![]() |
|
Home Base A starting point, and place for threads don't seem to belong anywhere else |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#16 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
I would be able to find one because I don't know jack shit about this stuff. I just wonder how they determine what causes mutations.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Every flu you have can produce 1000 strains of itself just within you. Some can do it every time it reproduces in each cell. Antigen shift is what you are talking about and it happens all the time and we actually, and other species, adapt to it all the time. There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution. Evolution is evolution. A mutation that is adopted by a species is natural selection. There are many adaptations that are in response to threats, environmental, predatory, etc.... making that specific to DNA is a very odd way of looking at it, but I guess you could. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | ||||
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Let me clarify, no evolutionary biologist. It's what we were discussing.
Was it a Christian college? I had an English teacher teach the Divine Comedy in prose... there are fools in every profession. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
No, University of Minnesota.
Can you give a source for that because I have never heard that before? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Source of what?
Are you asking me to show a negative? |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Ok, I see where you get that from since a lot of microevolutions make up a macroevolution so they are one in the same but they are usually taught that there is a difference for simplicity reasons.
Edit- Something like this. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
That was funny.
Once something evolves it evolves, it is not like the process is going to revert or the line is not going to be changed by it forever. It is permanently changed, evolved, by it. Microevolution is just a way for creationists to deal with the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Dogs instead of wolves? "Oh, they changed after the flood... MICROevolution, but it's not REAL evolution". Joke. Evolutionary theory is so far removed from Darwin's theories the dead-giveaway for someone just trying to make a point instead of actually discussing current theory is bringing-up that name. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Microevolution is usually the term for short term evolution, which is proven, and macroevolution is the long term use, which is not.
Microevolution- the change of one trait Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother. I agree that micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing but the definitions are there to describe the time involved so it is easier to grasp as a concept since you can not make a new species when a change of one trait occurs. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Get that stick out of your ass rkzenrage.
Science is built on fact, we do not have proof that macroevolution exists even though it is logical that it should. We can not say as fact that they are the same even though we know they are because we haven't proven it yet. If you don't have proof, it can not be a fact, very simple concept. We then split it up to show that parts of evolution are fact while others logically should be fact even though it hasn't been proven yet. It is just like long and short distance running, is there a difference? No, they are both running. We distinguish the two for simplicity reasons. We need it for this reason: "I just ran 100 meters" "Can you run 1 million meters?" "Ughh....if given enough time I'm sure I could" "How do you know if you've never done it"" "Because if I can run 100 meters so I can logically run 1 million meters since they are the same thing but just a longer distance" "Do you know for a fact?" "No, because I've never done it" Science can not allow us to say it is fact that I can run 1 million meters until I have actually done it. We have not seen macroevolution so we can not say it is a fact. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
No stick, just no point.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Then Macro might have happened in a short time span, say one scientists career span, it's just that nobody has observed/documented it.... yet.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
The creationist definition for macroevoution is "whatever hasn't been directly observed yet". So, it is currently one step past speciation, at what they call "kinds". So a wolf can become a dog, but that doesn't mean it's related to cats, because they're different "kinds". When a change of that magnitude is experimentally demonstrated, they'll move on to saying that OK, maybe mammals, but there's no relationship to reptiles. There will always be a god of the gaps.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|