Are you quite sure about this? I studies biology at uni, and what you call "macroevolution" we called spieciation.
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.
Biologists use "Microevolution" to describe evolution within a species. They use "Macroevolution" to describe evolution leading to new species, and higher taxa.
I did get that. I do read with all 4 my eyes.
Is this another broken ninth, AV, or are you really this ill-informed? You cannot even get the science side right. No type of evolution has ever been described by a scientist as one spieces of animal giving birth to another. The offspring will always be of the same spieces as the parent.
Thus, we can safely conclude that your entire post is a grave misrepresentation of the truth, and at worst, an outright lie. "Evolutionists" have never talked about micro and macro evolution, except, I suspect, to explain the more indepth theories about spieciation. If you were taught that in school, your science teacher should have been fired.
uhm???
Not to be funny or anything but I think he got the point. Every one here got a peace of him(AV), or he(AV) got a peace of everyone.
From my limited experience with AV, he can never be told enough time that he's wrong. It's especially amusing to point out when he's blatantly lying.
For the record, though, I did see all the other answers to his post before I wrote mine.
Are you quite sure about this? I studies biology at uni, and what you call "macroevolution" we called spieciation.
Micro- and macroevolution isn't used frequently by scientists, but they are certainly used once in a while. I've encountered them in bio textbooks on occasion: In my current 800 page textbook, "Evolution" (Barton, Briggs, Eisen, Goldstein, Patel), I see in the index that the word "Macroevolution" is mentioned twice.
"Macroevolution" is frequently mentioned in connection with punctuated equilibrium, and since most creationist sites are rife with Gould quote mines, that's probably why this word has become so popular in creationist circles.
Peter
That is for each human to go by himself. Just insaine poeple like me will litteraly go into the bible and count the years.(Ps: its not 6000. its more in the line of 8000.)
yes, the Bible says the earth is 6000-8000 years old (its impossible to determine exactly how old the Bible says the earth is; infact, Biblically, the entire universe is that old); however, the physical evidence and proof geology presents us with says the planet is billions of years old.
and we can't have humans going around telling other humans false ideas that have no bearing on reality.
According to me this Billion/million years cant be proven exactly as well. some say 20 million, other 200 million .Till they have an exact number, I'm sticking to the 8000 biblical worked out years.
So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?Well then, I stand corrected on the usage of the terms.
Not really mate, most cosmologists are saying 10^10 years, easily. Also, what margin of error do you need, given that no physical measurement can measure "exactly"?
10^10 years? You got me there....
explain please?
10 billion years --- down from 40 billion last year, and 20 billion yesterday.10^10 years? You got me there....
explain please?
So am I still, at worst, a "liar" --- [crosses fingers]?
like I said. Some say 40, others 20. 13 sounds interesting.
I'll have a look. Give me 5 min. (and not 5 maya)
Thank you, Dream3, but the fact of the matter is that everyone is a creationist in one form or another.Just chocked. I was expecting the experts to come along and give me an answer. Not calling others a lair, In this case, (sorry) from creationist to a other, till proven guilty (as I'm the newby around here) I will look up the things that was said and here, and put them to the test.
No, only AV says 40 and 20 on the basis of nothing but cynicism. No actual scientist as far as I know has claimed 40 or 20 billion, and they do not change at the drop of a hat like he would have you believe.
No, only AV says 40 and 20 on the basis of nothing but cynicism. No actual scientist as far as I know has claimed 40 or 20 billion, and they do not change at the drop of a hat like he would have you believe.
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?