this is my point...if you agree with evolution then you do agree with "macro" evolution b/c macro is simply micro on a different scale...again why would a natural process that happens without the assistance of man stop at definitions that man created?
let me try again b/c i dont think i explained it very well...we didnt create evolution we just describe the process of evolutionwe created what defines each species, we ourselves said that if it has this characteristic its this if it has this one its that...if we broadened our definition of each species we would have less "macro" evolution...if we tightened our definition of each species we would have more "macro" evolution...but the thing is no matter which way we we would still have the same amount of evolution...
I love it... Beach is now the foremost resource on Evolution.Not the thousands of scientists in the world.
i think this explains the wrongly used concept of macro evolution...
Quote from: loco on October 22, 2010, 06:01:24 AMFrom 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
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
Quote from: loco on October 22, 2010, 06:02:53 AMIf evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions."If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetnerhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions."If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetnerhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
Translation: I'm getting owned here so I'll post what loco said and bail.
Beach Bum Learned a lot from those classes he took in the army.
I'd hit it.
you would have to marry her and then she would only sleep with you for the purpose of having children.
That's not what I have read.
She admitted that she used to sleep around a lot, but she stopped doing that a long time ago. I think she might be a lesbian now.
And vote for huh..."Human brained mice" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
