Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

The issue those of us who understand evolution have with those who claim to accept what they term micro evolution while rejecting what they term macro evolution is that you don't define your terms. As a result, whenever we meet the challenge of providing convincing evidence of something beyond micro evolution having occurred, you will concede that that was indeed evolution, just not macro evolution, i.e., you expand the definition of micro evolution a little bit each time we go beyond your previous definition. So instead of conceding that macro evolution occurred, you expand your definition of micro evolution to include what we've just provided convincing evidence of.

So, what exactly are the parameters of what you term micro evolution, so we don't waste our time proving macro evolution, only to be told that you have expanded the definition of micro evolution to include that, too. And don't say germ to moose. What's the dividing line between micro and macro evolution? And tell us the specifics. Can't produce offspring of any sort? Is that the line?

In other words, is the standard for concluding that two species are unrelated that they cannot produce any offspring, fertile or not, requiring artificial insemination or not?

PS Of course, our position is that all species are related, i.e., share a common ancestor. The feature that determines to what degree they can produce offspring together is how long they've been genetically isolated from one another. Never isolated = no problem reproducing fertile offspring together. Recently isolated = some difficulty producing fertile offspring together. Isolated for a longer period (or greater degree) = impossible to produce fertile offspring, but can still produce infertile offspring. Even isolated for a longer period (or to a greater degree) = even infertile offspring are very rare. Even isolated for longer than that (or to a greater degree) = requires laboratory conditions to even produce infertile offspring. Even more distantly isolated = cannot reproduce, even infertile offspring, even within laboratory conditions, e.g., even with artificial insemination or other assistance, at least at this time.

Are a llama and a camel two separate species? Is their division from one another an example of macro or micro evolution?

I've told you previously in this thread exactly what it means.

Which is the term as it is defined by scientists.

Evolutians are afraid of the term, just like people that have faith in AGW are afraid of accurate climate measurements.

Not a specific Truth, but they are necessary for rational argument. Unless, of course, you dismiss Western thought (and perhaps embrace Eastern thought)

By murder, yes

You're getting way, way ahead of yourself. Understand philosophical argument before trying to apply it to theology.


That presupposed there is a being capable of thinking - circular argument.
I am an entity capable of thought
I think
Therefore I am an entity capable of thought.

Maybe the "Great Programmer" programmed to think you can think. But you're just a line of code. Sort like the lizard in the latest Geico commercial where he thinks he's real.

What about a llama and a camel? They've been separated by at least six thousand miles of ocean for millions of years, and are morphologically quite different. Two unrelated species? Or a mere example of micro evolution?

Plate tectonics is a helluva thing.

Fub, like most things you post, wrong and wrong again.

calm down. You obviously have gotten all worked up about this evolution stuff

Land bridges...

hardly Fub. My keyboard is cool to the touch - unlike your own, which must be melting by now. Look at all those posts of yours... You've lost it.

Just for old time's sake.

I suspect micro evolution might be like pornography. Can't define it but you know it when you see it. Just look closely at Elijah Cummings.

Evolution is a fact.
Biologist Richard Lenski:"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

Your keyboard is fool to the touch.

Every living thing on this planet is related to a once lightning strike that started life. if you cant see the similarty between the animals you are a moron...

Good one. Your humor has evolved...

A lightning strike, aye?

Wow that's some brilliant schit right there. So profound that I took a dump in my pants. Gonna be back later after I clean up.

But Beans would say it is a microevolution.

But only micro.

Dohhhhh!

And goodetimes were had by all...

It’s not a problem to the great majority of educated people in the world. The problem in America is that there are so many so-called fundamentalist religious groups that take the Bible literally. That’s odd, because there are many conflicting things in the Bible. But the majority of believers have no trouble with it,(Evolution). They understand that religion is about moral values and science is concerned with the factual state of the world and the universe, which are two different things. Religion is a system for finding answers to moral questions, or at least a satisfying answer to moral questions , and the factual state of the world has no influence on that at all.

Science does not deal with moral questions, but is good at answering factual questions. So essentially there is little connection between the two. Historically, religion has always intervened in the domain we now call science, and there has been a struggle when the boundaries had to be redrawn. That’s one of the reasons why people keep speaking about conflict, when in fact there is none. Most religious people have no trouble accepting the facts that science offers, because whatever the factual state of the world , it cannot possibly threaten true religious inquiry.”

Stephen J. Gould. A Glorious Accident Understanding our place in the cosmic puzzle