establishing evolution

[NeoSeminole]

Great post because thats the way I understood it when referring to macro-evolution, evolutionist have reason to believe because cicumstantial evidance not actual observation, like you said the word is misused, however NeoSeminole and Necrosis seem to think that scientist have literally observed these changes.

ugh, the evolution of a new species has been directly observed. I've posted numerous examples in other threads and Necrosis provided more in here. For whatever reason, you choose to ignore the facts.

[liberalismo]

ugh, the evolution of a new species has been directly observed. I've posted numerous examples in other threads and Necrosis provided more in here. For whatever reason, you choose to ignore the facts.

Generally the new species popping up are insects or plants.

Any larger species coming into existence were due to human breeding programs to create a specific species for livestock purposes.


But none of this is even relevant. Large scale speciation can be seen indirectly everywhere and is thus a fact.

EVEN IF large scale speciation were not known to be true by indirect observation or direct observation, "Micro Evolution" as a lot of people call it would be proof for "Macro Evolution".

Micro evolution is proof for Macro Evolution.

This is because if species can accumulate small genetic changes in their populations due to random mutations being naturally selected out for advantages or disadvantages, then NOTHING is stopping more change from occurring the same way and accumulating and accumulating over years until the population we are discussing is a different species from the population it used to be.

[Necrosis]

Generally the new species popping up are insects or plants.

Any larger species coming into existence were due to human breeding programs to create a specific species for livestock purposes.


But none of this is even relevant. Large scale speciation can be seen indirectly everywhere and is thus a fact.

EVEN IF large scale speciation were not known to be true by indirect observation or direct observation, "Micro Evolution" as a lot of people call it would be proof for "Macro Evolution".

Micro evolution is proof for Macro Evolution.

This is because if species can accumulate small genetic changes in their populations due to random mutations being naturally selected out for advantages or disadvantages, then NOTHING is stopping more change from occurring the same way and accumulating and accumulating over years until the population we are discussing is a different species from the population it used to be.

you seem to think gross morphological changes or gross changes in phenotype count as macro evolution, this is not true. Reptiles have been observed, insects etc...

generally species with rapid life cycles.

macro evolution has been directly observed this is all the evidence that would be needed. However, like you outline there is more evidence which when combined with the theorectical framework allows us to account for all species in existence and all that ever existed without the need for a god. When abiogenesis is solidified with a viable mechanism god is out of work for the most part. I suppose you could ask some ridiculous why questions and partial gaps to keep him living. But the death of religion and god is coming.

[loco]

But the death of religion and god is coming.

Necrosis,
In your opinion, how long before that happens?

[Necrosis]

Necrosis,
In your opinion, how long before that happens?

in reality full refusal of god will never happen, weak people need the thought of someone watching over them and the thought of an afterlife, then we have indoctrination of children which will perpetuate superstition.

However, i think you will see a secular society for the most part in 100-150 years.

[liberalismo]

you seem to think gross morphological changes or gross changes in phenotype count as macro evolution, this is not true. Reptiles have been observed, insects etc...

generally species with rapid life cycles.

macro evolution has been directly observed this is all the evidence that would be needed. However, like you outline there is more evidence which when combined with the theorectical framework allows us to account for all species in existence and all that ever existed without the need for a god. When abiogenesis is solidified with a viable mechanism god is out of work for the most part. I suppose you could ask some ridiculous why questions and partial gaps to keep him living. But the death of religion and god is coming.

The terms "Micro and Macro" evolution are not generally used in scientific circles. Evolution is evolution. If evolution at the species level is possible, so is evolution above the level of Phyla.

[loco]

The terms "Micro and Macro" evolution are not generally used in scientific circles. Evolution is evolution. If evolution at the species level is possible, so is evolution above the level of Phyla.

From TalkOrigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

[liberalismo]

From TalkOrigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"

"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Well it probably isn't very common then. I don't remember ever seeing it used outside of the creationism/ID debate.

[loco]

Well it probably isn't very common then. I don't remember ever seeing it used outside of the creationism/ID debate.

According to TalkOrigins.org, the term is very common in evolutionary biology today.

[Necrosis]

According to TalkOrigins.org, the term is very common in evolutionary biology today.

loco what do you think about the evidence i presented with respects to your claims that macro evolution never occured?

[loco]

loco what do you think about the evidence i presented with respects to your claims that macro evolution never occured?

I haven't had the time to look into it yet.  I've had other people post long reads for me to comment on.  I'll get back to you.

[Necrosis]

I haven't had the time to look into it yet.  I've had other people post long reads for me to comment on.  I'll get back to you.

bump for loco to read the evidence and respond.

[loco]

bump for loco to read the evidence and respond.

Sorry Necrosis!  After the Founding Fathers thread on the political board, and the Hebrew Bible and Shroud of Turin thread on this board, you are next.   

[loco]

bump for creationists to argue against this evidence and to admit that the common lies expounded by creationists are clearly and obviously false.

Necrosis,

Sorry it took me so long!

Why would creationists argue against this evidence?  You know creationists accept evolution.  I think the confusion is in the terms used.  In evolutionary biology, the meaning of the term "macroevolution" has changed over time.  So when creationists and evolutionists argue about macroevolution, the two sides mean different things by that term.  There is a similar problem with the meaning of the term "new species" or just "species". 

The bottom line is that creationists do not accept that two different "species" such as chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.

Here is a quote from Answers in Genesis which better explains what many creationists accept or do not accept about evolution, without using the term "macroevolution":

"Particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off."

I myself would tell you that I am not a creationist, but then again, how do you define the term "creationist"?

[liberalismo]

Creationists accept micro-evolution, but they don't accept what this leads to, which is common descent.

The bottom line is that creationists do not accept that two different "species" such as chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.

It's too bad. It's a proven fact. They both have the same in gene retro-viruses which can't occur in any way except common ancestor.

Here is a quote from Answers in Genesis which better explains what many creationists accept or do not accept about evolution, without using the term "macroevolution":

"Particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a “micro” increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite “macro” changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off."

Loss of information would allow evolutionary change and additional genes and genetic features. The technical definition of "information" would mean a decrease in uncertainty, which would mean that if a gene mutates a specific way, adding novel features, the information increases but the new features still occur. Claude Shannon paved the way for this measuring of information by using "bits" for each level of less uncertainty.

If you define "information" as simply novel genetic features or additional genetic attributes, then mutation insertions would fit the category.

I myself would tell you that I am not a creationist, but then again, how do you define the term "creationist"?

Wikipedia has a good definition:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.

[Necrosis]

Creationists accept micro-evolution, but they don't accept what this leads to, which is common descent.


It's too bad. It's a proven fact. They both have the same in gene retro-viruses which can't occur in any way except common ancestor.

Loss of information would allow evolutionary change and additional genes and genetic features. The technical definition of "information" would mean a decrease in uncertainty, which would mean that if a gene mutates a specific way, adding novel features, the information increases but the new features still occur. Claude Shannon paved the way for this measuring of information by using "bits" for each level of less uncertainty.

If you define "information" as simply novel genetic features or additional genetic attributes, then mutation insertions would fit the category.

Wikipedia has a good definition:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.

good post, the increase in information argument is also wrong as increases in genes have been observed which resulted in increased fitness. Nylon digesting bacteria are an example of this.