Originally posted by Captain Falcon
kent hovind is a ****ing moron.his lies. and that's only a tiny bit. 😂
Originally posted by Evil Dead
this idiot seems to be unaware of the fact that macro-evolution is simply a sucession of micro-evolved traits.To state micro-evolution is true you are stating macro-evolution is true.........unless for some reason you are stating that micro-evolution is true but it only happened one time in the history of our planet. Once you admit it happened more than once, that two seperate traits can evolve......you are admitting the very definition of macro-evolution.
This idiot seems to believe macro and micro evolution are the same, how the combination of pre exsiting traits in the gene pool (Micro evolution) is the same as a theory which believes new traits are added to the gene pool of an organism via mutations( macro evolution); Is up to evolutionist to prove.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
but species are just a classification invented by the human mind, they do not exist in nature.
Are you Serious, Species are a fact since different species cannot reproduce with each other, it's called genetic homeostasis look it up.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
This idiot seems to believe macro and micro evolution are the same, how the combination of pre exsiting traits in the gene pool (Micro evolution) is the same as a theory which believes new traits are added to the gene pool of an organism via mutations( macro evolution); Is up to evolutionist to prove.
This idiot seems to believe macro and micro evolution exist. 😛
Evolution is evolution.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Micro evolution is not the same as macro evolution,
and I'm ignoring facts.
Micro and macro is something that someone came up with, but it is not a part of the theory of evolution. It maybe some other theory, but I've never seen it in any scientific publications. The only place I have seen it is in Christian propaganda and I automatically discount anything from those sites.
Prove that Micro and macro evolution is an accepted scientific theory.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison🙁
Micro and macro is something that someone came up with, but it is not a part of the theory of evolution. It maybe some other theory, but I've never seen it in any scientific publications. The only place I have seen it is in Christian propaganda and I automatically discount anything from those sites.Prove that Micro and macro evolution is an accepted scientific theory.
yes it is.
micro-evolution is evolution on a small scale, the changing of characteristics of a species over time.
macro-evolution is several instances of micro-evolution over a period of time..........resulting in many different characteristics being changed....so many that it can no longer be classified as being the same species as it's progenerator.
1+1=2
micro-evolution + micro-evolution=macroevolution.
that is, unless you are trying to argue that micro-evolution has only taken place one time and one time only within the history of our planet. If you admit micro-evolution has occurred more than once......you are admitting that more than one characteristic of a species has been changed.......if more than one characteristic has been changed, ten characteristics may have been changed over 5 million years.......resulting in a specimen that differs greatly from it's original progenative species due to the 10 instances of micro-evolution..........that is called macro-evolution........dolt.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
yes it is.micro-evolution is evolution on a small scale, the changing of characteristics of a species over time.
macro-evolution is several instances of micro-evolution over a period of time..........resulting in many different characteristics being changed....so many that it can no longer be classified as being the same species as it's progenerator.
1+1=2
micro-evolution + micro-evolution=macroevolution.that is, unless you are trying to argue that micro-evolution has only taken place one time and one time only within the history of our planet. If you admit micro-evolution has occurred more than once......you are admitting that more than one characteristic of a species has been changed.......if more than one characteristic has been changed, ten characteristics may have been changed over 5 million years.......resulting in a specimen that differs greatly from it's original progenative species due to the 10 instances of micro-evolution..........that is called macro-evolution........dolt.
micro evolution is basically genetic variation, Different variations of pre existing traits.
genetic variation.......yes.........this is the underlying idea of evolution........natural selection. Different genetic variations occur......resulting in a stronger or weaker section of the populous of that species. The strong survive.....live on to reproduce that genetic variation in their offspring. Another genetic variation occurs 200,000 years down the road........same process occurs, natural selection. So on and so on.........2 million years later through the different variations, the entire species has changed so much from it's original progenative species that it is now classified as another species altogether.
wow.......way to use the theory of evolution to dis-prove the theory of evolution........you deserve a prize.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
genetic variation.......yes.........this is the underlying idea of evolution........natural selection. Different genetic variations occur......resulting in a stronger or weaker section of the populous of that species. The strong survive.....live on to reproduce that genetic variation in their offspring. Another genetic variation occurs 200,000 years down the road........same process occurs, natural selection. So on and so on.........2 million years later through the different variations, the entire species has changed so much from it's original progenative species that it is now classified as another species altogether.wow.......way to use the theory of evolution to dis-prove the theory of evolution........you deserve a prize.
Evil dead, Genetic variation is combination of pre exsisting traits the species may change but they don't become an entirely new species.
it's like talking to a child........
the species may not change on the first variation........or the second.......when the third comes around, okay....that section of the populous is starting to look a bit different from the rest of the species.....but it's still the same species...........when the 23rd variation occurs and it is so much different from the progenative species, it is a new species.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
it's like talking to a child........the species may not change on the first variation........or the second.......when the third comes around, okay....that section of the populous is starting to look a bit different from the rest of the species.....but it's still the same species...........when the 23rd variation occurs and it is so much different from the progenative species, it is a new species.
But it is a judgment that we humans make; at what point does it become a new species? Nature doesn't know what a species is.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
it's like talking to a child........the species may not change on the first variation........or the second.......when the third comes around, okay....that section of the populous is starting to look a bit different from the rest of the species.....but it's still the same species...........when the 23rd variation occurs and it is so much different from the progenative species, it is a new species.
Now how would these species gain new traits that are different from there respective gene pools?
mutation?
don't tell me you are going to argue that mutations don't occur..........I'll bombard this post with pictures of every kind of deformity known to man.......both animal and human. If that's what you are seriously suggesting...........you seriously need to pay more attention in biology class.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
mutation?don't tell me you are going to argue that mutations don't occur..........I'll bombard this post with pictures of every kind of deformity known to man.......both animal and human. If that's what you are seriously suggesting...........you seriously need to pay more attention in biology class.
Go ahead bombard, just show me any proof showing that mutations add new traits that aren't previously included within the gene pool.
I'm done with you...........you seem to not even know what the definition of mutation is...........further more you ask me to show you proof of what or was not in our gene pool hundreds of millions of years ago when we branched off of the evolutionary tree. That's the stupidest subject to even bring up in regards to mutation.......
the entire gene pool is not necissary my small minded friend. All of our genes are inherited directly from our mother or father..........to show they themselves do not pocess the trait is all that need be shown as that is the entire gene pool for any one individual.
go back to bible study kid......where the world is fuzzy and god made it that way. Before I converse with you again I'd like to see some direct evidence that you know anything about any subject in any field you post about............so far I've gotten the exact opposite........like you using evolution by natural selection of genetic variation to disprove evolution by natural selection of genetic variation.......not even knowing what a mutation occurs or furthermore even knowing that any one individuals gene pool is comprised soly of the mother's and father's genes..........
I'm done with you. stay in school. drugs are bad..........and um......don't get pregnant.