Confused about evolution

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The young earth creationist calls us brainwashed?

If you don't know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, then yes, you are brainwashed.

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you don't know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, then yes, you are brainwashed.

I know the difference. I also believe both occur.
Am I brainwashed?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I know the difference. I also believe both occur.
Am I brainwashed?

I think brainwashed is a little harsh. Prejudiced is not. Let me just explain the difference so we all have a point to work from and can agree to disagree.

Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.

Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the extent that a entirely new species or sub-species is "created". This is purely theoretical with no scientific backup or viable mechanism.

If you claim not to be prejudiced, surely all this stands or falls on the evidence.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think brainwashed is a little harsh. Prejudiced is not. Let me just explain the difference so we all have a point to work from and can agree to disagree.

Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and comp ...[text shortened]... hanism.

If you claim not to be prejudiced, surely all this stands or falls on the evidence.

you mis-state the definition of macro-evolution since it's only the process of intra-specie evolution, so of course it don't explain speciation , It's not intended to.

The Theory of Evolution is not limited to the creationist attempts to partition it . There are reasons that science uses the two terms ,mostly based of which branch of science is most suited to do the data collection. For example you don't expect a a geologist to be very proficient at micro-biology.And that by itself is enough to put that strawman you raised from the dead-pile back in it's well deserved position at the bottom of the dungheap of history.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you mis-state the definition of macro-evolution since it's only the process of intra-specie evolution, so of course it don't explain speciation , It's not intended to.

The Theory of Evolution is not limited to the creationis ...[text shortened]... l deserved position at the bottom of the dungheap of history.

The intra-specie evolution is as I stated above "Microevolution". Surely you would need evolution to be taken beyond a certain specie to get nature to the point it is.

Since you have so eliquently dispelled my proposed definition for extra-specie evolution, would you be so kind as to propose an alternative hypothesis or term...

Originally posted by Halitose
The intra-specie evolution is as I stated above "Microevolution". Surely you would need evolution to be taken beyond a certain specie to get nature to the point it is.

Since you have so eliquently dispelled my proposed definition for extra-specie evolution, would you be so kind as to propose an alternative hypothesis or term...

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Common descent is well supported by mountains of data, and therefore is called a "fact of evolution" by scientists.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the specie ...[text shortened]... l supported by mountains of data, and therefore is called a "fact of evolution" by scientists.

So where is the evidence of the "creation" of new species?

Originally posted by yousers
Evolution attempts to explain the classification system by postulating that macro-evolution HAS occurred. In order to draw the lines of the tree, which represent descent from a common ancestor, the lower forms must evolve from the higher f ...[text shortened]... ut is it really true?....that depends on your definition of truth.

I do not believe that I have to show a make believe line of
evolutionary lineage back to a single cell, or believe one another
made up, by trying to figure out a way to connect the dots as they
think it may have occurred.

I only see what I know is before me, example all the horse kinds.
There are several types, some can mate with each other, and the
off spring will be able to have off spring, some cannot. This is true
because of the changes that has occurred within that kind. Yet
saying that there was changes in that kind or any other does not
mean, that at one time there wasn't anything as a horse kind,
which would have had to evolve out of the evolutionary lineage
from the single cell to the first horse.

I can acknowledge change within kinds, but I do not believe
anyone can say that we have seen changes of kinds; where those
changes have been so dramatic, so massive that we have seen
eyes come where there were none before, hearts where there
none before, nervous systems where there were none before, and
so on. Change of that magnitude is as elusive as someone trying
to prove God is real, it must be taken on faith! Which is where I
do believe that people of science have wrapped their faith in a
theory that is false, and are trying to tell themselves it is science
and not faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the specie ...[text shortened]... l supported by mountains of data, and therefore is called a "fact of evolution" by scientists.

Surely your mounds of data that support common descent can just as easily be used to prove common design. Its all about from which angle you look at it.

What is the mechanism for this "grand scale" evolution that still sounds very theoretical even with your so-called mounds of proof. Where in one instance has it been proven that one type of animal evolved into another.

The very fossil record that you are using as your mounds of proof, does not have a single transitional fossil. According to Darwing himself and I paraphrase, "...If my theory is to be true, there should be millions of fossils that are in the transitionary stage..."

It is from this lack of evidence that your top evolutionary scientist have formed the evolutionary theory of "puntuated equilibrium". Just brilliant! A theory to prove the existance of something by the absence of proof. Any freshman law student could rip this apart.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not believe that I have to show a make believe line of
evolutionary lineage back to a single cell, or believe one another
made up, by trying to figure out a way to connect the dots as they
think it may have occurred.

I only see what I know is before me, example all the horse kinds.
There are several types, some can mate with each other, and the ...[text shortened]...
theory that is false, and are trying to tell themselves it is science
and not faith.
Kelly

You need to clearly define what a "kind" is before we can discuss whether anyone's seen changes of kinds. You've talked about horses, canines, and felines being "kinds". In your opinion, is there any validity to classifying all of these as mammals, while a hawk is not a mammal? The creationism argument does not explain why these three "kinds" are more similar to one another than they are to frogs, while macroevolutionary theory does.

Originally posted by Halitose
Surely your mounds of data that support common descent can just as easily be used to prove common design. Its all about from which angle you look at it.

What is the mechanism for this "grand scale" evolution that still sounds very theoretical even with your so-called mounds of proof. Where in one instance has it been proven that one type of animal evol ...[text shortened]... existance of something by the absence of proof. Any freshman law student could rip this apart.

more strawmen ,, sis , you gotta get yourself a different scam ,the tired own one your running now has been reduntantly shreadded and thoroughly trashed before you ever heard of RHP. It's gets boring to see you guys and gals( like yourself) wasting your time when you might be trying to find something useful to do.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You need to clearly define what a "kind" is before we can discuss whether anyone's seen changes of kinds. You've talked about horses, canines, and felines being "kinds". In your opinion, is there any validity to classifying all of these as mammals, while a hawk is not a mammal? The creationism argument does not explain why these three "kinds" are more similar to one another than they are to frogs, while macroevolutionary theory does.

Vectors speak for themselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you don't know the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, then yes, you are brainwashed.

since you don't know the meaning or use of either you must be brain dead.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Vectors speak for themselves.
Kelly

What the heck does that mean?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What the heck does that mean?

has me stumped too. unless he's refering to his connect the dots. Might be loosely considered vectors . I'd be a bit more inclined to use fiber bundles for the connections then vectors.