Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2022 8:00:06 GMT
Ok, however, the distinction is essentially practical and educational. It's not necessary like for example the quantum mechanics scale and the general relativity scale. It's like saying that there are tall people and short people. IOW, it's not nomenclatural and is essentially arbitrary.
The things ID clowns do to try to confuse the issue... |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2022 8:09:47 GMT
The things ID clowns do to try to confuse the issue...
They won't be satisfied until everyone is as confused as they are.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2022 9:24:02 GMT
More on the micro/macro evolution confusion, from the previous Quora link above:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 3, 2022 15:08:43 GMT
Darwin didn't use those terms, but one of Darwin's big points in Origin of Species is that there's no fundamental difference between what you might now call "microevolution" and "macroevolution"—that small changes within a population over a relatively short time, added up over very long times, are all you need to explain the origin of new species and higher taxa. There's no fundamental difference between "micro" and "macro" except for the timescale, and the evolutionary biologists I know don't usually go out of their way to draw a distinction between them. It's all just change over time. Most of the time that I hear the distinction made now, it's being made by creationists who are trying to mentally wall off evidence for evolution that they can't refute. I do believe this is the essence of it. Unless you get to the fundamental resistance to evolution itself, this will not stop. What's interesting is that this is primarily a North American battle. For "another point of view," check out biologos.org |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 3, 2022 21:09:55 GMT
And you've gotten yourself stuck in the weeds with this obsession with the "species" definition. Do you really think that dogs become a different species because they come in different sizes? Dogs wouldn't exist without Intelligent Design, so they would all be wolves in nature. Today, I can't breed a Holstein bull with an Angus cow because the size of the calf would kill the smaller Angus if in nature. By your narrow definition, those cows must be different species, right? Or are the both still bovines just as dogs and wolves are canines. THOSE are the lines that are not broken or crossed through the fictional concept of macro-evolution.
Let's try it this way. The evolutionist's assumption is that, long ago, there was a creature that was not a bovine or a canine that became a bovine or a canine. Or somewhere, millions of years ago, some creature crawled out of the puddle and became a different type of creature.
So, it's simple. Prove that this evolutionary magic happened using fossil evidence. There should be a creature that's part bovine and part not a bovine in the fossil record (or tens of thousands of such fossils, if Darwin was right) that shows the switch from one creature type to another.
Show me.
As opposed to the magic of species appearing out of thin air... Boy, are you stupid! I'm a genius compared to you, but so is everyone else. You might even qualify as the missing link...the Idiotanderthal.
Get relevant or get lost.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 3, 2022 21:17:14 GMT
The things ID clowns do to try to confuse the issue... You'd be less stupid if you stayed away from Useless.
It's not a scam and it is linked to UC Berkeley.
Google "UC Berkeley". You'll get this: www.berkeley.edu/ In the search field, type "evolution". Look for "Understanding Evolution" at the bottom right of the results. Click on this and search "micro to macro"
Now both you and Useless have been schooled on this very real site, and you both look like desperate dumbasses.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 3, 2022 21:27:30 GMT
What is the evidence that one species TYPE CAN change into another species TYPE? So far the lines haven't crossed, and in science, we tend to like to prove a theory before calling it fact or settled. The fossil record. There is no evidence in the fossil record of one type of creature transforming into another. NONE. If macro is just micro over a long period of type, the creature TYPE never changes, which IS reflected in the fossil record and is what we should call only "micro" evolution. We have no fossil record that explains the appearance of fulled formed creatures without predecessors in the fossil record, and no record of one creature type transforming to another.
Why do you continue to avoid this huge gap in the record and the theory? The evidence is just not there.
Without proof, macro evolution is a fairy tale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2022 21:33:58 GMT
As opposed to the magic of species appearing out of thin air... Boy, are you stupid! I'm a genius compared to you, but so is everyone else. You might even qualify as the missing link...the Idiotanderthal.
Get relevant or get lost.
You link to sites that call you (and your kind) inept... You've lost the right to call anyone else stupid. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 3, 2022 21:34:23 GMT
You're quoting from a site that defends Intelligent design. Useless doesn't even have the good sense to be able to tell the difference. It's worth repeating:
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.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 3, 2022 21:37:22 GMT
I'm a genius compared to you, but so is everyone else. You might even qualify as the missing link...the Idiotanderthal.
Get relevant or get lost.
You link to sites that call you (and your kind) inept... You've lost the right to call anyone else stupid. And you look like a f*cking imbecile for calling it a site not connected to UC Berkeley and for claiming that Micro/Macro are made up terms. It's from a sh*thole like Berkeley, so I have to expect some California grade feces among the grains of truth on the site. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2022 21:38:24 GMT
The things ID clowns do to try to confuse the issue... You'd be less stupid if you stayed away from Useless.
It's not a scam and it is linked to UC Berkeley.
Google "UC Berkeley". You'll get this: www.berkeley.edu/ In the search field, type "evolution". Look for "Understanding Evolution" at the bottom right of the results. Click on this and search "micro to macro"
Now both you and Useless have been schooled on this very real site, and you both look like desperate dumbasses.
That site calls you an imbecile, idiot! You get that? Or is it that that granite block you call a head is impenetrable to anything? It's like talking to a potted plant, a sick degenerate potted plant. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 4, 2022 12:07:00 GMT
There is no evidence in the fossil record of one type of creature transforming into another. NONE. If macro is just micro over a long period of type, the creature TYPE never changes, which IS reflected in the fossil record and is what we should call only "micro" evolution. We have no fossil record that explains the appearance of fulled formed creatures without predecessors in the fossil record, and no record of one creature type transforming to another.
Why do you continue to avoid this huge gap in the record and the theory? The evidence is just not there.
Without proof, macro evolution is a fairy tale.
What would it look like to see what you’re looking for in the fossil record? What would “one creature transforming into another” look like? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 5, 2022 15:07:25 GMT
There is no evidence in the fossil record of one type of creature transforming into another. NONE. If macro is just micro over a long period of type, the creature TYPE never changes, which IS reflected in the fossil record and is what we should call only "micro" evolution. We have no fossil record that explains the appearance of fulled formed creatures without predecessors in the fossil record, and no record of one creature type transforming to another.
Why do you continue to avoid this huge gap in the record and the theory? The evidence is just not there.
Without proof, macro evolution is a fairy tale.
What would it look like to see what you’re looking for in the fossil record? What would “one creature transforming into another” look like? If evolution worked on the macro level, we would already KNOW what such a creature looks like. The very fact that you're asking me that question signifies the failure of evolution theory in the sense of macro changes. According to the theory, somewhere in the distant past, birds, reptiles, bears, cows, simians all originates from some common ancestor in a wet puddle. They all somehow transmogrified into all of these creature types despite zero evidence of that happening. One would assume primitive blobs shared characteristics in numerous transitional forms until the blob shed its gills and fins, grew a fur coat and became a bear. And, amazingly, all of their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening! Amazing!
Statistically, there should be millions of fossils of failed forms of creatures that went extinct due to negative mutations and these creature types evolved into something better. Darwin recognized that flaw in his own theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 5, 2022 17:20:11 GMT
What would it look like to see what you’re looking for in the fossil record? What would “one creature transforming into another” look like? If evolution worked on the macro level, we would already KNOW what such a creature looks like. The very fact that you're asking me that question signifies the failure of evolution theory in the sense of macro changes. According to the theory, somewhere in the distant past, birds, reptiles, bears, cows, simians all originates from some common ancestor in a wet puddle. They all somehow transmogrified into all of these creature types despite zero evidence of that happening. One would assume primitive blobs shared characteristics in numerous transitional forms until the blob shed its gills and fins, grew a fur coat and became a bear. And, amazingly, all of their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening! Amazing!
Statistically, there should be millions of fossils of failed forms of creatures that went extinct due to negative mutations and these creature types evolved into something better. Darwin recognized that flaw in his own theory.
"All their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening." Uh...yeah, besides the fact that I don't think random mutation is the only mechanism is going on, this statement is a complete misrepresentation. Not all random mutations were positive. But negative mutations wouldn't survive. This is actually an obvious inference. No? "Failed forms" don't survive. Given the rarity of the creation of fossils, why would a "failed form" survive? AND YET...! There are "failed forms" (in the long run). There are "dead ends." Most forms of dinosaurs. Sabre-tooth cats. Mastodons. Giant sloths. They don't exist. In the long run, they are "failed forms." If you are correct and the fossil record does not reveal exactly what you claim we should be seeing in the fossil record, then what happened to all those animals that are in the fossil record? And why are contemporary animal forms not in the fossil record? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 5, 2022 20:22:20 GMT
And then there's Mackerel Evolution...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 5, 2022 20:37:34 GMT
And then there's Mackerel Evolution... Care to expand? You piqued my interest... |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 5, 2022 20:46:08 GMT
And then there's Mackerel Evolution... Care to expand? You piqued my interest...
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 7, 2022 8:38:16 GMT
And then there's...
Note: Swansea Valley is in the UK, in the province nation of Wales (South).
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 7, 2022 17:57:28 GMT
If evolution worked on the macro level, we would already KNOW what such a creature looks like. The very fact that you're asking me that question signifies the failure of evolution theory in the sense of macro changes. According to the theory, somewhere in the distant past, birds, reptiles, bears, cows, simians all originates from some common ancestor in a wet puddle. They all somehow transmogrified into all of these creature types despite zero evidence of that happening. One would assume primitive blobs shared characteristics in numerous transitional forms until the blob shed its gills and fins, grew a fur coat and became a bear. And, amazingly, all of their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening! Amazing!
Statistically, there should be millions of fossils of failed forms of creatures that went extinct due to negative mutations and these creature types evolved into something better. Darwin recognized that flaw in his own theory. "All their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening." Uh...yeah, besides the fact that I don't think random mutation is the only mechanism is going on, this statement is a complete misrepresentation. Not all random mutations were positive. But negative mutations wouldn't survive. This is actually an obvious inference. No? "Failed forms" don't survive. Given the rarity of the creation of fossils, why would a "failed form" survive? AND YET...! There are "failed forms" (in the long run). There are "dead ends." Most forms of dinosaurs. Sabre-tooth cats. Mastodons. Giant sloths. They don't exist. In the long run, they are "failed forms." If you are correct and the fossil record does not reveal exactly what you claim we should be seeing in the fossil record, then what happened to all those animals that are in the fossil record? And why are contemporary animal forms not in the fossil record? Amazing that you think that Sabre Tooth cats and Mastodons died as evolutionary dead ends, when their demise was at the hands of an intelligent being, the human. One might call that natural selection, but keep in mind that stupid predators can kill weaker creatures with many advanced mutations as well, thus setting back evolution as easily as it is advanced.
And if mutations were as gradual as we are supposed to believe from Darwin, only the quickly fatal negative mutations would have lessened the fossil record. And yes, negative mutations do survive if the host survives. Here's an interesting mathematical analysis:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
While "impossibility" is a bit strong in the title, it clearly shows that the likelihood of all of these mutations aligning over and over again in countless higher creatures is closer to impossible than evolutionists would like to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 7, 2022 21:02:49 GMT
"All their random mutations were positive ones as this was happening." Uh...yeah, besides the fact that I don't think random mutation is the only mechanism is going on, this statement is a complete misrepresentation. Not all random mutations were positive. But negative mutations wouldn't survive. This is actually an obvious inference. No? "Failed forms" don't survive. Given the rarity of the creation of fossils, why would a "failed form" survive? AND YET...! There are "failed forms" (in the long run). There are "dead ends." Most forms of dinosaurs. Sabre-tooth cats. Mastodons. Giant sloths. They don't exist. In the long run, they are "failed forms." If you are correct and the fossil record does not reveal exactly what you claim we should be seeing in the fossil record, then what happened to all those animals that are in the fossil record? And why are contemporary animal forms not in the fossil record? Amazing that you think that Sabre Tooth cats and Mastodons died as evolutionary dead ends, when their demise was at the hands of an intelligent being, the human. One might call that natural selection, but keep in mind that stupid predators can kill weaker creatures with many advanced mutations as well, thus setting back evolution as easily as it is advanced.
And if mutations were as gradual as we are supposed to believe from Darwin, only the quickly fatal negative mutations would have lessened the fossil record. And yes, negative mutations do survive if the host survives. Here's an interesting mathematical analysis:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away.
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!
For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
While "impossibility" is a bit strong in the title, it clearly shows that the likelihood of all of these mutations aligning over and over again in countless higher creatures is closer to impossible than evolutionists would like to believe.
So explain the fossil record. |
|
