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

[Dizredux]

ah another railing accusation, please prove your assertions.

Also give me one transition that proves macro evolution

then we can call it a scientific theory.

but until it is observed (evolution between genus), it cannot be hypothesized about,

The statement doesn't make a lot of sense. What do you mean by evolution between genus? You would not expect to see reproduction between different genius groups if that is what you mean. That would set taxonomy back quite a bit so I really don't understand what you are driving at. It is not much different than saying evolution is wrong because we don't see elephants wearing cowboy hats and boots in the wild.

Dizredux

 

[Riberra]

no photographs huh, only someone's hand sketches?

Photographs here:
1.3 MB Pdf
article by Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Journal of Creation

You will find Murdock's surprising commentary and conclusion starting at page 6 ....

 

[createdtoworship]

The statement doesn't make a lot of sense. What do you mean by evolution between genus? You would not expect to see reproduction between different genius groups if that is what you mean. That would set taxonomy back quite a bit so I really don't understand what you are driving at. It is not much different than saying evolution is wrong because we don't see elephants wearing cowboy hats and boots in the wild.

Dizredux

in other words, for example.

you have an dog like creature which is one genus

and a whale which is another genus,

please show a transition that bridges the gap.

Many people will show a leapord with spots and a leapord with larger or smaller spots as examples, but they are all the same genus, they interbread among other things, they are the same type of animal, and variation exists and selection exists within that kind of animal. But macro evolution technically is defined as at or above the level of species, I define it at the genus level personally.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, that just proves that you have to go back almost 100 years in the scientific literature to find someone saying that evolution has not been observed.

whats even more bizarre is that there are not missing links after all this time looking and spending my tax dollars.

 

[createdtoworship]

1929? Giveth me a break.That is some big time reaching.

Dizredux

I said they were out dated,

but let me ask you a question how long are we to wait for the missing link to show up, how many centuries have to pass before this wait period is up?

 

[createdtoworship]

Here: FOSSILS. Actual physical evidence.

Oh I thought the fossil record was astonishingly silent regarding the missing links of evolution,

150 years and still waiting.

 

[createdtoworship]

Photographs here:
1.3 MB Pdf
article by Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Journal of Creation

You will find Murdock's surprising commentary and conclusion starting at page 6 ....

I thought it was FOR bipedalism in australopithecus, but it looks like on page 108 (6th page down) it mentions that the iliac was similiar to an extant ape, and instead of wrapping around giving 360 degree balance, it faces forward like extant apes do.

good read, thanks

 

[Strathos]

Oh I thought the fossil record was astonishingly silent regarding the missing links of evolution,

150 years and still waiting.

Try actually looking up the fossils discovered by scientists, instead of reading creationists propaganda about them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try actually looking up the fossils discovered by scientists, instead of reading creationists propaganda about them.

Try my Daisy Chain Challenge.

 

[biggles53]

Try my Daisy Chain Challenge.

You should stick to making daisy chains, instead of trying to create an embarrassing argument out of them.....,

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Oh I thought the fossil record was astonishingly silent regarding the missing links of evolution,

150 years and still waiting.

It seems a lot of creationists think that and are eager to repeat it despite the erroneous nature of such belief. Tell me, what do you think a transitional fossil is? Because you must be using a strange definition if you do not consider the variety of fossils that show features that are a mosaic of two different groups of organism to be transitional fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should stick to making daisy chains, instead of trying to create an embarrassing argument out of them.....,

Why?

It should be embarrassing.

 

[Dizredux]

in other words, for example.

you have an dog like creature which is one genus

and a whale which is another genus,

please show a transition that bridges the gap.

No wonder you are still looking for the "missing link"

Many people will show a leapord with spots and a leapord with larger or smaller spots as examples, but they are all the same genus, they interbread among other things, they are the same type of animal, and variation exists and selection exists within that kind of animal. But macro evolution technically is defined as at or above the level of species, I define it at the genus level personally.

But your personal definition does not count. It is the taxonomists definitions that count.

If you insist on using personal definitions then you will never get the answers you insist on. Basically there are no "missing links" used in taxonomy. That term is primarily the domain of creationists, reporters and headline writers but not science.

You cannot ask for something that does not exist then gripe if you don't find it.

Here is a diagram of the links that taxonomists recognize. I know you will not accept this but keep in mind that automatically rejecting evidence is not a very good strategy for understanding the world.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

I like all the plaster of paris guess work.

All they did was assume that Lucy was bilaterally symmetrical. The left side of the pelvis is nearly complete, and if you have one side, you have the other, too.

Do you have a complete fossil of either lucies hip, knee, ankle or feet?

Do you have any honest?

Until then you don't really know how it walked do you?

We do know that the femurs angled inward, like humans. We know that the pelvis is human-like. I have showed you all of those things, and you run away from it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought it was FOR bipedalism in australopithecus,

Whether or not Australopithecines were obligate bipeds is a different question than whether or not they are transitional. Did they have a human-like pelvis? Yep, sure did. That is what makes them transitional.

but it looks like on page 108 (6th page down) it mentions that the iliac was similiar to an extant ape,

I just showed you the pelvis. It is more human-like than ape-like.

 

[Loudmouth]

there is a lot of genetic code with little or no CSI, however it's the genetic code that HAS csi that is the key. The way you can tell, is that DNA cannot evolve by chance.

Evolution works through selection, which is the opposite of chance.

Also, you didn't show that the sequence I showed you contains CSI, and you haven't shown a single base of DNA from a genome that couldn't have evolved.

You have completely failed to demonstrate that CSI exists in genomes.

For example if you can somehow evolve a strand of DNA getting the proper types of nucleotides and linking them contrary to chemistry of water being soluble.

So how do polymerases copy a genome? Magic?

Then even IF you had a code, you have no language to communicate WITH the DNA to utilize the building of proteins.

The universal common ancestor already had these systems. Are you saying that you have no problem with all life evolving from a universal common ancestor?

So please show how evolution has evolved DNA and utilized programs to build proteins from scratch with no bioavailable matter to begin with.

And now you shift the burden of proof. Your claims is that genomes contain CSI. Where is your evidence?

protein and DNA have CSI by default.

And yet you can't even measure CSI in a 100 base sequence. Sorry, but you have completely failed to show this.

 

[Loudmouth]

in other words, for example.

you have an dog like creature which is one genus

and a whale which is another genus,

please show a transition that bridges the gap.

"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"

You can read the whole essay here:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," 1997

BTW, there are no genera in nature. A genus is a human construction.

But macro evolution technically is defined as at or above the level of species, I define it at the genus level personally.

So you make up your own definitions. Nice to know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh I thought the fossil record was astonishingly silent regarding the missing links of evolution,

150 years and still waiting.

Wait no more.

 

[bhsmte]

Try actually looking up the fossils discovered by scientists, instead of reading creationists propaganda about them.

That wouldn't support his position, so he must ignore and or try desperately to refute.

 

[createdtoworship]

"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"

"G. A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, while maintaining that Archeoceti occupy an intermediate position between terrestrial mammals and typical Cetacea, states that the problem of the phylogenedc relationship between Archeoceti and modern Cetacea is a highly controversial issue. He reports that a number of authors consider that the Archeoceti are a completely isolated group having nothing in common with typical Cetacean.[9] If this opinion is correct, then the archeocetes, supposedly archaic whales, were not whales at all and did not give rise to whales (cetaceans)."

from a link at ICR
When is a Whale a Whale?

BTW, there are no genera in nature. A genus is a human construction.

all taxonomy is a human construction created to navigate the vast amounts of animal life and other. It never the less proves a formidable barrier to evolution, because some things evolve in a micro manner, but not in a macro manner.

So you make up your own definitions. Nice to know

the more technical sites and organizations say macroevolution is "above the level of species" not "at the level of species, or at or above the level of species" like wikipedia and some dictionary sites generalize. So there is wiggle room, if you don't believe the genus taxonomy to be above the level of species, please submit your evidence.

here is a post where I link these sources as to my definition:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806863/#post65191210