["Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.
The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?
Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.
A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.
In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."
Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen."
"I often observe that in discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution.
The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as “changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.” An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution.
Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Gal�pagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation.
The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is to the effect that “evolution” is all rubbish, bunk, and false. They are often astonished to learn that variation (which they completely agree with) is defined as “evolution.” The solution is for evolution skeptics to be more precise on exactly what they have problems with. They can endorse microevolution (variation) but point out that a) it is misleading to call variation “evolution” and, b) their problems are with macroevolution.
The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a “grand scale,” or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact. They say this on the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lies the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.
Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. The reason that macroevolution has never been observed is that it requires statistically significant levels of novel genetic information. It is extremely difficult to achieve, but Darwinian theory predicts that genetic information can significantly increase over time. Falsifiable predictions can be made and these are worth examining.
So in order to clearly distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution in a rigorous scientific way, let me propose the following definitions:
Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.
Both statistical significance and functional information are defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above."
It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
No they are still a species in the flowers genus and family and not a species in something like the trees genus and family.
Terminology: Genus and Species
Let’s start by discussing what is meant by the terms genus and species. An easy way to remember these terms is to note that genus refers to the "generic" name, and species refers to the "specific" name. A genus is a group of related plants. The similarity among members of a genus may or may not be obvious. But taxonomists have determined that, due to certain features, these plants are related and thus classify them in the same genus. Genus names are often derived from Latin or Greek words, mythological figures, or plant characteristics.https://garden.org/courseweb/course1/week3/page3.htm
There are hierarchical levels of classification (ranks) above and below the genus and species, the most commonly referred to is the grouping of several genera (plural of genus) into a family. As with plants within the same genus, plants in the same family have many characteristics in common. Grevillea victoriae is in the family Proteaceae, along with Banksia, Hakea, Macadamia and many other genera. Family names start with a capital letter and generally end in “…ceae”.http://www.anbg.gov.au/chah/avh/help/names/index.html
So in this case it is micro evolution because it is all under this same umbrella Flowering plant. The flowering plants, also known as angiosperms, Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta, are the most diverse group of land plants, with 64 orders, 416 families, approximately 13,000 known genera and 300,000 known species. Like gymnosperms, angiosperms are seed-producing plants.
Your lengthy screed, from wherever you copied it doesn't mean anything. A coroner, whenever a decayed body is found, can tell its race with about 80% certainty. 80% is statistically significant. You are inferring that the difference between Caucasians and Negroes constitutes "macro evolution". Not so.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
Read the verbiage you cut and pasted, if you even understand it. Humanity is irrelevant (according to you). It's "statistically significant." Of course it doesn't matter. Your ideas are laughable.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate
Something is being illustrated, but not what you think or believe.
Again, basic logic in the form of a contradiction....one of many.
If love keeps no record of wrongs and God is Love, God does not keep a record of wrongs.
God punishes generations for the transgressions of their forebears, God is not only keeping a record of wrongs but passing them onto the innocent.
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.''- 1 Corinthians 13;5-7
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.'' Matthew 5:43
Then the contradiction;
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me'' - Exodus 20:55
so YHWH will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nothing; (Deut 28:63)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV)
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? " (Lamentations 3:38)
Undeniable contradictions, Thunderstruck.
and again I would point others to the other monumental thread where we responded to your alleged contradictions.
I'm well aware of that thread and the response I got. You seem to assume that the response/rationalization that I got somehow addresses the contradictions. You are wrong.
Nothing that was said or explained or offered actually resolves the contradictions in the bible, my examples only being a small sample.
The bible is not some divinely inspired work, it is written by people who borrowed and adapted creation myths from surrounding cultures to build a social, religious and political identity of their own....our God is better than your God, false gods, a jealous God, etc, etc, morphed into a God of love in NT times....full of absurdities and contradictions.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
[quote=BOWSINGER] It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
You're late to the party.
Mutations and microevolution were discussed quite a few pages ago.
If you have proof of a species evolving into another species, jump right in.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations - Scientific ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../evolution-watching-speciation-occu... “Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile.
They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.”
Simple genetic variation within a genotype. More examples of genetic variation passed off and sold to the masses as proof of evolution...of the macro type.
The examples I posted were macroevolution as defined as evolutionary change at the species level.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
Beats me. I can tell you it makes a difference for me.
Here on a former rez the Native American community is having trouble with youth drug use, gang membership, suicide. It has been suggested that a cause may be a general lack of spirituality with the current generation, Native American spirituality or otherwise. Suffer a social setback, drugs make it feel better. Gangs substitute for family moral support. Suicide when one seems doomed to perpetual failure. Why not when there's nothing beyond how you feel today.
I think you see that in society at large, though not as acutely. Suicide rates have increased steadily since 2000 (NIH). I don't think I have to provide a source showing drug abuse and gang membership have grown markedly during the same period. Pew Research tracked a decline in religious affiliation.
Does the correlation mean anything? I don't know but it would be a good topic for investigation by those who enjoy Sociology.
Those who enjoy Sociology started predicting these results when I was in grammar school.
Yes, I know, what fifth grader reads Sociology papers? I did. Excerpts thereof, anyway.
Sociologists in the '60s predicted rising rates of crime, of homosexuality, of major mental illnesses, as human populations became more crowded.
There are simply too many people on the planet.
And even though America reached zero population growth in the late '60s or early '70s, the leftists are bound and determined to import enough people to ensure America receives her share of overcrowded misery.
Coincidentally, many of the leaders on the right need the population increases to prop up their ponzi schemes of deficit spending.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Idaho Shooter, to me it gets down to questions that have been constant through the millennia. Why are we here? What's the point of living? And up pops Ethics, a rational person chooses to act in a way that (in his evaluation) brings about a preponderance of satisfying consequences. Without a higher purpose I'd be all over natural desires, lust, gluttony, and so forth. Where's the down side? Get caught and do an Epstein.
I would define rational as the ability to forestall immediate gratification to accomplish long term gain and the ability to make the unselfish choice to benefit your family and community.
Why am I here? Don't care, does not matter. I think, there for I am. Make the best of it.
What's the point of living? To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Read the verbiage you cut and pasted, if you even understand it. Humanity is irrelevant (according to you). It's "statistically significant." Of course it doesn't matter. Your ideas are laughable.
Yea.
On this subject, his thoughts are pretty malformed.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
No one can make it true or untrue. Truth is self-existent.
I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created?
You are creating a problem that does not exist. All humans, whether living or dead, are created in God's image. You seem to forget God is infinite. Therefore when He creates He creates lots of variableness.
Asserting "God is infinite" does not make it true.
No one can make it true or untrue. Truth is self-existent.
Really?
Quantum Physics is just "self evident"?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
[quote=Thunderstick]I am not a scientist--therefore I posted definitions from people who are. That is not an uncommon practice to cite scientists on science. Not sure why you think that I think that humanity is irrelevant--human life is created in the image of God and is sacred and morally responsible.
Humanity is not irrelevant. But it is irrelevant to the argument you are cutting and pasting futilely trying to describe a difference between micro and macro evolution.
And if human life is created in the image of God, which race of humans is that? Whites? Blacks? Or maybe an extinct member of genus Homo like Homo habilis or Homo erectus? And if God looks like one of the modern human races, why would God try to emulate an evolved ape even before the universe was created? [/quote
Those who believe in a higher power do better in terms of morality, gluttony, addiction, etc?
Beats me. I can tell you it makes a difference for me.
Here on a former rez the Native American community is having trouble with youth drug use, gang membership, suicide. It has been suggested that a cause may be a general lack of spirituality with the current generation, Native American spirituality or otherwise. Suffer a social setback, drugs make it feel better. Gangs substitute for family moral support. Suicide when one seems doomed to perpetual failure. Why not when there's nothing beyond how you feel today.
I think you see that in society at large, though not as acutely. Suicide rates have increased steadily since 2000 (NIH). I don't think I have to provide a source showing drug abuse and gang membership have grown markedly during the same period. Pew Research tracked a decline in religious affiliation.
Does the correlation mean anything? I don't know but it would be a good topic for investigation by those who enjoy Sociology.
Those who enjoy Sociology started predicting these results when I was in grammar school.
Yes, I know, what fifth grader reads Sociology papers? I did. Excerpts thereof, anyway.
Sociologists in the '60s predicted rising rates of crime, of homosexuality, of major mental illnesses, as human populations became more crowded.
There are simply too many people on the planet.
And even though America reached zero population growth in the late '60s or early '70s, the leftists are bound and determined to import enough people to ensure America receives her share of overcrowded misery.
Coincidentally, many of the leaders on the right need the population increases to prop up their ponzi schemes of deficit spending.
Originally Posted by nighthawk
Idaho Shooter, to me it gets down to questions that have been constant through the millennia. Why are we here? What's the point of living? And up pops Ethics, a rational person chooses to act in a way that (in his evaluation) brings about a preponderance of satisfying consequences. Without a higher purpose I'd be all over natural desires, lust, gluttony, and so forth. Where's the down side? Get caught and do an Epstein.
I would define rational as the ability to forestall immediate gratification to accomplish long term gain and the ability to make the unselfish choice to benefit your family and community.
Why am I here? Don't care, does not matter. I think, there for I am. Make the best of it.
What's the point of living? To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood.
These few quoted posts might just be the most interesting ones in this thread..............for me at least.
I'll agree (I think Gus does too) that "There are simply too many people on the planet. "
And that is likely the cause of a good many of our problems. However, as Idaho_Shooter points out, ponzi schemes or not, our economic system runs on growth of new consumers. Investment in companies, which drives a big portion of our system, demands returns fueled by growth and consumption. So I, for one, don't see any way other than a complete change in the system to address the underlying issues. Unfortunately, I don't know of a better system to propose that would allow for this: "To watch my wonderful kids and then grandchildren blossom into adulthood." Unless one wants to see them blossom into poverty.
Why am I here? Maybe just to continue the cycle and feed the worms. Actually the fishes if I get my wish to be buried at sea in a shroud with a weight on my feet. My "God/Supreme Being/Great Father/Master of the Universe/He/She/It/Them/" would allow for that to be my one and only purpose if that's the choice. Could their be a higher purpose? I don't know, but I think if I do as good a job as I can and try to live a good job, the fishes might end up happy.
Geno
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
