Spoon

[T1]

No it doesn't. Just your understanding of the second law.

You believe in macroevolution?

[Guisslapp]

You believe in macroevolution?

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of overwhelming evidence. And science does not draw a real distinction between "macro" and "micro."

[T1]

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of overwhelming evidence. And science does not draw a real distinction between "macro" and "micro."

I don't have a scientific mind and I really didn't pay attention in science class, so I am certainly not one to give an informed opinion, but I am a thinker and I try to be observational and I just don't see how something could develop from nothing then become everything over time. That seems like it takes a leap of faith in what you are told because it doesn't seem to be observable. So I go to Youtube videos to determine what each side presents and see which side strikes me as truth. This was a really simple one I just found... is it easily refutable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EAfgrRjbs

[T1]

I think I already found the answer... mutations?

[Dowty]

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of overwhelming evidence. And science does not draw a real distinction between "macro" and "micro."

I would say this sums up the difference pretty well. http://www.icr.org/article/what-diff...n-microevolut/

Thanks for calling me a quack, by the way. You and my woman may have more in common than I thought

[T1]

I would say this sums up the difference pretty well. http://www.icr.org/article/what-diff...n-microevolut/

Thanks for calling me a quack, by the way. You and my woman may have more in common than I thought

That answered my question: "No truly useful mutations have ever been observed."

[Guisslapp]

I don't have a scientific mind and I really didn't pay attention in science class, so I am certainly not one to give an informed opinion, but I am a thinker and I try to be observational and I just don't see how something could develop from nothing then become everything over time. That seems like it takes a leap of faith in what you are told because it doesn't seem to be observable. So I go to Youtube videos to determine what each side presents and see which side strikes me as truth. This was a really simple one I just found... is it easily refutable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3EAfgrRjbs

Sorry, but that link is just not telling the truth, even if he says everything authoritatively. If genetic information was never added by mutation, trisomies would not exist, but I can assure you that they do.

Molecule to man is still under study, and it is true that there is no consensus on how it happened. But to imply if not outright say it is impossible is incorrect - there are several theories being researched to validate one or more of the theories, but going from a valid theory to proving that is how it happened will take even more work.

Adaptation and selection are often poorly misunderstood as a mechanism for evolution. One good example is the genetic mutation that weakened the muscle that closes the jaw. Objectively, it would not have been seen as a positive mutation at the time, but it turns out a weaker jaw muscle puts less stress on the side of the skull, which causes the skull not to harden so much on the sides, which led to larger brains. Point being, adaptation is not a single even but involves many possible changes over time, some which increase survivability and or reproduction and others that do not. Over time the ones that do disproportionately are selected for.

[T1]

Sorry, but that link is just not telling the truth, even if he says everything authoritatively. If genetic information was never added by mutation, trisomies would not exist, but I can assure you that they do.

Molecule to man is still under study, and it is true that there is no consensus on how it happened. But to imply if not outright say it is impossible is incorrect - there are several theories being researched to validate one or more of the theories, but going from a valid theory to proving that is how it happened will take even more work.

Adaptation and selection are often poorly misunderstood as a mechanism for evolution. One good example is the genetic mutation that weakened the muscle that closes the jaw. Objectively, it would not have been seen as a positive mutation at the time, but it turns out a weaker jaw muscle puts less stress on the side of the skull, which causes the skull not to harden so much on the sides, which led to larger brains. Point being, adaptation is not a single even but involves many possible changes over time, some which increase survivability and or reproduction and others that do not. Over time the ones that do disproportionately are selected for.

I don't think we disagree. Microevolution is observable. Science still doesn't understand the macroevolution process fully.

[Guisslapp]

I don't think we disagree. Microevolution is observable. Science still doesn't understand the macroevolution process fully.

There is no difference. Multiple micros make a macro. Where you draw the line between a micro and a macro is arbitrary.

[T1]

There is no difference. Multiple micros make a macro. Where you draw the line between a micro and a macro is arbitrary.

In my uninformed mind, microevolution is evolution within the species, and macroevolution is evolving from one species to a different species (molecule to man).

[Dowty]

Although y'all may have moved on to another theological debate, I found this link very interesting. It's a similar banter to the one earlier about why God allows certain things to happen when He has the ability to intervene. It's a tad long because it covers a few letters written back and forth, but it's a great read with good questions and answers.

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...10/10-27a.html

[Dowty]

In my uninformed mind, microevolution is evolution within the species, and macroevolution is evolving from one species to a different species (molecule to man).

I would say that line is pretty definitive, and agreed upon by most in the field from what I can gather.

[Guisslapp]

In my uninformed mind, microevolution is evolution within the species, and macroevolution is evolving from one species to a different species (molecule to man).

A molecule is not a species in the biological sense. Molecule to life =
Biogenesis. Evolution begins with a life. Species are defined by differences humans subjectively believe are different enough to warrant a division. Prehistoric hominids are considered a different species but we can trace our genetic lineage.

[T1]

A molecule is not a species in the biological sense. Molecule to life =
Biogenesis. Evolution begins with a life. Species are defined by differences humans subjectively believe are different enough to warrant a division. Prehistoric hominids are considered a different species but we can trace our genetic lineage.

This is where you lose me. I should have paid more attention in science class.

[Guisslapp]

I would say that line is pretty definitive, and agreed upon by most in the field from what I can gather.

It is just a continuum with lines drawn based on length of the time scale. Speciation could be either. But if you define macro as a time scale longer than a persons life then it is a truism that no person can observe a macro evolution.