Microevolution -True. Macroevolution ...

Microevolution -True. Macroevolution -The Lie.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 30
Next Last

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#1 Nov 10, 2013
Microevolution is simply variation. Slight variations exist in all species. Macroevolution is a new species from an existing species. When asked for evidence the evolutionist always falls back on "time" for their argument.

For over 75 years they have been studying bacteria and fruit flies. Fruit flies have a new generation in nine days, bacteria average a new generation every twenty minutes. After more than 3000 generations of fruit flies and more than 675,000 generations of bacteria the results are the same bacteria and the same fruit flies. Microevolution works on bacteria and fruit flies resulting in slight variation but not a new species. Does macroevolution evolution magic not work on fruit flies and bacteria? This is exceptionally enough time/generations for a new species or two to evolve if any were going to.

Evolutionists tell us how all species evolved from a single life form (LUCA). If this is true then every species has in their gene line the ability to have lungs, gills, wings, arms, legs, every trait any species has. Where is the species that can live on land or in water for indefinite periods of time, be able to run-climb- swim and fly, be able to breathe air or water as if they were one, all depending on what was needed for the surrounding it was in? Would that not be the ultimate adaption to be able to live in all environments and terrains?

Not once has it been observed in a lab or in the fossil record of one species becoming a new species. The pumpkin will never change into a carriage and the mice will nave change into horses and the carriage driver. Time to wake up! The fairytale is not going to happen.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#3 Nov 10, 2013
Completely different size and skull shape. New species or just variation! You decide;

Picture one: http://photos.exposay.com/Ron_Perlman/ron_per...

Picture two: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Completely different size and skull shape. New species or just variation! You decide;
Picture one: http://photos.exposay.com/Ron_Perlman/ron_per...
Picture two: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
Hey moron, why didn't you include a link to your article. Oh that's right. Because if you did we would all know that you are full of shit.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#5 Nov 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron, why didn't you include a link to your article. Oh that's right. Because if you did we would all know that you are full of shit.
Why don't you debunk them paragraph by paragraph with links that you can search for on your own.

The problem is even you know everything I stated is true. You evolutionists just hate it when you are presented with the falseness of evolutions lie of species changing to other species, aka speciation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Microevolution is simply variation. Slight variations exist in all species. Macroevolution is a new species from an existing species. When asked for evidence the evolutionist always falls back on "time" for their argument.
For over 75 years they have been studying bacteria and fruit flies. Fruit flies have a new generation in nine days, bacteria average a new generation every twenty minutes. After more than 3000 generations of fruit flies and more than 675,000 generations of bacteria the results are the same bacteria and the same fruit flies.
And that is incorrect. We have seen speciation in fruit flies and bacteria both.
Microevolution works on bacteria and fruit flies resulting in slight variation but not a new species. Does macroevolution evolution magic not work on fruit flies and bacteria? This is exceptionally enough time/generations for a new species or two to evolve if any were going to.
Considering that bacteria tend to be very well adapted to their environments, this is simply silliness. And we do see speciation in fruit flies.
Evolutionists tell us how all species evolved from a single life form (LUCA). If this is true then every species has in their gene line the ability to have lungs, gills, wings, arms, legs, every trait any species has.
Stupidly false and a complete misunderstanding of what evolution says. Mutations and selection change the genes over time. Now, often there will be remnants of the genes from *ancestors* and that allows us to determine many characteristics of those ancestors even without the fossil evidence. For example, it is possible to active the genes in chickens that code for teeth.
Where is the species that can live on land or in water for indefinite periods of time, be able to run-climb- swim and fly, be able to breathe air or water as if they were one, all depending on what was needed for the surrounding it was in? Would that not be the ultimate adaption to be able to live in all environments and terrains?
No. Such characteristics are often impossible given the body plans already in place, not to mention the energy and developmental constraints. if an environment doesn't require a trait for survival, it will tend to decrease in frequency and be eliminated simply because the energy can be better used elsewhere.
Not once has it been observed in a lab or in the fossil record of one species becoming a new species.
Again false. We have seen speciation in the lab and in the wild.
The pumpkin will never change into a carriage and the mice will nave change into horses and the carriage driver. Time to wake up! The fairytale is not going to happen.
You are correct. But that isn't what evolution predicts. In fact, if any such changes happened, it would contradict evolutionary theory. Evolution happens from adaptation adding to itself over generations. It makes use of existing structures and modifies them for new jobs. It doesn't happen in any individual, but instead is a change from generation to generation. If the population is already adapted to a stable environment, then evolution predicts the properties of the population will be stable. it is when the environment changes (or the species moves into a new environment) that you get significant changes. But even then it generally requires many generations, not just a couple of thousand.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Completely different size and skull shape. New species or just variation! You decide;
Picture one: http://photos.exposay.com/Ron_Perlman/ron_per...
Picture two: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
That is natural variation and you know it. The fossils of human ancestors, however, have characteristics not seen in modern humans.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you debunk them paragraph by paragraph with links that you can search for on your own.
The problem is even you know everything I stated is true. You evolutionists just hate it when you are presented with the falseness of evolutions lie of species changing to other species, aka speciation.
Sorry moron, not a chance.


Your posts are completely wrong and only show that you do not understand evolution. You cannot debunk what you do not understand.

For example: if a person accused you of worshiping two boards nailed together would that debunk Christianity? I hope you said no. That is about the strength of an argument that you posed against evolution.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#9 Nov 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is incorrect. We have seen speciation in fruit flies and bacteria both.<quoted text>

Show which new species has been observed evolving from a existing species.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text> Considering that bacteria tend to be very well adapted to their environments, this is simply silliness. And we do see speciation in fruit flies.<quoted text>

Again show which new species has been observed evolving from a existing species.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text> Stupidly false and a complete misunderstanding of what evolution says. Mutations and selection change the genes over time. Now, often there will be remnants of the genes from *ancestors* and that allows us to determine many characteristics of those ancestors even without the fossil evidence. For example, it is possible to active the genes in chickens that code for teeth.<quoted text>

"often" you say. By evolution the genes from the first LUCA until now can and should exist in species even at if at a low denomination unless you are claiming 100% gene change.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text> No. Such characteristics are often impossible given the body plans already in place, not to mention the energy and developmental constraints. if an environment doesn't require a trait for survival, it will tend to decrease in frequency and be eliminated simply because the energy can be better used elsewhere.<quoted text>

"the body plans already in place" you say. Evolution sees those plans change in every species. So they are not set and a species of such with all traits is certainly possible. The ultimate adaption.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text> Again false. We have seen speciation in the lab and in the wild.<quoted text>

Again show which new species has been observed evolving from a existing species.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"] <quoted text> You are correct. But that isn't what evolution predicts. In fact, if any such changes happened, it would contradict evolutionary theory. Evolution happens from adaptation adding to itself over generations. It makes use of existing structures and modifies them for new jobs. It doesn't happen in any individual, but instead is a change from generation to generation. If the population is already adapted to a stable environment, then evolution predicts the properties of the population will be stable. it is when the environment changes (or the species moves into a new environment) that you get significant changes. But even then it generally requires many generations, not just a couple of thousand.
"evolution happens from adaptation adding to itself over generations" you say. But yet in the same comment you say the body plan is already in place. That a species could not have all traits to run-climb-swim and fly, be able to breathe air and water as if they were one, all depending on what was needed for the surrounding it was in? Again that would be the ultimate adaption to be able to live in all environments and terrains?

Try again and don't contradict yourself this time.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#10 Nov 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry moron, not a chance.
Your posts are completely wrong and only show that you do not understand evolution. You cannot debunk what you do not understand.
For example: if a person accused you of worshiping two boards nailed together would that debunk Christianity? I hope you said no. That is about the strength of an argument that you posed against evolution.
Yes I know you don't have a chance. That is why you won't except the debunking challenge.

Your name calling and childish analogs are just a strawmen and insults that have no meaning but trying to revert off the topic.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#11 Nov 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is natural variation and you know it. The fossils of human ancestors, however, have characteristics not seen in modern humans.
Correct. Bigger skull, longer jaw etc etc, same species. Just as this is variation but evolution calls it speciation.

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com...

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#12 Nov 10, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is natural variation and you know it. The fossils of human ancestors, however, have characteristics not seen in modern humans.
Without written prior knowledge in books, these two would be considered different species in 50,000 years if their skeletons were found. You know it and I know it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H5D60Q8P-lg/UCv5E3n...

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#13 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Microevolution is simply variation. Slight variations exist in all species. Macroevolution is a new species from an existing species. When asked for evidence the evolutionist always falls back on "time" for their argument.
For over 75 years they have been studying bacteria and fruit flies. Fruit flies have a new generation in nine days, bacteria average a new generation every twenty minutes. After more than 3000 generations of fruit flies and more than 675,000 generations of bacteria the results are the same bacteria and the same fruit flies. Microevolution works on bacteria and fruit flies resulting in slight variation but not a new species. Does macroevolution evolution magic not work on fruit flies and bacteria? This is exceptionally enough time/generations for a new species or two to evolve if any were going to.
Evolutionists tell us how all species evolved from a single life form (LUCA). If this is true then every species has in their gene line the ability to have lungs, gills, wings, arms, legs, every trait any species has. Where is the species that can live on land or in water for indefinite periods of time, be able to run-climb- swim and fly, be able to breathe air or water as if they were one, all depending on what was needed for the surrounding it was in? Would that not be the ultimate adaption to be able to live in all environments and terrains?
Not once has it been observed in a lab or in the fossil record of one species becoming a new species. The pumpkin will never change into a carriage and the mice will nave change into horses and the carriage driver. Time to wake up! The fairytale is not going to happen.
While I agree with some of what you say, you have provided no links to any of it. Links are helpful in showing what you say has any truth to it.
Dave M

Louth, UK

#14 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
Microevolution is simply variation. Slight variations exist in all species. Macroevolution is a new species from an existing species. When asked for evidence the evolutionist always falls back on "time" for their argument.
A New species from an existing species is a fact, its been observed in the wild and in the lab. Just Google "Observed Instances of Speciation" and you will get returns with multiple examples.

So you can stop lying about what "evolutionists" say.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#15 Nov 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree with some of what you say, you have provided no links to any of it. Links are helpful in showing what you say has any truth to it.
In college, if you went to college, did you always ask the professor for answers to the test? Do your own research and find your own links. You want handouts go to goodwill. You want answers and results do the work yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#16 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know you don't have a chance. That is why you won't except the debunking challenge.
Your name calling and childish analogs are just a strawmen and insults that have no meaning but trying to revert off the topic.
Name calling? What name calling?

Now if you want to learn I will be happy to help you learn. If you want to be a fool then my earlier "name calling" was not name calling.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#17 Nov 10, 2013
Dave M wrote:
<quoted text>
A New species from an existing species is a fact, its been observed in the wild and in the lab. Just Google "Observed Instances of Speciation" and you will get returns with multiple examples.
So you can stop lying about what "evolutionists" say.
Wrong! Not one time has a "NEW" species been observed evolving from a "existing" species. Variation has been observed, but not speciation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Without written prior knowledge in books, these two would be considered different species in 50,000 years if their skeletons were found. You know it and I know it.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-H5D60Q8P-lg/UCv5E3n...
No. The differences between species is not based merely upon size.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#19 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. Bigger skull, longer jaw etc etc, same species. Just as this is variation but evolution calls it speciation.
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com...
There are major differences between those skulls. In such a low quality shot it is hard to see them, but you can see the brow ridges in some creatures and they are totally absent in modern man.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#20 Nov 10, 2013
I call Poe
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#21 Nov 10, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you debunk them paragraph by paragraph with links that you can search for on your own.
The problem is even you know everything I stated is true.
Actually it's rather easy to debunk you in one link. But for the heck of it, here's two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_%28biolog...

Bacteria represent an entire biological domain. Note where 'domain' is in context of biological classification as compared to species.

And now the other linky:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...

Your position is Godmagic. This means that evidence is irrelevant to your position and it is a lie for you to claim otherwise.

Seriously, did you really think that you'd be able to falsify evolution with this Mickey Mouse BS? Srsly?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 30
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 53 min THE LONE WORKER 48
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 83,020
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 7 hr Dogen 2,546
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 9 hr Science 19
Evolution is a racist doctrine 13 hr Science 51
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 21 hr Science 15
Science News (Sep '13) 23 hr Ricky F 4,008
More from around the web