Microevolution: YEA! Macroevolution: BOO!

[Saint Frankenstein]

No research or critical analysis?
Why is it that prayer and contemplation always lead to the religious beliefs of whatever society the contemplater is embedded in?

Yes, I do that, too. I wouldn't flip-flop so much if I didn't research or critically analyze things.

Since when do people only convert to the dominant religions of their society?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is it that prayer and contemplation always lead to the religious beliefs of whatever society the contemplater is embedded in?

It's a bit like deciding what's the best language.
Is it any coincidence that I think English is clearly superior to all others?

 

[Skwim]

LET'S SEE, OVER THAT LAST 30+ HOURS THERE HAVE BEEN 60 POSTS IN THIS THREAD AND NOT A SINGLE REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

"Why can't microevolution continue to the point where the resulting organism fails to resemble its parental species so much so that it might be considered a subspecies? AND THEN CONTINUE TO EVOLVE to the point where the organism can no longer be considered to be the same species? Just what is stopping the process of microevolution from continuing to this point?"​

In days (years) past we had RF members who would at least give it a shot, and likely have come up with something interesting. Back then Christians stood their ground and would even admit when they were stumped. Boy! those were the days.

I miss their backbone.

.​

 

[Valjean]

OK, my response:
No reason.

 

[sun rise]

I believe it could very well have occurred inside of the animal kingdoms but do not believe it happened with us, humans !! Hope this helps.

Peace

So after all, my comment was correct in the first place because you deny the overwhelming evidence showing man's evolution from a common ancestor from the other animals.

 

[sun rise]

It's a bit like deciding what's the best language.
Is it any coincidence that I think English is clearly superior to all others?

You clearly have never talked with someone trying to learn written english as a second language.

The one true language, spelling wise, is the shavian alphabet Shavian alphabet - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

You clearly have never talked with someone trying to learn written english as a second language.

Of course I have!
Anyone who disagrees with me that English is the superior language is just wrong.
And most English speakers know this.

The one true language, spelling wise, is the shavian alphabet Shavian alphabet - Wikipedia

Cumbersome useless squiggles they are!

 

[Mohsen]

So after all, my comment was correct in the first place because you deny the overwhelming evidence showing man's evolution from a common ancestor from the other animals.

I was underwhelmed, sorry.

Peace

 

[FearGod]

Macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution.

To be more accurate and to be more scientific, would you please explain
how many microevolution is needed for macroevolution to happen or at which
point that the series of microevolution make the macroevoluition and why we can't see
anymore macroevolution happening now.

 

[DavidFirth]

Notice it was the scientists that showed it to be a hoax.

Doesn't change the fact that scientists perpetrated the hoax in the first place. Doesn't excuse it, either

 

[DavidFirth]

As if Christianity isn't without its bad apples.

.................................................Kent Hovind....................................................................................Jim and Tammy Faye

....................................................Jimmy Swaggart ......................................................................................Fred Phelps Sr.​

Another poor bait & switch? Yep. Your hatred of God shows through yet again.

 

[DavidFirth]

This is, of course, the single STUPIDEST question that religious people perpetually ask non-believers. I am sorry for my bluntness, but it ought to take extremely little intelligence to realize that it is impossible to "hate" that which you think does not exist.

I will not try to answer for @Skwim, but will say for myself that I don't "hate God," I hate what the belief in God makes a whole lot of humans do. Like cutting off people heads, or organizing residential schools to "take the Indian out of the child," or burn old ladies whose minds have begun to fray because they might cause your cows to give sour milk. That's easy to hate.

You hate God's word and so you perpetrate it as a neutral scientist seeking the real truth. Seen and heard your and Skwim's kind before. It's a scheme you can get others to buy but some of us can fathom truth.

 

[DavidFirth]

Ad Hom.
Very convincing.
Only one man, the hoaxer himself, was aware it was a hoax -- and he wasn't a scientist.
You can criticize the shoddy methodology and the credulity of the examiners, but there was no conspiracy, and, once exposed, the artifact was no longer cited in scientific circles.
I don't see the religious correcting the known mistranslations, misattributions, or alterations in their holy writings, much less criticizing them.
If one's eternal life were at stake, I'd expect a little more meticulous analysis of the various claims. If you're facing a lake of fire, it's important to get it right.
-- or are the religious only looking for psychic comfort...
But what is the word of God -- the Guru Granth? The Tao? The Rik?
I'll bet if you'd been raised in Riyadh you'd be pushing the Quran.

All rubbish. Got any truth? No, I don't think you do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesn't change the fact that scientists perpetrated the hoax in the first place. Doesn't excuse it, either

Let's not let the existence of hoaxes by one side or the other discredit an approach.
Certainly, scientists (who are human) will have some charlatans in their midst. Science
is all about debunking previous lines of thought, be they merely error or outright fraud.
Religion also has its hucksters, but that doesn't disprove religion in general.

Dang!
I just noticed that I'm echoing another post.
That's what I get for not reading them all beforehand.
But I won't delete it.....I need the post count advancement.

 

[metis]

Doesn't change the fact that scientists perpetrated the hoax in the first place.

Like we've never seen hoaxes in religious circles?

 

[Polymath257]

Ad Hom.
Very convincing.
Only one man, the hoaxer himself, was aware it was a hoax -- and he wasn't a scientist.
You can criticize the shoddy methodology and the credulity of the examiners, but there was no conspiracy, and, once exposed, the artifact was no longer cited in scientific circles.
I don't see the religious correcting the known mistranslations, misattributions, or alterations in their holy writings, much less criticizing them.

Or even admitting the multitude of out-of-context quotations, mis-statements of scientific claims, flat-out lies about the lack of transitional species, flat-out lies concerning radioactive dating, the examples of 'irreducible complexity', etc.

An *honest* position would at the very least admit these mistakes and not commit them again, calling out those on their side who make these false claims.

Yet that never happens in the creationist crowd. The hoaxes in creationism, even when exposed, are presented proudly on the next round as valid positions.

 

[Polymath257]

Doesn't change the fact that scientists perpetrated the hoax in the first place. Doesn't excuse it, either

A *single* scientists who was actually an amateur, and Darrow is widely condemned for his role in this hoax.

When do creationists condemn the hoaxes of Behe?

 

[Polymath257]

To be more accurate and to be more scientific, would you please explain
how many microevolution is needed for macroevolution to happen or at which
point that the series of microevolution make the macroevoluition and why we can't see
anymore macroevolution happening now.

Well, there is no official boundary line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, partly because the distinction isn't often used by the actual scientists. Also, what counts as macro-evolution seems to be dependent on the person asking the question: is a change from one species of bacterium to another macro-evolution? How about from one species of insect to another? How about from one species of mammal to another? Is the *amount* of genetic change the relevant parameter, or the *perceived* differences to a lay person?

That said, typically, speciation happens over a few tens of thousands of generations, with higher order changes happening in hundreds of thousands of generations. The amount of change strongly depends on the selection pressure, so it will vary depending on the species, the environment, and how that environment changes, including how rapidly.

Since most 'micro-evolution' happens over a few generations, and at most a few hundred, and since generations are typically more than a year in length, we don't expect to see *large* scale change during the times we have been actively looking (a couple hundred years at most). None-the-less, we do see speciation events.

 

[FearGod]

Well, there is no official boundary line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, partly because the distinction isn't often used by the actual scientists. Also, what counts as macro-evolution seems to be dependent on the person asking the question: is a change from one species of bacterium to another macro-evolution? How about from one species of insect to another? How about from one species of mammal to another? Is the *amount* of genetic change the relevant parameter, or the *perceived* differences to a lay person?

That said, typically, speciation happens over a few tens of thousands of generations, with higher order changes happening in hundreds of thousands of generations. The amount of change strongly depends on the selection pressure, so it will vary depending on the species, the environment, and how that environment changes, including how rapidly.

Since most 'micro-evolution' happens over a few generations, and at most a few hundred, and since generations are typically more than a year in length, we don't expect to see *large* scale change during the times we have been actively looking (a couple hundred years at most). None-the-less, we do see speciation events.

Lets take the evolution of humans from apes, what were the series of microevolutions
that led to macroevolution? what were the environmental pressures and how that
led for humans to appear?

 

[DavidFirth]

A *single* scientists who was actually an amateur, and Darrow is widely condemned for his role in this hoax.

When do creationists condemn the hoaxes of Behe?

So you conclude from this that other scientists are incapable of a lie? I have to wonder how many other similar lies there are that have not been exposed.