Micro/Macro what's it all about?

HitchSlap said:

Just checking in... have the creos figured out that macro is just micro + time, yet? Or are they still on about croccoducks?

Click to expand...

maybe this peer review would help you with that:

macro evolution is more than just repeated rounds of micro evolution:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

gradyll said:

maybe this peer review would help you with that:

macro evolution is more than just repeated rounds of micro evolution:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Click to expand...

Great link! Thanks for posting.

Did you read it? Do you finally accept macroevolution, then.

HitchSlap said:

Great link! Thanks for posting.

Did you read it? Do you finally accept macroevolution, then.

Click to expand...

sir I post it for your benefit, to prove your concept wrong "that macro evolution is just repeated rounds of micro evolution."

and it's not.

so post refuted.

now we can move on.

thanks for this debate.

gradyll said:

sir I post it for your benefit, to prove your concept wrong "that macro evolution is just repeated rounds of micro evolution."

and it's not.

so post refuted.

now we can move on.

thanks for this debate.

Click to expand...

Lol. You didn’t read it... (I knew that already ).

Macro = micro + time, is bedrock ToE. As with anything in science, there are observed nuances and exceptions. The article you posted is a solid article, and comports with all other observed data... that macoevolution happens.

gradyll said:

sir I post it for your benefit, to prove your concept wrong "that macro evolution is just repeated rounds of micro evolution."

and it's not.

so post refuted.

now we can move on.

thanks for this debate.

Click to expand...

Your linked paper seeks to demonstrate two inter-dependent things:
1. Macro-evolution is real
2. Macro-evolution is more than micorevolution

If you wish to use the paper to justify point 2 you must accept point 1.

Aside: Declaring victory in a debate you have just lost is petty and demeaning. I advise you find alternate means of dealing with loss.

HitchSlap said:

See there, you did learn something!

Click to expand...

LOL ... I been saying that years before you ever joined.

HitchSlap said:

... that macoevolution happens.

Click to expand...

Nope.

AV1611VET said:

LOL ... I been saying that years before you ever joined.

Click to expand...

When did I join?

AV1611VET said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Your creo buddy gradyl even posted a study showing macro is a fact.

Sorry buddy.

gradyll said:

There are no facts presented in this post as I have posted in mine. Just attacking my viewpoint does not disqualify it.

Click to expand...

Your viewpoint is just a strawman though. That in itself is a disqualification.

If you want to support your view, you would have to present evidence that evolution actually works the way you claim it would. You're not going to find support for that claim though.

Taxonomy has a natural barrier to evolution this is why evolutionist have moved the goal posts and decided to use phylogeny instead.

Click to expand...

Taxonomy is not a "barrier to evolution". That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

HitchSlap said:

Lol. You didn’t read it... (I knew that already ).

Macro = micro + time, is bedrock ToE. As with anything in science, there are observed nuances and exceptions. The article you posted is a solid article, and comports with all other observed data... that macoevolution happens.

Click to expand...

I know that , you already said that. The reason why I sent the article is it disproves what you said. These are your citations. Macroevolution is not observed, and thus no hypothesis can be tested with no observation. This it absolutely can't be science. At least until observation is made.

AV1611VET said:

No.Different genuses.

Click to expand...

*cough* Homo habilis *cough*

Shemjaza said:

*cough* Homo habilis *cough*

Click to expand...

What about Homo habilis?

According to your link, some think it's mislabeled.

Jimmy D said:

According to the text, which is all we have, I'd say yes.... "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures" doesn't mean some of the living creatures does it?

Click to expand...

No.

What's the point?

Only the top genera boarded the Ark.

Domestic dogs, for example, wouldn't be aboard.

(Unless, of course, God wanted them there.)

AV1611VET said:

What about Homo habilis?

According to your link, some think it's mislabeled.

Click to expand...

By no means a common interpretation.

How about long armed, small brained Homo erectus? Same created kind?

Yttrium said:

So in your opinion, we can never say "I think that's likely".

Click to expand...

sure we can. only if we have evidence to back it up.

tas8831 said:

So you think a theory is a 'belief.'
And you think a self-replicating robot penguin disproves evolution, even though there is no such thing and even if there was, it would not be a living thing.

Are you actually just a bot of some kind?

Click to expand...

do you think that a robot that is identical to a penguin can evolve naturally?