otherwise please refrain from arguments from ignorance [an argument of the form, it hasn't been proven so it must be false, or vice versa], or arguments from personal incredulity. The evidence that macroevolution occurred is incredible & requires greater evidence to overturn it. Arguments of the above two forms do not qualify.Quotes like the one above show a profound misunderstanding of terms & mechanisms. But even so, your argument is of the form, "because genetic drift hasn't been proven, it is false, & therefore macroevolution cannot occur". Logically flawed - argument from ignorance. Even if genetic drift were required for macroevolution, which it isn't, & it hadn't been "proven", it wouldn't in any way detract from evidence that actually did exist.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

What *I* want to know is your explanation for the trnasitional fossils we do have. because unless you HAVE one they ARE evidence for macroevolution.I even gave an example .And you response ? Nothing. You completely ignored it. Again and again.So far as I'm concenred you're deliberately avoiding the issue. THere's no way you could have failed to notice the original point. THere's no way you could not have seen the prodding. And that means that there is no way that you could HONESTLY claim not to know what the problem is.

Sonic, Ditto, I've asked for an explanation of this in a previous post of my own.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Post 215 was my answer to you paul. I will try again for the last time. I will be more direct. I think the transitional fossils are nothing more then skeletons of past life. Nothing more. No indication of evolution. I need 1% paulkThank You
Sonic

mark24, I think your evidence may be the only evidence of macro. We are not talking about phylogene. Phylogene is based on historical information. I was talking about future observation of macro.Thank You
Sonic

I guess I am just an idiot. I bet paulk is satisfied. I thought I answered that guy on every level, same with you mark24. I guess I didn't answer you guys, atleast you are not satisfied. Now both of you are saying I didn't answer you, so I guess I didn't when I thought I had. I guess I am a liar but I am not just a liar to you but to my self as I told my self the same thing: I answerd them, what are they talking about?. To Conclude the debate on micro and macro: (NOTE:I didn't change the defintion at all but didnt completly understand it and as the debate went on I realised problems and through trial and error I found the meaning Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood was stating and if you want me to accept your version of micro and macro you have to reach me through the creationist crap first). if you take all bits of information provided in this thead you should come to the conclusion that after life was created we have evolution in 3 steps, 1.)micro,2.)silent genetics,3.)macro. In order for micro to reach macro you have to have Silent genetics. That is my conclusion. If you remove my ramification you find micro and macro defined as paulk explained I suppose. Meaning: eatherway you define them, micro leads to genetic drift, and then to macro. Eather way. My remification is more understandable I think.Thank You
SonicP.S. My ramification is just a theory, we still have to prove each one factual. If my ramifiaction is wrong then we will come to that conclusion by the end of this thread, hopefully.[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Post 215 did NOT answer the points I raised in post 209.You responded to post 209 in post 210 but did not deal with the evidence provided by the transitional fossils we do have.So I suppose that you want us to beleive that honestly managed to miss the points raised in 209. (A bit difficult that, but...)I pointed that out in post 211, In post 215 you did not address the issue instead using your "1%" argument - which does not deal with the issue.So I suppose you want to say that you honestly missed the points in post 209 AGAIN.In post 218 I ask you to address the evidence that I raised (i.e. post 209). In post 231 you again ignore the issue entirely.So I suppose that yet again you honestly didn't notice the evidence raised in post 209, even after being reminded twice - and honestly you managed to miss what post 218 said.My reply to that is post 256 - you manage to ignore a lot of what that says, too (for instance you forget to say why changing the definitions of micro and macro evolution helps you figure out the difference between them - instead of getting in the way because the difference depends on the definitions).I suppose it is interesting to note that in post 258 you claim to be answering all my questions - while NOT answering the question that starts the post you are replying to.And your latest post 263 STILL fails to deal with the evidence and dismisses it without explanation or even an acknowledgement of its existence.Thank you for proving all my criticisms of you 100% correct.

Your welcome, anything else?Thank You
SonicP.S. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS NOT EVIDENCE, I CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ANY OTHER WAY.[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

I think that proving that your claim that the fossil record does not support macroevolution is based on a wilful refusal to consider the evidence is enough.

Paulk, When you say the fossil record shows evidence for evolution that is a lie, because for you to have come to that conclusion you could only have assumed it. I assume the fossil record is not evidence based on the information I have. You assume it is based on the information you have. The information I have is that the fossil record cannot be evidence because it does not have enough transitional fossils. You say it does have enough transitional fossils, I say it does not. This is a really lame argument. Even if you show me a smooth transition, that is not enough, I will say it is not a smooth transition, Because I believe that the fossil record smoothness should be so defined that it compares to the skin color ratio from black to white. You dont agree, I do think it needs that. I believe I have said this over and over before, that the transition is not smooth enough. I tried to give a calculation and you didn't accept that eather, eather way, You have not provided sufficent proof as to show me that the fossil record is showing evolution so I guess it is just a bunch of bones like I said already also. Anyways, you have not proven anything except your own ignorance because you think I am a liar when really, I have not lied once. I thought I answered your question before as I think I have answered your question in this thread. Why do you keep wanting to call me a liar, I really dont know, the only reason I can think of is so you look better and so you win by making me a liar. If that is your tactics then fine so be it. Whatever I really dont care if I convince you or not, that is not why I am here. GoodbyeThank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

In post 209 I offered an example - just one example of evidence for macroevolution form the fossil record. You avoided the issue repeatedly and then arbitrarily declared that it was not evidence for no reason at all.Post 209 ALSO explained why your claim that there were not enough transitional fossils was not relevant.
You didn't answer that either.These are facts.Calling me a liar because I point out a truth - a truth that you shoudl be aware of if you had really studied the fossil record to the depth you have implied is not an argument.I don't WANT to win by calling you a liar. I would rather that you didn't tell lies.The fact is that the evidence is there. You repeatedly evaded it once and whined about being caught at it - despite your own descent to personal attacks. I gave you another chance, and you repeated the same pattern.