Microevolution -True. Macroevolution ...
First Prev
of 30
Next Last
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#587 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
And that is your opinion. I will not communicate to anyone what I am educated in, what degrees I hold or even where I am from.
Well, you're NOT educated in science, you hold 360 degrees when you pick up your potractor, and you're from Earth. But since you spend the day claiming reality isn't real cuz Jews are magic I'd say just barely.
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
That just opens someone up for punch jokes and ridicule.
You are in error. This happened anyway the moment you started talking.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#588 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes look at the title of the thread and then look at the comments in here. Not one creationists or bible thumper has been in here for over 500 comments. Not one bible verse and not one person persistently saying God did it except for Dudley always bringing up God, a few others have too. Creationists do not want to discuss variation, speciation or evolution. Though it did attract the wanker Dudley and his gully gabbing game he plays which is no better than a creationist because like a creationists he adds nothing of science or meaning.
Wow, such projection. So you deny your first post was yours? And you've finally figured out your "scientific alternative" now then, right?

Do tell.

(crickets)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#589 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be just the thing to do if we could. But as it is science decides what is species and what is advanced eukaryotes and science said they were two species merging. Either you agree with science or you don't. Now if anyone here is has the qualifications to change that speak up and that can be discussed.
And yet you continually ignore the line that was quoted many times that E. coli would be split into different species if it was not for the fact that it was used in so many medical experiments and it was simply easier to call them all E. coli.
Two different articles said the same thing. One got it down to a single sentence. And you STILL could not understand it.

Aah, the denial of the creatard. It is actually sweet music because it is obvious that you are wrong when you have to go into your song and dance.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#590 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you continually ignore the line that was quoted many times that E. coli would be split into different species if it was not for the fact that it was used in so many medical experiments and it was simply easier to call them all E. coli.
Two different articles said the same thing. One got it down to a single sentence. And you STILL could not understand it.
Aah, the denial of the creatard. It is actually sweet music because it is obvious that you are wrong when you have to go into your song and dance.
So... he's also tone-deaf and has 2 left feet?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#591 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people here are set in their ways and think they know it all and will just throw BS around and/or at you know matter how you talk, what you show or what you know.
Would that have applied to you when you started the thread

Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMS...

Which included this "gem":

Atheist;
All
Thick
Headed
Egotistical
Idiots
Spreading
Trickery

If you think evolution is "trickery" spread by "thick-headed atheists," what is your explanation for the great diversity of species on planet earth? How did it come to be that way, in your opinion?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#592 Nov 19, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that have applied to you when you started the thread
Evolution. The biggest atheist trick in the world.
But hey man, he's never mentioned God once! Just ignore all the creationist arguments he's been using along with the fundie modus operandi. He's innocent, dammit!

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#593 Nov 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But hey man, he's never mentioned God once! Just ignore all the creationist arguments he's been using along with the fundie modus operandi. He's innocent, dammit!
Well, he's certainly innocent of having any ability to understand simple concepts that might tend to disagree with his magical thinking.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#594 Nov 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But hey man, he's never mentioned God once! Just ignore all the creationist arguments he's been using along with the fundie modus operandi. He's innocent, dammit!
It would just be a lot more interesting thread if he stopped dicking around trying to make everybody angry by word parsing and obfuscating and just advocated his ideas, whatever they may be.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#595 Nov 19, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is your opinion. I will not communicate to anyone what I am educated in, what degrees I hold or even where I am from. That just opens someone up for punch jokes and ridicule. I tried first to speak in layman's terms and got kicked for not being technical. I got technical, some got lost and I still got kicked. So I could come in here and talk like a backwoods Cajun or a Harvard Professor and it would not matter. Many people here are set in their ways and think they know it all and will just throw BS around and/or at you know matter how you talk, what you show or what you know.
You opened the door. It would require that we be interested in who you are and where you are from.

I have heard enough to know that it is closer to Cajun than Harvard and with that an insult on Cajuns because I know two Cajun brothers that are physiologists and they don't sound like you.

What would matter is that you were supporting a position with some substantial evidence. You are all over the place between creationist and science and not really in either.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#596 Nov 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. Assuming you meant "I have not ....."
slappy has volunteered to be a pinata again tonight.
Absolutely meant "I have not...."

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#597 Nov 21, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
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?
The exact same way you test ANYTHING which has happened in the past. You look for the sort of evidence that is left behind.

How do you think Forensic science works? We can only investigate murders that are ABOUT to happen, not ones which already happened because "You can't test how he died, since he's already dead."
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.
I don't know if you are being deliberately ignorant or if that is your default setting.

Oxygen is abundant but not as a stand alone molecule. It's most often attached to other elements (h2o, co, co2, etc)

The AVAILABLE oxygen on Earth was not created by organisms on Earth. It was here in roughly the same concentration in the past as it is now.

However, in the past more of the oxygen was locked up in other molecules.

When photosynthesis started, chemical processes freed oxygen from carbon, used the carbon and released the oxygen.

Thus we have available oxygen currently.

If we killed all the photosynthetic lifeforms, that oxygen would deplete to the point where respiration is impossible and eventually to a point where there is little to no available free oxygen in the atmosphere.

But, you knew this. Or you SHOULD HAVE known this because it's High school Freshman level science.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#598 Nov 21, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth be told H sapien could be classified as many species. Instead we call them races.
Races are not species, just like breeds of dogs are not species.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Huntington Beach, CA

#599 Nov 21, 2013
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be just the thing to do if we could. But as it is science decides what is species and what is advanced eukaryotes and science said they were two species merging. Either you agree with science or you don't. Now if anyone here is has the qualifications to change that speak up and that can be discussed.
As I have already explained, the entire concept of "species" is a means by which two people can speak abstractly about a group of organisms.

Those same two people could use cladistics and exchange similar information.

That doesn't mean that organism A is no longer a "species" and is now a "clade". Organism A doesn't give a sh1t what we call it.

It just means that Scientist One can express an idea to Scientist Two without having to describe the organism in detail EVERY TIME they mention it.

It's called "language".
Trevin

Columbia City, IN

#600 Aug 22, 2014
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.
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#601 Aug 22, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
Actually, there are fossils that show some species of dinosaurs had feathers. The feathers evolved before birds evolved. Flight was a side effect with distinct selective advantage. In any event, it didn't happen that one day a dinosaur had a baby bird. It was change over time driven by chance and natural selection.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#602 Aug 22, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
Yes, feather suddenly sprouting on a dinosaur would be a silly idea which is why biologists to not claim evolution works that way. Why don't you learn something about it before making an ass of yourself?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#603 Aug 23, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
Dinosaurs didn't grow feathers? WRONG. We have the fossils of those: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...
It seems that reality is "silly".

Human embryos in the uterus grow a fur that completely covers the body. It is called lanugo.
It is shed in the last month before birth. Monkeys also develop lanugo, in the exact same stage of gestation. Their hair, however, doesnÂ’t fall out, but hangs on to become the adult coat.

BTW macro-evolution is NOT about one species "turning into" another, it is about species being descendants of their ancestral species. That's a big difference. THAT has been observed, ABUNDANTLY.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#604 Sep 2, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
Actually the history of the term 'Macro-evolution' shows it's a term made up by Creationists who changed their argument from 'evolution didn't happen' to 'some evolution happened' because the overwhelming evidence was becoming too much for their complete and utter denial. The issue is no one has ever provided any evidence that there is some magical limit to what evolution has done. The evidence for species evolving from other species is overwhelming!

Not my opinion, but I first heard it from Dr. Steve Kay, dean of UCSD's Division of Biological Sciences. he was asked:
"Do you feel that the terms micro and macro evolution are simply a dodge, in the sense that creationists and ID'ers are simply looking for a way out when confronted by the evidence of evolution presented in species with much shorter life cycles (and hence generations), such as bacteria?"
and he answered:
"Yes, i think that micro and macro evolution is used as a dodge. Evolutionary biologists use micro evolution - the study for example of how microbes can change in successive generations, to learn about detailed specific mechanisms that may contribute to the larger picture of how organisms evolve under natural conditions."
When I learned Biology, the term Macroevolution was never used. Speciation was the term and it marked the point where one species markedly diverged from another. That point was determined by any number of things. Most common was the success-fulness of mating between the old and new species. For example the new species of mosquito, the London Underground Mosquito, has trouble mating with the above-ground species it descended from due to a more aggressive temperament and a change in physical location reducing mating opportunities. Polar and Grizzly bears have trouble mating because of a different mating cycle, so even where their geographic regions intersect, there are few mixes.

One of the issues is that the determination of when speciation occurred is always in the past. No one points to a new organism and says 'hey, there goes a new species'. What happens is someone notices something unusual and then they, or someone else, studies it for a long period of time. Look up the Italian Wall Lizards on a remote Croatian Island and you can get an idea of the speciation process in action. They haven't identified them as a new species, but the study of the changes form the original lizards to ones more capable of handling vegetable material is fascinating. I don't know what the results will be, but I am pretty sure it's going to take considerable time.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#605 Sep 2, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
Actually yes, since dinosaurs have been found with feathers (thus just one of a number of things demonstrating the ***predicted*** dino-bird connection) they did in fact just start growing feathers.

And that's LESS silly than newborn babies growing feathers instead of hair, because that would be a violation of nested hierarchies, which, because evolution is true, does not happen in reality.

Unless of course we're talking about baby birds which in fact grow feathers instead of hair.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#606 Sep 8, 2014
Trevin wrote:
<quoted text>
Macroevolution might be true if it is one species simply turning into another, but I do know that lizards and dinosaurs don't just "start" growing feathers no matter how much time goes by. That idea is just as silly as a newborn baby growing feathers instead of hair (or mayby just a few feathers, same thing)!
http://hmcurrentevents.com/feathered-dinosaur...

Duh.

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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Dogen 209,953
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 29 min Chimney1 152,253
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 57 min replaytime 20,290
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 hr ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web