The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[createdtoworship]

Easy. I either have young or a closely related species that has young.



She doesn't. You are conflating organisms and species.

well it's true that some species can interbreed. But what I am defining (speaking for myself only)....that macro evolution is not at the species level, but at the genus level. And it is important to note a genus level transition is required for monkey to man evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

oh I see what you are saying, well I didn't mean to say the scientific method was not my view. What I meant to say was that evolution as so claimed is not infact a hypothesis at all or a theory technically speaking, it has no observational evidences. (non repeatable on a macro level) and therefore not susceptible to even testing or the scientific method. it's definately not a proven fact, It's just a scientific model. Not truly hardcore science. And resultingly, should not be federally funded (with my tax dollars for sure-IMHO).

I wonder if you have ever benefited from taking a medicine, that was developed based on evolutionary theory?

 

[PsychoSarah]

alive, well yes. In fact evolution according to yourself and others is ongoing on the macro level. so you must also provide at least a few living transitions as well as numerous dead ones seeing the history of evolution being well along its way, time wise. But lets just start with one ( Living or dead- However you like it.) But I would like to keep it non plant life as I am not as familiar with that. My guess is that if you do come up with a transition between the arbitrary taxonomical levels of genus (which is a macro evolution required for monkey to man evolution..), they will be sterile which for our uses is well, useless. What good is a specimen that cannot pass down it's evolutionary traits. We might as well not even have the evolution.

The issue is that, because evolution is so slow and gradual, you wouldn't notice something as transitional until it had significantly changed from its ancestors. By that point those ancestors will often (but not always) be gone. In the case of the few animals alive today that also have their transitions alive, many creationists will claim "microevolution" instead, as with the case of dogs.

Really, no plants? They evolve the same way that animals do, but they don't run around and are easier to control breeding wise. Since they produce more offspring, there is more opportunity for significant mutations. Within a decade I could easily present you with a plant that has little resemblance to the original population, if luck was on my side. You should look up cultivars (another thing people do when they have too much free time). I grow carnivorous plants, and through the efforts of weirdos who don't find the typical Venus flytrap interesting enough, within less than 100 years we have Venus flytraps that are completely red or yellow; with warped traps sometimes so wonky they can't function; with saw like "teeth" to very long "teeth" to almost nonexistent "teeth"; some more than 2X the size of the typical wild plants to those less than half the size; there is even a mirrored one that produces 2-4 traps per leaf rather than the typical 1.

That is what plants can do in less than 100 years; if you want to observe macroevolution, plants are probably going to be your best bet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well it's true that some species can interbreed. But what I am defining (speaking for myself only)....that macro evolution is not at the species level, but at the genus level. And it is important to note a genus level transition is required for monkey to man evolution.

I was not talking about species that interbreed.

Yes, macro evolution is at the genus level. So what/ Evolution occurs at all levels and has been demonstrated.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder if you have ever benefited from taking a medicine, that was developed based on evolutionary theory?

Name one, please.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Name one, please.

Every flu vaccination.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder if you have ever benefited from taking a medicine, that was developed based on evolutionary theory?

Name one, please.

Every flu vaccination.

How would I know?

I haven't had the flu since I can remember.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would I know?

I haven't had the flu since I can remember.

Lucky you. Flu vaccinations are actually made by guessing, through evolutionary patterns, how the virus is likely to change by the next year (it takes too long to make to wait for the virus to appear and then make a vaccine that matches it). Occassionally the scientists get it wrong and the vaccine isn't as effective, but most of the time they get it close enough to prevent the spread of illness. Understanding evolution is absolutely necessary to make these vaccines.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lucky you. Flu vaccinations are actually made by guessing, through evolutionary patterns, how the virus is likely to change by the next year (it takes too long to make to wait for the virus to appear and then make a vaccine that matches it). Occassionally the scientists get it wrong and the vaccine isn't as effective, but most of the time they get it close enough to prevent the spread of illness. Understanding evolution is absolutely necessary to make these vaccines.

Fair enough then.

I'll go ahead and answer his post.

I wonder if you have ever benefited from taking a medicine, that was developed based on evolutionary theory?

No.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Fair enough then.

I'll go ahead and answer his post.

No.

But now you are aware of a practical application that relies on the veracity of evolutionary theory, correct?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fair enough then.

I'll go ahead and answer his post.

No.

Actually, even people who don't get the vaccinations benefit from them. By having a great deal of the people around you immunized to an illness, it significantly reduces the risk of you encountering someone who has that illness and catching it yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

The issue is that, because evolution is so slow and gradual, you wouldn't notice something as transitional until it had significantly changed from its ancestors. By that point those ancestors will often (but not always) be gone. .

that begs the question as to what is in fact evolution at all. Because it may in fact be that there is no evidence not because it is so slow that it misses the radar, but that there is in fact no evidence. But I noticed that you said that ancestors will not always be gone. Can you provide examples? Plant life again is not as familiar with me. You can mention it but I would not provide any educated dialogue and it would probably be wasted.

 

[AV1611VET]

But now you are aware of a practical application that relies on the veracity of evolutionary theory, correct?

So you say.

I did look it up on Wikipedia and, as usual, didn't understand it all.

It's also called Darwinian Medicine or something like that.

I'm sure it's all based on microevolution, not macroevolution.

Scientists are slick.

In my days, they made a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

Then they plutoed the two terms, and now it's just called "evolution."

 

[createdtoworship]

I was not talking about species that interbreed.

Yes, macro evolution is at the genus level. So what/ Evolution occurs at all levels and has been demonstrated.

but this demonstration as you say, has not been observed on a macro level.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you say.

I did look it up on Wikipedia and, as usual, didn't understand it all.

It's also called Darwinian Medicine or something like that.

I'm sure it's all based on microevolution, not macroevolution.

Scientists are slick.

In my days, they made a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

Then they plutoed the two terms, and now it's just called "evolution."

Because macroevolution is pretty much what happens when microevolution principles are given thousands or millions of years to play out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, even people who don't get the vaccinations benefit from them. By having a great deal of the people around you immunized to an illness, it significantly reduces the risk of you encountering someone who has that illness and catching it yourself.

Funny though, isn't it, that we don't tend to attribute our health to this jungle medicine?

 

[bhsmte]

So you say.

I did look it up on Wikipedia and, as usual, didn't understand it all.

It's also called Darwinian Medicine or something like that.

I'm sure it's all based on microevolution, not macroevolution.

Scientists are slick.

In my days, they made a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.

Then they plutoed the two terms, and now it's just called "evolution."

Maybe if you complain enough, they will change it back.

 

[AV1611VET]

that begs the question as to what is in fact evolution at all.

Razor blades must have been developed from evolutionary science.

Else we would all begin to look like our common ancestor: Charles Darwin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

that begs the question as to what is in fact evolution at all. Because it may in fact be that there is no evidence not because it is so slow that it misses the radar, but that there is in fact no evidence. But I noticed that you said that ancestors will not always be gone. Can you provide examples? Plant life again is not as familiar with me. You can mention it but I would not provide any educated dialogue and it would probably be wasted.

Plant evolution isn't really any different than that of animals. If you like, I can explain it to you better. But, as it were, dogs and wolves come to mind when a species and its ancestor are both alive at the same time. Birds and insects also have this happen quite a bit. Plants are the easiest for this, in my opinion, because many have extremely long lifespans and produce very numerous offspring.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe if you complain enough, they will change it back.

Nope.

Their boss won't allow it.

Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, until it culminates at the end of the Tribulation period, when Jesus, Himself comes and puts an end to it once and for all.