Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your strawman of a quote mine does not prove that they do not exist.2ndly, let me prove them false on a rational basis: Well if you are talking about goats for 9 minutes but in the middle you talk about sheep for 1 minute. if you quote the sheep section you are quote mining by your own admission, even if the quote was correct. it was just not in context of the whole, get it now?
Wrong, micro evolution is within the species level. At the speices level and beyond is macroevolution. The sources that you have supplied claimed that.
why would i put in the work, if you guys, who allegedly took all these courses, cannot answer one question?
Have you still not seen the TO Transitional Vertebrate Fossil page? Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
I mean, this site has been around for over twenty years now, with loads of examples of transitions (including of the higher taxa, which you keep asking for). Considering you said you've been asking this question over and over, I find it hard to believe nobody has ever referred you to this site before.
Not really. Genetics alone demonstrates common ancestry of species on Earth. Even if life never fossilized, we'd still have overwhelming evidence they are related via common ancestry.
It's also been pointed out to you that there isn't really a strict definition of "micro" and "macro" evolution in nature, unless you want to argue reproduction barriers between populations (i.e. speciation). Evolution is just, well, evolution.
can't hide behind your colloquialisms. Macro evolution is traceable to that of evolution above the species level. only. I posted a peer review that defines this term early on.In fairness, I've seen the term used both ways. The problem is that microevolution and macroevolution are not rigorously defined scientific terms. They are more colloquial in most usage.
Why not? A slang dictionary is just as "official" as any other dictionary.
And just because a source is open to contributions does not automatically make it "prone to error". I can link studies on Wikpedia that show it is just as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Guess what? You will find some errors in any encyclopedia. They are still GENERALLY reliable sources.
exactly, and they don't provide peer review I asked for. Point 3 for gradyll, today.
it's the theory behind it, that makes it error prone. Ask any scientist if he uses wikipedia for his tests. open source was invented so that people could edit a software or some other test until it was perfected. But the problem is that this was only used when there were no professionals available to do it. So it would go open source. open source has flaws because you have the uneducated educating the educated.
Wrong, micro evolution is within the species level. At the speices level and beyond is macroevolution. The sources that you have supplied claimed that.
Second your claim is simply wrong. Neanderthal is ape like because Neanderthal is an ape. You are apelike because you are an ape. If you can't phrase your demands properly no one can answer them.
Lucy is roughly half way in between man and chimp. Her hips were more like modern man's than like a chimp's. Her brain was closer to a chimp's than it is to man. Not everything evolves at the same rate. Like it or not she is the "missing link" that creationists demand.
this coming from someone who won't even remind us of the one peer review he DID post. (I don't think it exists)(again referring to macro evolution)Nope, no points for you. You still not know what peer review is or how it is used. In fact they supplied you what you demanded. You merely denied it.
When you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence, I am ready. Or we could discuss the video that you linked but did not understand.
can't hide behind your colloquialisms. Macro evolution is traceable to that of evolution above the species level. only. I posted a peer review that defines this term early on.
here was the original post:
---------------------------------------
the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"
also indiana university:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf
also some institutes of Biological Sciences:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
national evolution sythesis center:
NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level
2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"
3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”
Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).
“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)
A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
Evolution & Development - Wikipedia
That is because you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the concept of evidence.this coming from someone who won't even remind us of the one peer review he DID post. (I don't think it exists)(again referring to macro evolution)
you want evidence I have Wikipedia pegged right? (Want more?)There is no "theory" behind it. You are not using that word properly. And if you want to claim that they are error prone you need to supply evidence that supports your claim.
Your unsupported assertion is worthless.
And scientists that are doing actual science are supply new information . Wikipedia is a very good source for settled science. It is not a good source for cutting edge science at all. Just because someone does not know how to use a tool properly does not make that tool wrong.
When people use Wikipedia here it is used to support science that has already gone through peer review. Science that there is no doubt about. Such as the theory of evolution.
I have posted probably links to above and beyond 30 peer reviews. I have yet to see one of yours. You have to eventually put your money where your mouth is, or we will start to just think your trolling these boards.That is because you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the concept of evidence.
As I said, when you learn the basics we can move on.
A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:
Evolution & Development - Wikipedia
You keep using that term incorrectly. And no, have not. Your most recent example was just an essay. Essays generally do not undergo rigorous peer review.I have posted probably links to above and beyond 30 peer reviews. I have yet to see one of yours. You have to eventually put your money where your mouth is, or we will start to just think your trolling these boards.
Sorry, but that is just an essay in a peer reviewed journal. Not every article in a peer reviewed journal undergoes peer review.
By your standards you failed. Worse yet the only "support" you can find in it is of an old outdated definition of "macro evolution". You failed at least twice here.
You keep using that term incorrectly. And no, have not. Your most recent example was just an essay. Essays generally do not undergo rigorous peer review.
Once again we should do the following. First discuss the nature of evidence so that you can understand the concept. Second, review the video that you linked so that you can understand the peer review process. You did find an excellent video, I don't see why you avoid your own source.
Nope, you do not know how terms are defined.well I guess we can toss your definition of peer review out the window. Part of the definition of peer review is that it's in the journal genius.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?