(May 21, 2012 at 4:08 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation. What it amounts to is variations of the same creature (eg. dogs belong to the wolf family and are an example of "microevolution"). Dog breeders can breed variations of dogs from now until kingdom come, and no matter how different the dogs look from their parents, they will still be dogs (microevolution).
You do realize that evolution (or macroevolution, as you like to call it, as if microevolution and macroevolution are radically different things) IS adaptation and variation, right? Microevolution is one of the processes, albeit not the only process, involved in macroevolution. Without microevolution, macroevolution cannot happen. Your definition of microevolution is somewhat accurate, but you got macroevolution totally wrong. Here's how I explained in the most simple way possible how macroevolution works in a different thread:
Quote:Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution. Microevolution is small incremental changes within a species or population over successive generations. When those incremental changes between two or more seperated gene pools within a species mount up over many generations to the point they can no longer interbreed, that is when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Macroevolution is when microevolution reaches the point of speciation and above. Those gene pools will continue to drift apart over many more generations until they have diverged into many new species, genera, tribes, families and so on. The different gene pools will continue to diverge as long as each lineage survives, and it will some day get to a point after thousands upon thousands of generations where these descendants will be completely different from their now distant ancestors.
Now, would a dog that looks different from its parents be still considered a dog? Yes, of course it would be after just one generation. But what about a hundred thousand generations? And the names we give animals, such as "dog", are simply labels we give them that are purely subjective. Animals are not born with the labels they have, we humans give them to them to distinguish between them. Animals are considered the same species if they can interbreed and produce viable offspring, and animals that are considered the same species, such as dogs and wolves, sometimes have different names to distinguish different branches of the species. So, when does a wolf become a dog? What's the difference between a dog and a coyote if they can interbreed and produce hybrids? What about dogs and jackals? Dogs and foxes? What's the difference between any of the canids? A canid is still a canid, no matter how different they look from each other, right? So are they all the same kind? Oh and by the way, did you know that the four species of big cats of the genus panthera, lions, tigers, leapords and jaguars can all interbreed and produce offspring (albeit infertile)? So that must mean that *GASP" they must have had a common ancestor and that speciation must have occured, right? And macroevolution is evolution on the level of species and above, so OMG THAT MEANS MACROEVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED!!! Unless you have some bullshit explanation for why that's not evolution, as you always seem to. BTW, why would God create all these different species of felines, canids, hominids ect... Did he run out of ideas and recycled the same ideas over and over? Did he get lazy with his design?
Quote:Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."
And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats? Seriously, I can't understand how atheists can point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in a sky god while they fall for stuff like this. They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.
Poor creationists, they always seem to have a habit of making rank straw man arguments. People have already explained to you that Darwin did not say that. Even if he did, how would that be relevant to whether or not modern evolutionary theory is true or not? That's known as a genetic fallacy.
Oh by the way, that's bullshit what you said about there being no evidence for evolution. So then why do all the fossils of ardipethicus, australopithecus and homo as they appear later in the fossil record show the enlargement of the brain case, the straightening of the spine, flattening of the face and the legs becoming longer than the arms and not the other way around? Oh, and also the hips resembling more of a modern human's and less like a modern chimp's as time goes on and them all having the necks joining the base of the skull just like a modern human's and not like a chimp's? And as for knowing the 3.5 billion year old date, have you never heard of the uranium-lead dating method? I guess not.
Where did this intelligent designer come from? Why does this ultimate intelligence with the ability to create entire worlds not need an explanation and everything else does? Where did the designer get the materials needed to create the universe, and what processes did said designer use to make the universe? Oh that's right, magic. So you've explained nothing.
