Purist:

I agree.  But shouldn't it be so ideally?  Afterall, the average atheist out there is only in pursuit of established fact-based truths.  And so should every other rational, honest person.

davidylan:

Yeah and i saw pigs fly out of my window.

Purist:

I agree.  But shouldn't it be so ideally?  Afterall, the average atheist out there is only in pursuit of established fact-based truths.  And so should every other rational, honest person.

Really? You guys are soooooooo LOST then! So WHY the FRONTING as if you have FIGURED IT ALL OUT? PATHETIC!

InesQor:

@Purist:

I am inclined to pick further arguments in your responses but let's just agree to disagree.

Alright then, man.

davidylan:

Oh please not this boring lie again. Really? the atheist is some scientific genius who only wants "established fact-based truths"? Yeah and i saw pigs fly out of my window.

Purist:

I didn't know that only scientific geniuses were entitled to 'established fact-based truths'.  My point though, is that if the evolution theory is eventually proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt, it would indeed be foolish and dishonest to dismiss it simply because it contradicts one's religious beliefs.

Purist:

I didn't know that only scientific geniuses were entitled to 'established fact-based truths'.  My point though, is that if the evolution theory is eventually proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt, it would indeed be foolish and dishonest to dismiss it simply because it contradicts one's religious beliefs.

Purist:

I didn't know that only scientific geniuses were entitled to 'established fact-based truths'.  My point though, is that if the evolution theory is eventually proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt, it would indeed be foolish and dishonest to dismiss it simply because it contradicts one's religious beliefs.

sexkillz:

The EVOLUTION THEORY [/b]would forever remain what it is, [b]A THEORY! Do you see yourself WISE then dismissing other account's of creation simply because you CHOSE to stop BELIEVING?

davidylan:

Just as foolish as you who pander to what you know is merely a theory and has no empirical justification.

thehomer:

The theory of evolution has no empirical justification? Please, what sort of lab do you work in? Did you take an elementary course in biology? At the very least, start by reading the Wikipedia link I referred you to so you don't sound this ignorant on evolution.
Again, you claim to be knowledgeable on the theory of evolution but you demonstrate otherwise.
Simply click on this link and read it. You will note the empirical basis for the theory.

thehomer:

The fact that it is called the theory of evolution is a good thing.
Have you dismissed the Yoruba account of creation? How about the Aztec one? Which did you settle on and why? You really need to understand what a scientific theory is.

davidylan:

the typical atheist game. Conflate micro and macro evolution so as to avoid the fact that macro evolution, which is truly the theory in controversy, has no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Back when we were in high school, micro evolution used to be known by its original names - mutation and natural selection.

davidylan:

note how thehomer's wiki link DECEPTIVELY and casually links micro and macro evolution into one alleged smooth story - Evolution may in the long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. Common descent stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth.[10][11][12][13] Both evolution within populations and speciation between them are thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another.

Note the speculation, guess work and stretching of facts that is required to justify macro evolution. For a theory that is "established fact" . . . you begin to wonder. Just who is fooling who?

Wikipedia:
Evolution may in the long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. Speciation is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations.

Wikipedia:

Common descent stretches back over 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on earth.[10][11][12][13] Both evolution within populations and speciation between them are thought to occur in multiple ways such as slowly, steadily and gradually over time or rapidly from one long static state to another.

davidylan:

For one we know it is not an established fact. 

U.S. NAS:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

thehomer:

So what is macro evolution? And what is the difference between it and micro evolution?

thehomer:

Wow. You really need to calm down and read what you just posted again. It doesn't say what you're implying. While science and scientists are cautious and use cautious language (unlike religious claims e.g snakes and donkeys speaking to people or zombies wandering round a city), you need to be careful of trying to make a mountain out of a grain of salt.
Here let me break it down for you.

thehomer:

What this says is that in some cases, new species may arise in other cases, they may not. Note that if a certain environment doesn't change significantly, the drive for the organism to change will also be absent so the organism too will not change significantly or it could be that the organism's form was actually good enough to sustain it through the change. That is the concept behind the term "living fossil".

thehomer:

Again, what is the problem here? You will note that the scientists agree that these organisms did evolve the question here is whether it was a steady and gradual or rapidly from one static state to another. You may note that in both these instances, what is being spoken of is geological time.

davidylan:

Obviously you are not aware if not you would not be conflating the 2.

I've written papers before and i still write . . . i know VERY WELL how and why we use allegedly "cautious" language. Its a shell game, the use of such language is largely reserved for making specious insinuations where we have NO direct evidence! It was one of the problems i faced in grad school and with scientific paper reviewers, anytime you make a categorical statement, you have to back it up with CONCRETE EVIDENCE in at least 2 separate systems. To avoid this, you simply insert "cautious" language and voila you're just fine to make as many assumptions as you like!

davidylan:

That's absolutely NOT true. Read your link again . . . it started out describing the 4 cardinal mechanisms for micro evolution which is based on concrete, reliable evidence. One important note, there is NO USE of cautious language for the first 6 lines where micro evolution is defined and described. for example, we are not told that "The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is (may be) differential survival and reproduction of entities that differ in one or more inherited traits" (inserts mine). this is a CATEGORICAL statement of FACT.

davidylan:

Now you get to line 7 (which you ignorantly try to pass of as an example of scientific caution) . . . where the author starts to describe MACRO EVOLUTION (darwinian theory of man's descent from a primordial soup) and we begin to find "cautious" language that was completely absent in the first 6 lines?

davidylan:

The author is NOT saying that new species may or may not arise as you falsely allege with no proof whatsoever . . . the author is quite clear - Evolution may in the [b]long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species.[/b]

Note the use of the phrase "long term" here as this is a CLEAR PLUG for the darwinian theory of evolution. If the author where suggesting that evolution in the long term may NOT lead to speciation then he absolutely DESTROYS darwin's theory of evolution . . . since that implies we did not evolve!

davidylan:

Wow! How ignorant can these folks be?

davidylan:

first of all, the earlier portion of that paragraph has implied there is no evidence long term speciation occurs at all! It follows that this in itself is a possible explanation of how speciation could have possibly occured (again no evidence provided) IF AT ALL speciation did occur.

davidylan:

Oh dear . .  pseudo-science at its best.

thehomer:

I notice that you have not pointed out what macro evolution is and the difference between it and micro evolution.
I wonder how long it will take for you to realize that if you're not making absolute statements, then you're left with making statements based on the odds of the information you have being correct.

thehomer:

I see you're simply altering the article as you go along. First, can you point out where those mechanisms were limited to this "micro evolution" you're talking about? What is being referred to there is evolution and not your "micro evolution".

davidylan:

Just as foolish as you who pander to what you know is merely a theory and has no empirical justification.

Purist:

You really do enjoy insulting people, don't you? Jesus must be really proud of you.

davidylan:

First of all, second line makes absolutely no sense. I wonder if you also demand absolute language from science rather than the dubious "cautious" language claims.

davidylan:

Secondly, your wiki link already makes a clear distinction between micro and macro evolution . . . read it - i wont spoonfeed you either. Besides i also make that very clear in my posts . . . if you cant see it then you need to return to biology high school classes.

davidylan:

that's largely because you are one in a long line of misinformed noise makers here. If you dont know what micro evolution is then maybe you should start with a wiki link too . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Wikipedia:
Misuse
See also: Speciation

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular in the anti-evolution movement, in particular among young Earth creationists, to distinguish between evolutionary changes among populations which can interbreed (microevolution) and changes among populations which cannot interbreed (macroevolution). The main argument is that change beyond the species level would require similar enough changes in both a male and female in the same place and time, and that those two would have to successfully interbreed in order to create a sustainable population. This simplistic objection ignores the slow and gradual nature of evolutionary change: at no point does evolution propose the "sudden" appearance or birth of an individual or individuals without the capacity to mate with their population, but asserts as its main mechanism the gradual accumulation of (environmentally favorable) changes occurring in a long sequence of births. Speciation, or "macroevolution", occurs when members of one population, previously belonging to one species, are no longer able to mate with members of another population - thus creating their own species.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[47] Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on numerous occasions.[48]

The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is wrong, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[49] Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could. Even changes in the number of chromosomes can be accounted for by intermediate stages in which a single chromosome divides in generational stages, or multiple chromosomes fuse. A well documented example is the chromosome difference between humans and great apes.
Source
(Emphasis mine)

davidylan:

Here is the very first line from the link - [size=13pt]Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population over time.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift[/size]. Trust me, i didnt go and alter the link . . .

davidylan:

all 4 mechanisms clearly defined as the processes involved in micro evolution. Try finding the same mechanism under macro-evolution . . . wiki is a good place to start too. ode.

davidylan:

I'll just stop here at this point. Arguing with this brainless twerp is taking too much of my time. Arguing on a topic you dont know anything about? the purview of the atheist who thinks too much of his minuscule intelligence.

davidylan:

I presume this is the first time you're realising that evolution is actually divided into two right with only macro-evolution dealing with darwinian evolution? Dumb.

Wikipedia:
Misuse
Main article: Objections to evolution
See also: Speciation

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution", but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution".[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[13] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][14] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][15] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[16] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[17][18]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".
Source
(Emphasis mine)

davidylan:

I'm sure you have been missing the pointed barbs right? I give as good as i get . . . dont like it then stay out. If Christ is a fairy tale then i wonder why you're bothered about what he thinks of me. Do you worry about what santa claus thinks of your christmas gift?

davidylan:

thehomer, when i'm done with lunch i will be back to treat the latest nonsense i read posted up here.

davidylan:

thehomer, when i'm done with lunch i will be back to treat the latest nonsense i read posted up here.