The code that is DNA

[Sal]

When god created life on earth, is that considered macro creation or micro creation?

That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

[Yukon_Jack]

Well I already mentioned Lenski and the fact that after MANY thousands of mutation induced generations on fruit flies, there is zero macro evolution to wit. Unless you call a 2 headed fly evolution

No you misused  Lenski,s work to come to stupid conclusion . You know Lenski the guy who accepts Maro evolution happens .

---

That would be considered creation. 

Nothing because it's a fairytale

And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be?

Fallacy

 (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

You tried this trick already it failed you then it fails you now.

---

What would be an example of a scientific fact, for example? Even scientific laws are understood to be descriptions, not facts, precisely because a "black swan" could appear at some point undermining the observations described by them.

Nope it  remains a fact .I know you don't like that but a fact it remains

“I stand by it”
Ha ha lol

[no one]

Let's keep the rational, sensible talk to a minimum, ok sal?!

[Sal]

Let's keep the rational, sensible talk to a minimum, ok sal?!

I'll post whatever I want to post 

[Fake Messiah]

That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

There's a reason why biologists make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across ∞ number of generations, speciation never takes place.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No you misused  Lenski,s work to come to stupid conclusion . You know Lenski the guy who accepts Maro evolution happens .

---

Nothing because it's a fairytale




Fallacy



You tried this trick already it failed you then it fails you now.

---

Nope it  remains a fact .I know you don't like that but a fact it remains

“I stand by it”
Ha ha lol

So you stand by

Misrepresenting a scientists work .A scientist who accepts the thing you insist his work proves false . 

Logical fallacies

And statical trickey to back a fallacious point   

Alrighty then meanwhile i'll stand  by the opposite of that.

There's a reason why biologist make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across x number of generation, speciation never takes place.

This example fails and is just another creationist  attempt to split hairs so you can deny evolution

---

That would be considered creation. And if there is no macro evolution and abiogenesis, what would the default be? (Try google the drastic improbability of getting a simple protein to form let alone multiple complex ones)

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

More or less

---

Macro evolution is just lots of micro evolution.

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

Yup it's just an attempt to have their cake and eat it too .Scientific facts aren't jars of candy they get to pick and choose what they like and get to deny the rest because it conflicts with their ideology.

[Sal]

Yeah, Saying "I believe in micro evolution but not in macro evolution" is like saying "I believe in minutes but not in hours, and definitely not in years and decades".

There's a reason why biologist make a distinction between microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Consider for instance that if gradual changes simply accumulate within a single population across x number of generation, speciation never takes place.

1 year is 31,556,926 seconds.

Given enough various isolated groups of the same animal, in different habitats, speciation will occur, via the forge of natural selection of genetic mutations throughout a species generations. This has been demonstrated in the lab with bacteria and happens from generation to generation, where one bacteria, through natural selection of genetic mutation, is able to survive in a different habitat that its predecessors did not.

You can flail around all you want about "distinctions", but the science is in; evolution occurs in all populations' differing habitats, where natural selection weeds out the genetic mutations that are harmful for the species survival in its own habitat, leaving the survivors able to breed for its next generation.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Given enough various isolated groups of the same animal, in different habitats, speciation will occur, via the forge of natural selection of genetic mutations throughout a species generations.

Notice you had to add another variable in your response. Gradual change is insufficient to produce speciation, therefore adding "isolated groups of the same animal" was necessary. That's a better response.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Notice you had to add another variable in your response. Gradual change is insufficient to produce speciation, therefore adding "isolated groups of the same animal" was necessary. That's a better response.

Once again your wrong