Don't dictate beliefs

[Hedonist]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Please present your fossil proof of evolution. Funny that you have this proof and science does not. There is no known fossil of one kind of animal giving birth to another kind of animal.
Wikipedia :
"The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks."

And from that same Wiki article --

"analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history." ... "recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation."

[KJV]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species [Ring species]

You claim I'm wrong and you show gulls breeding with gulls as your proof?

"However, a recent genetic study entitled The herring gull complex is not a ring species has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here (Liebers et al., 2004):[5] this example only speaks to the complex of species from the classical Herring Gull through Lesser Black-backed Gull.[improper synthesis?] There are several other taxonomically unclear examples that belong in the same superspecies complex, such as Yellow-legged Gull (L. michahellis), Glaucous Gull (L. hyperboreus), and Caspian Gull"

Why that's like a poodle breeding with retriever and claiming evolution.

Play with your word species. Long before science invented the word and it's meaning, there was the definition of kinds of animals in which one kind has never changed to another kind. That would be macro evolution.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist.

Not only. It is also the modification of genes that already exist. And *that* is evolution.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist.

It can also happen by duplication of genes that already exist. If those duplicates then change in different ways, we have new genes. Again, that *is* evolution.

[KJV]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>And from that same Wiki article --

"analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history." ... "recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation."

Yes I'm quite aware that Wikipedia does claim that. I was producing evidence from a pro evolution article that they must still admit an incomplete fossil record. Adam claimed evolution was proven in the fossil record.

"Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks.""

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

Why that's like a poodle breeding with retriever and claiming evolution.

If they can breed, they are the same species. if they have diverged enough that they cannot breed, then they are different species.

Play with your word species. Long before science invented the word and it's meaning, there was the definition of kinds of animals in which one kind has never changed to another kind. That would be macro evolution.

The problem with this definition is that species *do* change over geologic time. So you either have to include very different creatures under the same 'kind', or you have to realize that another definition of species is required to describe reality.

In particular, species can *split* into sub-populations that do not interbreed and can, after long time spans, look quite different. Under your definition, the two populations would be the same 'kind', but they would be considered by everyone else to be different species.

Each generation is only a 'micro-evolution' away from the previous generation. It is only a 'micro-evolution' away from ancestors a mere 10 generations back. But the difference increases over time and eventually the differences are major. This tends to take hundreds to tens of thousands of generations.

Again, a coin analogy. We start adding pennies to a pile of coins. it starts being a 'small amount' of money. no single penny changes it from a 'small amount' to a 'large amount'. Yet, after enough pennies have been added, there is a 'large amount' of money. Each addition of a penny, or even of ten pennies, is a 'micro-change'. But, those changes add up to be a 'macro-change'.

So, you have claimed that 'kinds' cannot cross some sort of barrier. Biologists have not found any such barrier. What, exactly, is the mechanism for that barrier? What evidence do you have for such a barrier? How do you know it cannot be crossed?

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>Not only. It is also the modification of genes that already exist. And *that* is evolution.

Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

[Ooogah Boogah]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

There is no difference between "miro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" they are the same thing.

Man and a variation of the grey wolf became acquainted about 10,000 years ago.

Now 10,000 years later, we have dog breeds descended from these wolves as diverse as teacup chihuahua's to Great Danes.

In 100,000 years, imaging having 10 times that diversity.
In 1,000,000 years, 100 times that diversity.
In 100,000,000 years 10,000 times that diversity.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

And another type of 'micro-evolution' is where genes duplicate. This *does* produce 'new DNA'. And yet another type of 'micro-evolution' is when the genes change at a single spot. This can change the nature of the protein encoded by the DNA.

[polymath257]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

It seems that you, like many creationists, have the idea that evolution means that a cat will give birth to a dog. That is not what it means, nor was it ever what it means.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes turning on and off genes that are all ready there is micro evolution and yes that does take place. No new DNA created. No changing from one kind of animal to another.

So you are an identical clone of your parents and they're both identical? Because if "no new DNA" ever formed through mutations that's what you would be.

[Givemeliberty]

Christianity sounds like a mafia religion to me. Like how the mafia boss says, you don't want someone to cut your hand off right? Well best pay up because I would hate for my guy to have to rough you up, it's your choice though.

Lol! And this system is what they call enlightenment?!

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep.
Basically if you grovel before their deity enough then he won't punish you with eternal torment, and they call this "salvation."
It's a psychotic mythology.

[KJV]

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

<quoted text>There is no difference between "miro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" they are the same thing.

Man and a variation of the grey wolf became acquainted about 10,000 years ago.

Now 10,000 years later, we have dog breeds descended from these wolves as diverse as teacup chihuahua's to Great Danes.

In 100,000 years, imaging having 10 times that diversity.
In 1,000,000 years, 100 times that diversity.
In 100,000,000 years 10,000 times that diversity.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.

http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...

"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"

So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

[Ooogah Boogah]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...
"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"
So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

You don't even read your own material, do you? Dumbazz!!!

Ooogah Boogah wrote:

There is no difference between "miro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" they are the same thing....

KJV wrote:

.....Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>And another type of 'micro-evolution' is where genes duplicate. This *does* produce 'new DNA'. And yet another type of 'micro-evolution' is when the genes change at a single spot. This can change the nature of the protein encoded by the DNA.

I have not been able to find any documentation on new DNA found anywhere accept for that synthetic DNA made in a test tube. Do you know of any new DNA found in nature?

[Thinking]

Bollocks.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Micro evolution is the mere turning on or off genes that already exist. Note the Russian Silver Fox on going 50+ year old study.
http://m.genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/259.fu...
"The Farm-Fox Experiment, as it has become known, is, in essence, a fast-forwarded reconstruction of man’s first exercise in domestication"
So you believe you're better educated on the subject of evolution then
Berkeley's evolution team?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of thegene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaurlineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

[KJV]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>It seems that you, like many creationists, have the idea that evolution means that a cat will give birth to a dog. That is not what it means, nor was it ever what it means.

Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).

[Thinking]

You're dumb.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Macro evolution is the evolution of one kind to a whole new kind. I'm aware it takes along time, but at some point there has to be a line in the sand where the old kind ends and the new kind starts.
Again the only data on evolution that's been documented that I have seen has been the simple turning on or off genes. In lab creation of new genes ( not in nature ) and a test tube new DNA (again not in nature).

[KJV]

Thinking wrote:

<quoted text>Bollocks.

No, Berkeley's evolution team!
I don't make this stuff up. Your science has labeled the difference. So eat a few more of your goat bollocks.

[Thinking]

I don't eat bollocks because I don't believe in your god.

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Berkeley's evolution team!
I don't make this stuff up. Your science has labeled the difference. So eat a few more of your goat bollocks.