Yes, it can be a useful term, but it's like the $2 bill. Where it is used to the extreme is in creationist literature.
Upvote
0
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.
I believe it is Split Rock who will support me on this.
He has (if I have the right person) shown that microevolution is indeed a useful term behind scientific doors.
I don't.
There are some things that can be done in a laboratory that I'm sure nature herself is not allowed to do.
So just because they pass with flying colors in a laboratory -- (like Thalidomide did) -- doesn't mean it's the way God set it up to operate.
You do it -- I'm not interested.
Like I have said before, if tomorrow they create a star quarterback in a laboratory from scratch, or the next world Chess Champion that can beat Nigel Short or Viswanathan Anand -- cool!
I have fears, but I don't have those kinds of fears.
I don't.
Like I have said before, if tomorrow they create a star quarterback in a laboratory from scratch, or the next world Chess Champion that can beat Nigel Short or Viswanathan Anand -- cool!
Whatever.Yes, it can be a useful term, but it's like the $2 bill. Where it is used to the extreme is in creationist literature.
Well, good for you guys.I do. The discovery of tiktaalik roseae is one successful demonstration of the predictive capabilities of the theory of evolution.
Well, good for you guys.
You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.
I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.
I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.
Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.
Well, good for you guys.
You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.
I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.
I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.
Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.
Well, good for you guys.
You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.
I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.
I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.
Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.
Ooooh you're getting feisty here. Starting to get irritated that no one is letting you get away with saying ridiculous things?
Thanks!A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
And both of you are wrong. Adaptation can occur on micro- and macro-scales, and microevolution can be non-adaptive (hello, genetic drift!).Greg is right on.
What we call 'adaptation', you guys call 'microevolution'.
Nooooo, they aren't! They have good scientific definitions. Whether you think those definitions are useful or meaningful (I'm not sure) is a different issue. So is the way creationists abuse the terms."Microevolution and Macroevolution" are creationist terms.
Macroevolution: 18 600 Scholar hits (11k of these from the last decade). Microevolution: 21 300.You quote mine and find a couple of scientists that refer to this and then you embellish it. Here's my challenge, go through the peer reviewed literature and see how many times scientists use these words. Now, I'm waiting for you quote mining.
best,
Spot onThe "scientific" versions of micro- and macroevolution differ slightly (hah, understatement!) from the "creationist" counterparts.
The creo-versions can be defined like that:
Macro is when you cry out "Ugh, that is never ever the same species as it´s parents!"
Micro is when you whine "But is is still a (whatever it´s parents were)!"
I thought the subject was Tiktaalik?Why don't you produce some proof for your claim that evolution is false by providing some evidence that <insert whatever it is you believe> is true.
NoHave you read Shubin's book?
I thought the subject was Tiktaalik?
Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.Since the OP has been answered, it seemed like we were all just chatting. Tiktaalik is proof that evolution has the capacity to not only explain real world phenomena but also prove it. Thus far I've only seen you deride evolution without providing anything of equivalent functionality to replace it. I don't remember seeing you provide anything equivalent to tiktaalik to show <insert your pet idea here> is equal to evolution on any level. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is. Creationists only seem to put their feet where their mouths are.
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?