Mr. D said:This thread has turned into a contest of who can say the least with the greatest number of words! Gad Zooks how boring!:doh
libertarian_knight said:I never knew the totality of all complete thought could always be summed up in one sentence and an exclaimation. wow!
That is mainly a change in diagnosis, not in occurrence.CaliNORML said:The rise of 805% in Autism is alone in 10 years makes this step in evolution seem to be faltering. Where this area is physicaly bigger it should be used more, yet children are unable to use it more and more often.
First it needs to be defined so we know what is meant with the terms.CaliNORML said:Maybe this micoro/macro evolution can be looked upon.
And what do you mean with this in a biological, rather than a physiological sense?The Darwin thought always centered around physical change. Never a chemical one, let alone a chemical brain change. There was no medicine this advanced at the time and no idea of dopamine, seratonin, and chemical processes like diabetes and the known function of these chemicals in our physical systems.
Diet has always shown as a huge factor in evolution, we are what we eat after all and our bodies adjust to the diet.
Today able to control our enviorment, top of the food chain, and with the ability to farm and produce food for many, our "Macro" evolution is done, there are hardly any physical needs we need to adapt to, we adapted the enviroment to suit us.
So is all evolution. How is whatever you claim is macro-evolution (but cowardly refuse to define) not just change in DNA?oracle25 said:Umm... no, it's not. Micro evolution is simply shifting in DNA.
What do you mean with "new" DNA? You are making an awful lot of claims that don't make sense.Macro evolution requires new DNA to be created.
Are you lying again? You haven't even shown a scientific definition, nor a scientific fact yet.This is a scientific fact which has been demonstrated in numerous experiments.
And what does that have to do with "macro evolution"? Are you just making up stuff here? Because certainly, that babbling nonsense in your post had absolutely NOTHING to do with science.CaliNORML said:My point is I just showed what you described the chemical micro did not affect the larger frame we carried it in, our bodies. The tiniest trace is the skull contained the macro.
The horizontal is the physical, the vertical is the conceptual. A thought movement of understanding another dimension we humans alone see.
And how does this have ANYTHING to do with the definiton of, or evidence regarding the "macro evolution" Why are you trying to turn this tread into metaphysical babble?CaliNORML said:The evolution of this abstract is centered in the frontal brain lobe, Autistics lack access to this region of the brain, as such scientists report their skills in all that make us "human" lacking...
Mr. D said:Metaphysical babble! Yah, that's a good term for it! :2wave:
steen said:So is all evolution. How is whatever you claim is macro-evolution (but cowardly refuse to define) not just change in DNA?
What do you mean with "new" DNA? You are making an awful lot of claims that don't make sense.
Why not? Talking horizontal, have you ever heard of "ring species" they seem to directly disprove that claim of yours.
Once again, what is macro evolution in a biological sense, and where is the distinction from the micro-evolution you talk about?
Are you lying again? You haven't even shown a scientific definition, nor a scientific fact yet.
CaliNORML said:It seems the chemical, enzyme, and protien micro world that has continued to evolve, leaving very little physical evidence, and no trace, as it is soft tissue at the center of this change. No fossils can exist.
oracle25 said:I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time. This should bring the creation/evolution debate to a close but evolutionists insist on saving there precious theory.
According to most evolutionists the organisms that (according to there theory) would have lived before the cambrian explosion, were too soft bodied to be fossilized. The problem with this theory is that we have found many fossilized soft bodied organisms. From microscopic creatures too jelly fish, soft bodied creatures seem to have no trouble fossilizing. Therefore if there were such soft bodied creatures before the cambrian explosion we should have some record of them by now. Instead we have nothing.
Have a scientific source for this?oracle25 said:Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is completely different. Micro evolution is DNA that shifts (or reshuffles) itself to develop defenses. Once the need for said defense is gone the genetic information reverts back to it's original form in the next generation. This is know as "Mendel's law". An obvious consequence of this is that variations have LIMITS, so no matter how much you jumble up the DNA you are not going to get one species to evolve into another, you will merely get new VARIATIONS of already existing species. Or even these "ring species" you describe.
Why don't we see homo sapiens in the cambrian period? Why don't we see hippos or giraffes or lions and tigers and bears oh my? Why do we see only such soft bodied invertebrates during that period?oracle25 said:I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time. This should bring the creation/evolution debate to a close but evolutionists insist on saving there precious theory.
According to most evolutionists the organisms that (according to there theory) would have lived before the cambrian explosion, were too soft bodied to be fossilized. The problem with this theory is that we have found many fossilized soft bodied organisms. From microscopic creatures too jelly fish, soft bodied creatures seem to have no trouble fossilizing. Therefore if there were such soft bodied creatures before the cambrian explosion we should have some record of them by now. Instead we have nothing.
Well, then you are using the definition where macro-evolution solely deal with speciation. In that case, it has directly been proved.oracle25 said:Please do not confuse macro-evolution with something "I" define. It was originally defined by leading micro=biologists.
nope, your claim is ambiguous, Are mutations counting as "new" How do you measure "new" DNA or demonstrate its existence? Are you claiming something that can't be tested or measured and therefore is utterly meaningless?I think the statement is fairly self explanatory. "new" DNA, means just that, new. Meaning not pre-existing DNA, or DNA that was not all ready there. I think your the only one who missed the meaning of this statement.
but they are new species because of this, and therefore are demonstration of macro-evolution. But if you are saying that "a common ancestor" is acceptable within creationism, then you sure are talking about the oddest creationism that I have ever heard about.Why? "Ring Species" have nothing to do with macro-evolution, they are simply species that do not seem to be related to each other but in fact share a common ancestor, this is perfectly acceptable in micro-evolution and the creation model.
Like what you said above. But "darwinian theory" certainly doesn't need to go to the common ancestor to occur, it merely requires a change in populations. So it is not only what you call "macro evolution." And in that same line, up above you claimed two species with a common ancestor to be micro evolution.Again, I fail to understand your dilemma. Macro-evolution is simply basic darwinian theory, that is that all life sprang up from a common ancestor.
And what do you mean with "new" DNA? How do you recognize or measure "new" DNA"? Are you talking about mutations?This requires NEW DNA to be formed.
No it doesn't. That claim is false, it is nonsense.In order for one organism to become another organism, the genetic code must become more complex.
Yes, we do.This is what we have no evidence of.
Is it now? Please document that. You are again spewing what in science is utter nonsense.Micro-evolution, on the other hand, is completely different. Micro evolution is DNA that shifts (or reshuffles) itself to develop defenses. Once the need for said defense is gone the genetic information reverts back to it's original form in the next generation. This is know as "Mendel's law".
Sure you are. Even ring-species evidenced this, as has other examples of directly observed episodes of speciation.An obvious consequence of this is that variations have LIMITS, so no matter how much you jumble up the DNA you are not going to get one species to evolve into another,
They are actually new species.you will merely get new VARIATIONS of already existing species. Or even these "ring species" you describe.
And with that you CONTINUE to evade and avoid providing the actual definitions of the terms you use, micro- and macro-evolution. Why the reluctance? Why do you KEEP evading doing so?I believe I showed both, but oh well.
nope, no evolutionist have ever stated this, your claim is false.oracle25 said:I want to address this claim. This is the traditional evolutionist response too the cambrian explosion. That is, that according to the fossil record, all life on earth sprang up at one time.
I know you put a lot of elbow grease into these arguments, but what you are arguing for is neither ID nor evolution.CaliNORML said:Q: What are memes?
KMS
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?