Macro verses Micro evelution

[Joyous Song]

Macro means large changes, this has never been proven

Micro is small changes most visible in fruit flies. humans its visible in the difference of hair color and skin coloring.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wolves can be changed in just a few generations by selecting different temperaments.
Mild-mannered wolves had radical changes in teeth and color when selected breeding for attitude changes.
The experiment was stopped because they would not survive the wild if the experiment continued and the breeder didn't want to kill them all at the end.

 

[Gottservant]

And of course, this reflects the words of Jesus "He who is faithful in what is least, is faithful in much"

in other words: "he who repeats something, has a chance of doing it well"

Sadly, Evolutionists try to say "even if you never finish the development of something in the past, you can still presume to do more greatly in future"

You be the judge!

 

[Job 33:6]

Until Creationists can address why the fossil succession matches genetic phylogeny, evolution will remain proven.

 

[coffee4u]

Until Creationists can address why the fossil succession matches genetic phylogeny, evolution will remain proven.

Showing fraudulent information. 2:47 Haeckel’s Embryos.
Even a high school student knows those are fakes.
How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies
The human embryo never goes thorough 'prior stages of life'

 

[KenJackson]

00:36 "... proof applies only to mathematics. ... I use this soley because the people who know the distinction and are aware of it already accept evolution anyways."

That's arrogant. It's like saying, "anybody that disagrees with me is ignorant."

The video has a lot of talk, but it doesn't address the mechanism of evolution. That's the problem. That's why evolution can't do what you claim is proven. It's not because of what the Bible says, it's because of the facts which science has elucidated.

While mutation damage does indeed cause small changes that result in new species and sometimes new genera, that mechanism cannot ever produce new proteins, new molecular machines, new gene regulatory networks, new organs or new integrated systems.

Life was clearly designed.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's arrogant. It's like saying, "anybody that disagrees with me is ignorant."

The video has a lot of talk, but it doesn't address the mechanism of evolution. That's the problem. That's why evolution can't do what you claim is proven. It's not because of what the Bible says, it's because of the facts which science has elucidated.

While mutation damage does indeed cause small changes that result in new species and sometimes new genera, that mechanism cannot ever produce new proteins, new molecular machines, new gene regulatory networks, new organs or new integrated systems.

Life was clearly designed.

When you're ready to address the videos point on summation, feel free to let me know. If you have any questions about what the video is saying, feel free to ask.

 

[The Barbarian]

Macro means large changes,

No. Let's check what the actual scientific definition is...
Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.
Macroevolution

In other words, to qualify as macroevolution a new species has to be formed.

this has never been proven

It's been repeatedly demonstrated. Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation. Most go further to new genera, families, and sometimes higher.

Micro is small changes most visible in fruit flies. humans its visible in the difference of hair color and skin coloring.

The definition of "microevolution" is evolution that does not produce new species. Sometimes microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution. Would you like to learn about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

That's arrogant. It's like saying, "anybody that disagrees with me is ignorant."

He's right. Hardly anyone who understands that "proof" is not part of science, would fail to know the difference.

While mutation damage does indeed cause small changes that result in new species and sometimes new genera, that mechanism cannot ever produce new proteins,

Evolution of new proteins is often observed. Would you like to learn about some instances?

new gene regulatory networks

Would you like me to show you an example of a new regulatory system which was observed to evolve?

new organs or new integrated systems.

New digestive organ evolved...
Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

 

[The Barbarian]

The video has a lot of talk, but it doesn't address the mechanism of evolution. That's the problem.

Mechanism of evolution is really simple. Mutation. Directional evolution requires mutation plus selection. Normally, it's natural selection, but humans can consciously direct it as well.

What do you think prohibits these processes?

 

[Joyous Song]

The Barbarian: No. Let's check what the actual scientific definition is...
Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.
Macroevolution

In other words, to qualify as macroevolution a new species has to be formed.

It's been repeatedly demonstrated. Even many creationist organizations now admit the fact of speculation. Most go further to new genera, families, and sometimes higher.

JS: Yet the "missing link" is still missing. So they show primate after primate ending with a man in a business suit but fail to say that several of those primate coexisted, and they cannot definitively link them to humanity.

The Bible says Hashem, Praise be He, created everything in its own kind. This means each species was created then small changes occurred within each species creating a variety of version. Example: early horse to later modern horse is still a horse but we could not have ridden it.

Microevolution or small changes over time, height differences, introvert verse extrovert, hair color and skin color came from small changes in geno that became permanent if those benefited the population. Black people are black because they needed sun screen for their environment but white people did not.

These differences are because of environmental needs dictated them at the time. Thus Jews who fled south into Africa returned to Israel black whereas Jews that fled north came back to Israel white. That was about 1000 years for those changes to become fixed in those groups. Over a million years a lot more little changes can add up to a tiny horse like creature becoming a prized stallion.

 

[Job 33:6]

"JS: Yet the "missing link" is still missing. So they show primate after primate ending with a man in a business suit but fail to say that several of those primate coexisted, and they cannot definitively link them to humanity."

Yes, and I coexist along side my father, grandfather, cousins and uncles. All of which I am related to, and some being my ancestors. Nothing mysterious about this at all.

Evolution is the only feasible explanation for the observed "summation" case, as described in the following video:

 

[coffee4u]

"JS: Yet the "missing link" is still missing. So they show primate after primate ending with a man in a business suit but fail to say that several of those primate coexisted, and they cannot definitively link them to humanity."

Yes, and I coexist along side my father, grandfather, cousins and uncles. All of which I am related to, and some being my ancestors. Nothing mysterious about this at all.

Evolution is the only feasible explanation for the observed "summation" case, as described in the following video:

Still posting proofs using Haeckel’s long debunked embryos I see. Haeckel’s embryos: the images that would not go away

 

[Job 33:6]

Still posting proofs using Haeckel’s long debunked embryos I see. Haeckel’s embryos: the images that would not go away

You aren't addressing the video with this response.

 

[coffee4u]

You aren't addressing the video with this response.

You keep posting videos with fake Haeckel’s embryos and I will keep pointing it out.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

You keep posting videos with fake Haeckel’s embryos and I will keep pointing it out.

And others will point out that that one second screen has nothing to do with the actual argument.
It would be better if he left it out, then you might actually deal with the substance of the video instead of raising irrelevant objections.

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words, to qualify as macroevolution a new species has to be formed.

Yep. That's what the word means.

 

[The Barbarian]

Incidentally, there is a transitional organism that shows how the jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes happened:

Nature 2015 May 14;521(7551):173-179
Anja Spang , Jimmy H Saw , Steffen L Jørgensen, Katarzyna Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, Joran Martijn, Anders E Lind, Roel van Eijk, Christa Schleper, Lionel Guy, Thijs J G Ettema https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25945739/#affiliation-1

Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes
Abstract

The origin of the eukaryotic cell remains one of the most contentious puzzles in modern biology. Recent studies have provided support for the emergence of the eukaryotic host cell from within the archaeal domain of life, but the identity and nature of the putative archaeal ancestor remain a subject of debate. Here we describe the discovery of 'Lokiarchaeota', a novel candidate archaeal phylum, which forms a monophyletic group with eukaryotes in phylogenomic analyses, and whose genomes encode an expanded repertoire of eukaryotic signature proteins that are suggestive of sophisticated membrane remodelling capabilities. Our results provide strong support for hypotheses in which the eukaryotic host evolved from a bona fide archaeon, and demonstrate that many components that underpin eukaryote-specific features were already present in that ancestor. This provided the host with a rich genomic 'starter-kit' to support the increase in the cellular and genomic complexity that is characteristic of eukaryotes.

This had been predicted a long time ago, by Carl Woese, who first demonstrated the kingdom of archaea. And then this turns up, confirming his prediction.

 

[The Barbarian]

Still posting proofs using Haeckel’s long debunked embryos I see.

Creationists are now angry that biology textbooks just use photographs, which show the same things as Haeckel's drawings.

 

[Job 33:6]

Creationists are now angry that biology textbooks just use photographs, which show the same things as Haeckel's drawings.

I think they've confused haeckel's drawings with the entire field of embryology.