Proof once and for all of evolution

[jfuh]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc6U7_-BeGc&NR=1[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I don't think that such proof exists. There is no one fossil or one experiment to prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is another case; However the proof of evolution comes when you take in ALL of the comprehensive evidence, fields of science (genetics, biology, zoology) and the meta-analysis.

 

[rathi]

What the hell is Macro-evolution? Its not a scientific term.

 

[rhinefire]

Over 90% of the ape familys DNA is a match for the human race.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What the hell is Macro-evolution?

Macroevolution

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[citation needed] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

Its not a scientific term.

By what standard? Considering there is a Chapter in my AP biology book titled Macro-evolution, I am inclined to disagree.

 

[jfuh]

Macroevolution

By what standard? Considering there is a Chapter in my AP biology book titled Macro-evolution, I am inclined to disagree.

I have much respect for you in this forum, so don't take this the wrong way. However, the coinage of macroevolution was "re-termed" by the ID movement to seperate evolution into two separate fields. Microevolution is proof of macro evolution. Bacterial generation times are within a few minutes - that of humans? A lifetime hence to state that there's singular proof there of is ridiculous. From your source

Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.[1][2]
<snip>
Since the inception of the two two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and even fallen into disfavour amongst scientists who prefer to speak of biological evolution as one process[1]. The term was returned, somewhat, to prominence in the last thirty years due to breakthroughs in evolutionary theory that seem to indicate that there are different processes involved in speciation than simple modification

Most important

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.

Vestigial organs, 99.5% identical nucleotide sequences with chimps, fossil records; macro evolution is simply the extrapolation of microevolution.

Finally, if we must, there is proof, my video is proof there of:lol:

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I have much respect for you in this forum, so don't take this the wrong way.

Dude, the wrong way is how I like it

However, the coinage of macroevolution was "re-termed" by the ID movement to seperate evolution into two separate fields.

Evolutionists tend to avoid the word because thats the kind of evolution creationists claim to disbelieve in, this is true. However creationists did not coin the term, they just bastardized it. Like they try to with "Quantum Mechanics."

macro evolution is simply the extrapolation of microevolution.

Aren't all macro-anythings extrapolations of micro-anythings? Micro to Macroeconomics comes to mind...

Anywho, my point was that it is in fact a scientific term (macro is a valid prefix, evolution is a valid term, and both are used in conjunction, just not regularly) and macroevolution exists, but there is no one single piece of proof for it.

 

[jfuh]

Dude, the wrong way is how I like it



Evolutionists tend to avoid the word because thats the kind of evolution creationists claim to disbelieve in, this is true. However creationists did not coin the term, they just bastardized it. Like they try to with "Quantum Mechanics."



Aren't all macro-anythings extrapolations of micro-anythings? Micro to Macroeconomics comes to mind...

Anywho, my point was that it is in fact a scientific term (macro is a valid prefix, evolution is a valid term, and both are used in conjunction, just not regularly) and macroevolution exists, but there is no one single piece of proof for it.

There's no "one single piece" no, there are several pieces that when put together prove of.
Just like the video, there're several sequences, when you look at just one frame it says nothing, but then viewed all together it makes perfect sense. We're a bunch of alcoholics.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

There's no "one single piece" no, there are several pieces that when put together prove of.
Just like the video, there're several sequences, when you look at just one frame it says nothing, but then viewed all together it makes perfect sense.

Agreed

We're a bunch of alcoholics.

What are we without our vices but virtuous robots?

 

[Intransigent Atheist]

Thank you for that, it made my Sunday afternoon! I think I'll go have one of my Guinesses now.

 

[danarhea]

I don't think you will ever convince anyone living in Kansas:

 

[jfuh]

I don't think you will ever convince anyone living in Kansas:

The same religious anti-science zealots that insist the earth is only 6000 years old. Now the islamic creationists are in on the game too.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

I don't think you will ever convince anyone living in Kansas:

Holy crap, is that site for real? It sure is hilarious. Thanx for making my afternoon.:rofl :rofl

 

[danarhea]

Over 90% of the ape familys DNA is a match for the human race.

And over 97% of the ape family's DNA is a match for George Bush. :mrgreen: