Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you "believe" in Creationism, the missing link could walk up to you and introduce its self, and you would still never believe in evolution. Believing in something closes the door to other things. Because if you suddenly believed Creationism was incorrect, then the house of cards that is Christianity falls to the ground.
MARCMAN> Well, sift through the pages in this VERY long thread. The scientific points that prove evolution have been offered here COUNTLESS times. IN this thread. So if there is any of the evidence posted in this thread you don't understand or would like to have clearified feel free to ask or post some counter-argument.
Not to scare you off, but we have driven ALL Creationists from here. Not by being rude, but because they ran out of arguments.
IF you want to drag some deity into this, you, of course, first have to prove that said deity exists 😄
Perla> 😆
Originally posted by The Omega
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Omega, micro evolution is a fact not macro evolution there is a difference, micro evolution is basically genetic variation while macro evolution is the belief one species can mutate into another, I call it a belief because it has never been proven nor observed and as for common ancestry, well if we all descendant from one ancestor we should share the same gene pool but we don't, it's called genetic homeostasis look it up. and evolution is a theory not both, nothing can be both a theory and a fact.
Theory-# A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html
Fact-An indisputable truth.
www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Omega, micro evolution is a fact not macro evolution there is a difference, micro evolution is basically genetic variation while macro evolution is the belief one species can mutate into another, I call it a belief because it has never been proven nor observed and as for common ancestry, well if we all descendant from one ancestor we should share the same gene pool but we don't, it's called genetic homeostasis look it up. and evolution is a theory not both, nothing can be both a theory and a fact.
Actually do you know the the genetic differences between a human and a gorilla are minute? 6.5 I believe it was. That if you look at the skeletal structure there are quite noticeable similarities that indicate the human form, and the gorilla form where both quite similar in the past? Or that they have similarities to other members of the ape family, the monkey family?
A whale skeleton shows traces of whales being descended from something that once walked on land. You know what the nearest relative of the Elephant is? The Dugong/manatee/sea cow. Genetically and anatomically. But one is an oceanic mammal, the other a land mammal.
In Australia 70 years ago or so the CSIRO did a big study of the Cane Toad (an introduced pest) - they completely recorded it's features, and that of toads from their original land - no difference. Now just last year the study was updated - you know what they found? The Australian Cane Toad is evolving. They are changing to suit the environment. The legs are uniformly longer, they mature faster, can travel longer, their skin is better able to cope with Australian temperatures - they are still Cane Toads, but they are distinctly different to the toads from the "native lands". Just like Darwin noted with Finches. How they will still be finches, but they will change after enough time to suit their environment. There is plenty of evidence to support major evolutionary changes, and minor ones - or macro and micro.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no difference.
Uh... excuse me, but having taken a college class devoted entirely to evolution there is in fact a major difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both are included in the theory of evolution but they are not the same thing any more than a molecule is the same thing as a mountain.
A previous post explained the difference pretty well. Microevolution is evolution within a species. The finches from the galapagos getting bigger beaks for example. Macroevolution is basically speciation. One species becoming two because of geographic or sexual isolation for example. Do you see the difference between those two concepts?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually do you know the the genetic differences between a human and a gorilla are minute? 6.5 I believe it was. That if you look at the skeletal structure there are quite noticeable similarities that indicate the human form, and the gorilla form where both quite similar in the past? Or that they have similarities to other members of the ape family, the monkey family?A whale skeleton shows traces of whales being descended from something that once walked on land. You know what the nearest relative of the Elephant is? The Dugong/manatee/sea cow. Genetically and anatomically. But one is an oceanic mammal, the other a land mammal.
In Australia 70 years ago or so the CSIRO did a big study of the Cane Toad (an introduced pest) - they completely recorded it's features, and that of toads from their original land - no difference. Now just last year the study was updated - you know what they found? The Australian Cane Toad is evolving. They are changing to suit the environment. The legs are uniformly longer, they mature faster, can travel longer, their skin is better able to cope with Australian temperatures - they are still Cane Toads, but they are distinctly different to the toads from the "native lands". Just like Darwin noted with Finches. How they will still be finches, but they will change after enough time to suit their environment. There is plenty of evidence to support major evolutionary changes, and minor ones - or macro and micro.
See, here is a perfect example, the manatees/elephants and the whales would be macroevolution, actual speciation. But the toads are a perfect example of microevolution. (unless of course offspring of both types of toads mentioned would be unviable then it would also be macroevolution)
-edit-
PS The Beak of the Finch is an excellent read if you want to explore microevolution in greater detail.
The Omega > Oh you could not drive me away unless things got really mean and nasty in which case why stick around. I have been at this for too long to not have answers for the myth that is evolution. I will read the thread here and there but I just can't read it all.
Debates are fun if people listen with an open mind.
Man we coul talk about:
The missing link
Grand canyon
age the the earth
dinasuars
carbon dating
etc
etc
etc
Like you say though I'd have to read the thread to be up to speed
Should would be easier if you gys would bring the top 2 or 3 points that you say drove away people who beleive in creation. Again we are not talking about the existence of God as some people who beleive in evolution also beleive in God
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Omega, micro evolution is a fact not macro evolution there is a difference, micro evolution is basically genetic variation while macro evolution is the belief one species can mutate into another, I call it a belief because it has never been proven nor observed and as for common ancestry, well if we all descendant from one ancestor we should share the same gene pool but we don't, it's called genetic homeostasis look it up. and evolution is a theory not both, nothing can be both a theory and a fact.Theory-# A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.htmlFact-An indisputable truth.
www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm
actually macro evolution IS a fact because it is described as the evolution of 1 species into another and has been observed many times...i've already posted examples
given that 2 species are formed from one when they have been proven to have common ancestry and when they are no longer able to naturally reproduce with one another....
northern hemisphere seagulls are example...while they are genetically compatible...they dont breed because of differences in colour of eye ring...and are now classed as different species...as are a species of north american frog which migrates south and evolved...there is a geneticlly compatible chain throughout north america but the species at the top of the chain cannot reproduce with the species at the bottom
they are now classed as different species
2 observed and recorded examples of macro evolution and the production of a new species
MARCMAN> Oh, you will find that non-religious people around here or tolerant religious people are generally the most amiable and best debaters.
The thread is long... May I recommend you read the debate between "The Force" and myself and others in the beginning?
So are you? Open-minded and ready to listen? Calling evolution, proved and supported by thousands of scientists around the world a "myth" does not sound open-minded to me. It sounds brainwashed.
But let's see your points and arguments. I take it you are a Creationist maybe?
I believe in evolution. I think that when we evolve again which will be some time from now, we will become stronger both physically & mentally. There are a lot of people who work out now adays & if someone is at their peak, their baby will be born & will also develop into a strong human being (of course this is what I believe, some of you may disagree but if I am wrong tell me why). So I say the more humans that work out & have kids, the stronger we'll become. Although that dude that said humans are getting weaker than stronger was right. I barely feel like working out, at least lately. I am strong compared to some other kids but I'm on a quest to be stronger & if all human beings would take the time to work out then we'd all be better as a whole. (I know, very cheesy indeed 😄)