Microevolution -True. Macroevolution ...

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#386 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I need to point out once again that you are stuck on stupid.
I did Google that nonsense about brain cranium size and found nothing that supported your statement about (and I hope I got the jist of this right) "pressure on pitbulls' brains" makes them mean.
Pitbulls were bred for fighting in the past. Some people still do. They are a small minority. You see hundreds if not thousands of pitbulls in any good sized city. Do you seriously think that they come from some secret pitbull bear pit breeding ground?
The fact that pitbulls may have been bred for fighting in the past does not mean that they are bred that way today. And the popularity of the breed argues strongly against it.
Here is just a quick and simple search. Look at the results.

http://www.bing.com/search...

You want videos to go with them? Another quick and simple search!

http://www.bing.com/videos/search...

Why do you keep going on when you have already lost?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#387 Nov 15, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is just a quick and simple search. Look at the results.
http://www.bing.com/search...
You want videos to go with them? Another quick and simple search!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search...
Why do you keep going on when you have already lost?
If you search for the wrong thing you will get the wrong answer.

As I said you are stuck on stupid. I never denied that pitbulls are used in fights. Go back and read my posts. The number of people that abuse those dogs are a small minority.

Guess what, there are over 300 million people in the U.S. A lot of them have pitbulls. Very few fight them. Let's say that one person out of 300 owns a pitbull (I just looked it up and that number is a bit low). Let's say 1% fight them. That makes 10,000 fighting pitbulls. Heck the 1% number is probably high.

You are reacting to a small minority of cases. Not to the average case. Very few pitbulls are bred for fighting. You have been watching too many movies.

And yes, Vick was arrested and went to prison for Pitbull fighting, Good for you. You got one very very small point right that I never denied in the first place.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#388 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you search for the wrong thing you will get the wrong answer.
As I said you are stuck on stupid. I never denied that pitbulls are used in fights. Go back and read my posts. The number of people that abuse those dogs are a small minority.
Guess what, there are over 300 million people in the U.S. A lot of them have pitbulls. Very few fight them. Let's say that one person out of 300 owns a pitbull (I just looked it up and that number is a bit low). Let's say 1% fight them. That makes 10,000 fighting pitbulls. Heck the 1% number is probably high.
You are reacting to a small minority of cases. Not to the average case. Very few pitbulls are bred for fighting. You have been watching too many movies.
And yes, Vick was arrested and went to prison for Pitbull fighting, Good for you. You got one very very small point right that I never denied in the first place.
Your mistake is limiting it to the US. They are not only a US breed, they are a world wide breed and fought world wide. So look world wide and get back to me.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#389 Nov 15, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mistake is limiting it to the US. They are not only a US breed, they are a world wide breed and fought world wide. So look world wide and get back to me.
And you wonder why I called you a moron.

Try again loser. You were wrong.

This is another major time that you have been wrong and won't admit it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#390 Nov 15, 2013
Hey slaphead, you figure out your scientific alternative which does a better job of explaining biodiversity yet?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#392 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
A lot of them have pitbulls. Very few fight them.
I'm gonna say my bit that I've been saying for a while.

I've met/known maybe a dozen pitbull/pitbull mixes over the years. All of them have been sweethearts.

However, I had to chase off a pair of pitbulls from down the street that were killing a chihuahua in my front yard.

I have dogs. I know dogs. I know what a dog fight sounds like. I know what it sounds like when dogs are mad. I know what it sounds like when dogs are trying to scare each other off. I know what it sounds like when dogs are playing.

This was utterly soundless. There was no barking. They ran down the chihuahua, clamped on and shoved it down into the dirt intent on killing it.

Lots of dogs get into fights. The problem is that when a pitbull does get into a fight, it fights to win. Whether that's a fight against a dog, a cat, a baby, an adult, etc.

It has the tools and the trigger to go for the kill.

Other breeds lack one or both of those. That's the problem.

A loaded handgun isn't dangerous unless it goes off.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#393 Nov 15, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
To add to my last comment;
What they leave out is that they say "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring". That would be true in same species but there is no separate definition for same species or different species. And you know as well as I know that science says different species cannot interbreed and have fertile offspring.
You are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of language.

"Species" is not a real thing. It's a means by which humans can describe one group of organisms vs another group of organisms without having to go into ridiculous detail.

If we didn't have a system of classification, every time I wanted to talk about a certain group of ducks, I would have to describe them as opposed to other ducks, or worse other birds.

"Hey, did you see over at the lake? There is a pair of birds which often swim in the water and the males have a colorful head while the females are mostly brown. They have rounded beaks and webbed feet and are often found in North America."

In reality, the natural world does not make "species" distinctions. It's much blurrier.

This is why science has moved away from taxonomical heirarchies and into cladistics. It's a better representation of the natural world.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#394 Nov 15, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets get back to your science knowledge you claim you have.
Would you say Neanderthal to us are - a separate species, a sister species, a subspecies, or a different species?
Neanderthals are currently a separate species since they are extinct and therefore can not interbreed with us currently.

It is true that Neanderthals did interbreed with some humans in the past. It is unclear (and I don't know how we would test it) if a Neanderthal could breed with a modern African (the only group that doesn't currently have Neanderthal DNA).

The are definitely not a subspecies since they descend from a group of H. Erectus that left Africa whereas we descend from groups that stayed in Africa.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#395 Nov 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gonna say my bit that I've been saying for a while.
I've met/known maybe a dozen pitbull/pitbull mixes over the years. All of them have been sweethearts.
However, I had to chase off a pair of pitbulls from down the street that were killing a chihuahua in my front yard.
I have dogs. I know dogs. I know what a dog fight sounds like. I know what it sounds like when dogs are mad. I know what it sounds like when dogs are trying to scare each other off. I know what it sounds like when dogs are playing.
This was utterly soundless. There was no barking. They ran down the chihuahua, clamped on and shoved it down into the dirt intent on killing it.
Lots of dogs get into fights. The problem is that when a pitbull does get into a fight, it fights to win. Whether that's a fight against a dog, a cat, a baby, an adult, etc.
It has the tools and the trigger to go for the kill.
Other breeds lack one or both of those. That's the problem.
A loaded handgun isn't dangerous unless it goes off.
There is no doubt that when things go wrong with pitbulls they go horribly wrong. As you said they have the ways and means to kill other dogs and even humans. If you look back at my posts you will see that I did not say pitbulls were totally innocent. I did not like the unrealistic monster picture that slap happy was trying to paint. I laughed at the "pressure on the brain" claim and looked it up. Pure internet fantasy.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#396 Nov 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that when things go wrong with pitbulls they go horribly wrong. As you said they have the ways and means to kill other dogs and even humans. If you look back at my posts you will see that I did not say pitbulls were totally innocent. I did not like the unrealistic monster picture that slap happy was trying to paint. I laughed at the "pressure on the brain" claim and looked it up. Pure internet fantasy.
Yeah, IMO generally Pitbulls are fine around people assuming they haven't been trained to be aggressive.

However, they sometimes "mistake" young children/babies for prey animals and it ends in tragedy.

They aren't to be trusted with other pets. That's not to say that there aren't pitbulls with kittens as best friends, but don't expect to get a pitbull and keep your cat.

I own a beagle. This means I can not own a rabbit or a weasel or a hamster, etc.

Even if they play together fine for years, one day it's going to end very poorly.

Frankly, I think the responsible thing for Pitbulls is to stop breeding them.

If you do a search on images of pitbulls from the past, they are VERY different looking dogs. Not the musclebound, monster jawed creatures we have now.

They've been bred into weapons. Time to let them go.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#397 Nov 15, 2013
I have no problem with that solution.

And I had a beagle too. We bred her and then had 6, counting the mother. We were quite a way out in the country and had an ad for a while and the only one taken was of course the pick of the litter, my favorite. The remaining ones would follow us down our half mile long driveway until we got to a small woods where they would take off. We knew they were occasionally successful since we found bits of fur, and one time a hind leg.

They also joined a dog pack, raided a neighbors chicken farm, and learned their lesson the hard way. They all came home one day with birdshot wounds. None of them seemed seriously injured but that was the end of their pack days.

Smart dogs overall.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#398 Nov 15, 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.
Microevolution is the change in gene frequency over the short term. It uses the variation present in species as well as that resulting from mutations to effect the changes in populations.

Great periods of time are required for macroevolution to take place, but it is disingenuous to state that is answer provided when asked for evidence, when clearly there are vast amounts of evidence available that are widely known. Much has been provided on here. Evolutionary biologist are not responsible for those that refuse this evidence.

There are two species of fruit fly in which the genetic differences and mechanisms that result in their being separate species are well known. I don't know of any experiments that have attempted to generate new species. A number of insects have been kept in culture for decades and they have not generated new species. Cultured organisms are kept in stable, consistent rearing systems to continually produce specimens for research. Since these systems have limited selection pressure, it is no surprise that they don't result in new species even after many thousands of generations.

No, every species does not contain the genes for every structure known in living things. That doesn't even make sense. There are body plan genes called homeotic genes that are often highly conserved in plants and animals. These determine general body shape, developmental pattern and sequence. Many of these are found in a variety of different organisms and this attests to their ancient evolution.

No, there isn't an X-Man organism that has phenotypic traits that allow it to exist in every known environment.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#399 Nov 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Microevolution is the change in gene frequency over the short term. It uses the variation present in species as well as that resulting from mutations to effect the changes in populations.
Great periods of time are required for macroevolution to take place, but it is disingenuous to state that is answer provided when asked for evidence, when clearly there are vast amounts of evidence available that are widely known. Much has been provided on here. Evolutionary biologist are not responsible for those that refuse this evidence.
There are two species of fruit fly in which the genetic differences and mechanisms that result in their being separate species are well known. I don't know of any experiments that have attempted to generate new species. A number of insects have been kept in culture for decades and they have not generated new species. Cultured organisms are kept in stable, consistent rearing systems to continually produce specimens for research. Since these systems have limited selection pressure, it is no surprise that they don't result in new species even after many thousands of generations.
No, every species does not contain the genes for every structure known in living things. That doesn't even make sense. There are body plan genes called homeotic genes that are often highly conserved in plants and animals. These determine general body shape, developmental pattern and sequence. Many of these are found in a variety of different organisms and this attests to their ancient evolution.
No, there isn't an X-Man organism that has phenotypic traits that allow it to exist in every known environment.
Yes we know what microevolution and macroevolution claim.

There are several different species of fruit flies. Depending on the location/environment they are vary/differ. The Caribbean fruit fly, or Anastrepha suspense, The Mediterranean fruit fly, or Ceratitis capitata, The Mexican fruit fly, or Anastrepha ludens, and The olive fruit fly, or Bactrocerae oleae all vary/differ from their environments.

Humans vary/differ very much from their environments as well. Look at the Caucasians and then look at the Inupiat–Yupik. These two examples not only vary/differ much but also they are on the same continent.

You comment that you know of no experiments that have attempted to generate new species and that in insects/organisms that have been experimented on they have not came up with new species but yet many here claim speciation has been observed in the labs with these experiments.

Correct there is not a species that can exist in every known environment. But would that not be the ultimate macroevolution adaption?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#400 Nov 16, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct there is not a species that can exist in every known environment. But would that not be the ultimate macroevolution adaption?
No.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#401 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that when things go wrong with pitbulls they go horribly wrong. As you said they have the ways and means to kill other dogs and even humans. If you look back at my posts you will see that I did not say pitbulls were totally innocent. I did not like the unrealistic monster picture that slap happy was trying to paint. I laughed at the "pressure on the brain" claim and looked it up. Pure internet fantasy.
Facts are not a unrealistic monster picture.

A 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in a recent 3-year period. Pit bulls accounted for 59% followed by rottweilers with 14%.

Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org , pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59%(52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.

The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18%(16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81%(13).
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#402 Nov 16, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe just happened to form.
The sun just happened to form.
The moon just happened to form.
Earth just happened to form in the goldie locks zone.
All water just happened to come from space but yet can’t be found in space.
Oxygen just happened to be in higher concentrations here than anywhere we know of.
Rain clouds just happened to carry water across the earth to needed places.
What did you mean by all this? "Just happened"?

We know why and how the sun formed (and the moon) by the actions of natural forces.

We KNOW water came to earth from comets, where it can be found today.

If the earth were not in the "goldielocks zone" of our solar system, we would not be here talking about it. It is, so we are.

We know how oxygen was gradually produced over a billion years by stromatolites and other such organisms on the early earth, gradually transforming the planet's atmosphere. it didn't "just happen."

Rain clouds carry water to wherever natural forces will allow. Sometimes it's "needed," sometimes it's in uninhabitated areas where it is "wasted," sometimes it's NOT needed -- ask the people of the Phillipines how they feel about the recent "rain."

On all the above issues, WHAT"S YOUR POINT (assuming there is one)?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#403 Nov 16, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts are not a unrealistic monster picture.
A 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in a recent 3-year period. Pit bulls accounted for 59% followed by rottweilers with 14%.
Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org , pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59%(52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period.
The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18%(16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81%(13).
Once again, I never denied this.

What does not help the problem are they hysterical claims that you made.

Properly thought out ideas are not part of sloppy's repertoire.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#404 Nov 16, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
What did you mean by all this? "Just happened"?
We know why and how the sun formed (and the moon) by the actions of natural forces.
We KNOW water came to earth from comets, where it can be found today.
If the earth were not in the "goldielocks zone" of our solar system, we would not be here talking about it. It is, so we are.
We know how oxygen was gradually produced over a billion years by stromatolites and other such organisms on the early earth, gradually transforming the planet's atmosphere. it didn't "just happen."
Rain clouds carry water to wherever natural forces will allow. Sometimes it's "needed," sometimes it's in uninhabitated areas where it is "wasted," sometimes it's NOT needed -- ask the people of the Phillipines how they feel about the recent "rain."
On all the above issues, WHAT"S YOUR POINT (assuming there is one)?
We have theories, guesses, thoughts, assumptions on how it all happened. You can piss and moan all you want but we really have no clue what happened 13.5bya or what happened for sure 4-5bya. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it is testable and falsifiable.

How would one test for the birth of the universe(BBT)? How would one test for the birth of the sun and moon?

Lets get back to the oxygen part of it. Oxygen if found throughout the universe, just at different concentrations. So are you saying the earth, over a billion years by stromatolites and other such organisms supplied the whole universe with oxygen? After all By mass, oxygen is the third-most abundant element in the universe.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#405 Nov 16, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Rain clouds carry water to wherever natural forces will allow. Sometimes it's "needed," sometimes it's in uninhabitated areas where it is "wasted," sometimes it's NOT needed -- ask the people of the Phillipines how they feel about the recent "rain."
On all the above issues, WHAT"S YOUR POINT (assuming there is one)?
Yes storms do get very destructive. Sometimes producing to much of what is needed. Wind is a good thing too. But ask Oklahoma residents how they feel about winds with tornadoes during tornado season.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#406 Nov 16, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
We KNOW water came to earth from comets, where it can be found today.
That is true water is out there in space i.e. comets made of ice and in other particles. But where did water come from?

Other planets have had many comets crash into them over the billions of years but yet have no abundance of water as the earth does. Their environments can't even sustain needed amounts of water, let alone life.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Aura Mytha 69,957
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 161,437
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 5 hr Subduction Zone 95
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 30,111
G-d versus Evolution? 6 hr 15th Dalai Lama 12
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr yehoshooah adam 3,779
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 16 hr Subduction Zone 1,969
More from around the web