micro vs macro evolution

[Vene]

There is a complete and systematical lack of transitional life forms (missing links) between various kinds of life in the fossil records. The fossil records show a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life forms.

List of transitional fossils now was that so hard?

However, if evolution were true, then there would only be a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms. Also, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility or even death.

Yes, there was a lot of death. Why do you think that the 15-20% of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage? A lot of them are because of harmful mutations. And it's hard to find a fossil of an organism that was never born.

So then we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life forms, or maybe even some new species. Historically it has been said that changes in life forms are limited to "types" or "kinds", like in the Bible. That is why, for example, you'll never see mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat into a horse, no matter how much time you allow the evolutionary process.

Every single one of these would falsify evolution.
And observed speciation (also known as macroevolution)

Let me ask you then, how would you explain to me how order and structure came to be?

Subjective terms. I need them defined. How can I tell if one organism is more or less orderly than another?

Did that evolve too? If so, then from what? Also how do you explain a person's conscience?

Because we are social animals and having empathy for other people helps the chance of survival for the whole group.

Or how about love?

Pheromones and the previous answer.

We can throw science around all day, but what method do you use to explain these phenomena?

Well, biochemistry and neuroscience do a pretty good job of explaining emotions.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

Let me ask you then, how would you explain to me how order and structure came to be? Did that evolve too? If so, then from what? Also how do you explain a person's conscience? Or how about love? We can throw science around all day, but what method do you use to explain these phenomena?

Not Darwin's methods, obviously. Why don't you look into the psychological and neurobiological fields of study on the topic of emotion, instead of asking us? I think I just wasted my time typing that, because you won't do it. You'll be content in your ignorance of the fields and their findings, because you seem to value sounding right over real knowledge of any kind. Enjoy those creationist propaganda websites.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't creationists ever come up with anything new or interesting?

Doesn't "science" do that regularly?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Doesn't "science" do that regularly?

Come up with new and interesting things? Well, yes. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Split Rock]

Doesn't "science" do that regularly?

From the guy who wrote:

"We hold science to a higher standard."

and

"Science can go take a hike."

 

[flatworm]

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.
However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.
Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

<Ahem>

Post 13 please? Define a calculable measure of genetic information.

 

[flatworm]

examples?

It's inevitable, really. For every mutation, there exists its inverse. So if AGCT -> AGGT represents a loss of information, then AGGT -> AGCT must represent a gain.

 

[Chalnoth]

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.
However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.
Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

Yup. And it's generated all the time by random mutations. You have somewhere around 150 novel mutations that weren't in either parent but exist in each of your cells. And yes, we have observed new structures being generated by evolution:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

There you go! This species developed valves in its digestive system to more efficiently digest plant matter. New information, and rather complex information at that, generated within just a few decades.

 

[Chalnoth]

There is a complete and systematical lack of transitional life forms (missing links) between various kinds of life in the fossil records. The fossil records show a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life forms.

Are you a paleontologist? Do you study fossils? Because it sounds to me like you're not. It sounds to me like you get your information about paleontology from lying creationist frauds.

The truth is that transitional forms are numerous. We don't see them all, of course, and we don't expect to: fossilization is rare. But every single fossil we dig up is, in a very real sense, transitional.

Here, in 4-minute video form, is an example of transitional fossils, focusing on whales:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

There is a large difference between Macro vs. Micro evolution. , quote]


Yes you are right; it's a large amount of generations, nothing more than that.

1 generation = micro
10000 generation = macro

I must say though, there is only evolution.

Micro and macro are just YEC inventions because they cannot deny evolution occurs.

All YEC are doing is making themselves look as ignorante as they really are.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the guy who wrote:

"We hold science to a higher standard."

and

"Science can go take a hike."

That's right --- let's see your education put those two together into a paradox, instead of a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

All YEC are doing is making themselves look as ignorante as they really are.

I should rep you for irony here, Chordates.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I should rep you for irony here, Chordatest.

Perhaps a little over the top, but that’s the effect Rob Byers has.

Apologies if needed

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

Since you seem to hate science AV, and you keep telling it to take a hike, perhaps you should throw your laptop or computer away, your television, your ipod and even your car, since they are all the product of science.

 

[FishFace]

Still we need new information. Clearly, organisms would undergo slight changes, but you'd still need that new information.
However, You still need DNA 'spontaneously arising' for a bacterium to become a jellyfish.
Sure, you'd need transitional forms, but those would need new DNA for each minute step.

Oh, I see what you did there - ignored everything I said.

You've been asked by, I think, just about everyone here to define information quantitatively. I can't argue with you if I don't even know what you mean by "new information" or "more information."
Does a flavobacterium that can digest Nylon have more or less genetic information than a regular flavobacterium?

DNA doesn't spontaneously arise, not any more - it is manufactured out of its constituent parts, which are in turn manufactured out of other things. New genetic sequences arise spontaneously all the time - mutations handle that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you seem to hate science AV, and you keep telling it to take a hike, perhaps you should throw your laptop or computer away, your television, your ipod and even your car, since they are all the product of science.

Look, Rob, I understand you're new around here, so let me bring you up to par on who I am, so you'll stop making yourself look so bad:

1. I'm a Christian by election, and an Independent Baptist by conviction.

2. I'm an Embedded-Age Creationist.

3. I am KJVO and sola Scriptura.

4. I hold science to a higher Standard than even [atheistic] scientists do.

5. I believe that God gifts us scientists.

Now --- take that attitude that I hate science elsewhere.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Look, Rob, I understand you're new around here, so let me bring you up to par on who I am, so you'll stop making yourself look so bad:

1. I'm a Christian by election, and an Independent Baptist by conviction.

2. I'm an Embedded-Age Creationist.

3. I am KJVO and sola Scriptura.

4. I hold science to a higher Standard than even [atheistic] scientists do.

5. I believe that God gifts us scientists.

Now --- take that attitude that I hate science elsewhere.

So AV, just for my clarification, you believe everything scientist discover is true, but place a caveat on it of &#8220;God created it to look like that on Thursday 1 January 4006 BC&#8221;.

Of course last Thursdayism or was it Tuesdayism, I suppose it makes no difference if nothing in the world is true and just an illusion to fool people into thinking there is not a god.

So these trilobites never existed &#8220;correct&#8221;.

The only person you are fooling is youself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course last Thursdayism or was it Tuesdayism, I suppose it makes no difference if nothing in the world is true and just an illusion to fool people into thinking there is not a god.

QV PLEASE

So these trilobites never existed “correct”.

Not in Genesis 1.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

QV PLEASE
[/size][/font]


Not in Genesis 1.[/size][/font]

One Bronze Age text; with no mention of trilobite.

Millions of trilobite fossils from all over the world.


This is your logic: The trilobites must be wrong; placed there to fool humans into thinking the world is old.



Impressive piece of work to fool humans; I mean there was no need for a deity to go to that trouble, a meaningless Bronze Aged book fools YEC

 

[AV1611VET]

One Bronze Age text; with no mention of trilobite.

How about one non-Bronze Age Text with no mention of trilobite?

​