Are you talking about the supposed "lists of observed macro-evolution"? That's the issue in contention, I said those are actually just Micro-evolution that in no way proves the process can result in radically different forms. What's there to counter exactly? Those examples do not demonstrate anything close to being able to prove dramatic structural changes. They prove that the use of the words "Macro-evolution" and "Speciation" involve slippery semantics.
Except that it busts every limitation you have set that it cannot cross. You must provide a reason that it cannot go past a certain limit. You have failed this burden of proof.
If you want to believe you somehow countered my links, go for it.
Seeing as I did I shall.
I didn't say it proved it was impossible. I said they can't figure it out and they try to cover it up with things like "Our understanding is taking flight". You can't even read what I'm saying correctly.
Actually they have several theories. Just because they don't know the specific and exact way it happened does not mean they are wrong. I read it quite correctly. I assumed you had a legitimate point behind it. I was wrong. I apologize.
I was making two different claims there. The first claim was about the fact that there's simply not enough time in the current model. This is a rarely touched on concept, and probably for a reason: There would need to be billions and billions of years, not just hundreds of millions, especially with a complete start-over after the mass-extinction events. The second claim, which the article is about, is that adaptation levels drop off after about 40,000 generations of bacteria.
And I countered by saying you have yet to provide evidence for your claim. The speed of evolution in the article said nothing that limited the current evolutionary model.
Also mass extinctions does not mean a "start over". It means a large number, not all, but a large number of species died.
There are several reasons why that could be. However I would like to read more on it before I make a claim that might be wrong. However no where did it mention that there was evidence that it was incapable of adapting any further.
If you read it, you'd understand what the "Speed Limit" is and how it absolutely cripples the current evolutionary models. Why don't you tell us your take on it.
There is a speed limit. However it still fits within the model. Its your numbers that seem to be pulled out of the air or at least from a different link than the one you provided. We can't go from bacteria to mammal in a million years. No one said that. In fact the current model shows that our nearest common ancestor with our closet living relatives, the champanzee was 3.8 million years ago. And that was a slight change.
I have bias towards what's actually scientific too! The difference is, your bias is based on conclusions that don't exactly make due with the evidence entails. Perhaps we should make a thread about Creationist Science claims and how exactly they are wrong, specifically, without just making a dive for the source itself.
sure. Please provide a creationist science claim. Bet I can debunk every single one without fail and within 5 minutes on google. The unfortunate fact is that creationsist do have an agenda. Nearly everything you are accusing of mainstream scientists is exactly what creationist scientests have been doing. Science has zero predisposition if its done correctly. Evolution is not a predisposition created by atheists. In fact the majority of supporters in the public of evolution are CHRISTIANS. Something like 60% of Americans believe in evolution and only 5% are atheists....so....
None. Have you? Apparently your argument is that they're just using those words to "specify what degree of change they are studying"....WHILE SAYING THAT THE TERM DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!!
No. You don't understand what scientific usage. However if you wish perhaps its easier to say this. Macroevolution is not a process that happens. Its just accumulated microevolution. Its just...evolution. There is no massive leaps and bounds its all extremely slow tidieous change over time.
Oh really? Have you read these books to be able to say that they don't actually agree with their use as scientific terms and that they are "dead wrong"? Who are you to say they are "dead wrong"? A lot of assertions you got there.
Yeah. Yeah I do. Actually I will concede to you on specific point. A scientist did come up with the term "macroevolution" however it is not used in the way you and creationists have wraped it. The terms to mean two different kinds of evolution is a false claim and the definitions used by creationsts were created by creationsts.
Do you know the definition of the two words? and why they are not used in most scientific papers to distiguish between types of evolution?
Apparently these people are just using terms Creationists created? Get outta here. Seriously, what an excuse. By all means, prove your claim that Creationists created these terms and that these books authors are "Flat out wrong".
Have you read any of the books? Do you understand where they are comming from? Do you understand what macroevolution is and why it doesn't just occur? Macroevolution is a term that aptly describes the phenomenon yes. However you cannot split evolution into two distinct different types. That is where it is wrong and does not exist. There is evolution and evolution. What is called microevolution and macrovevolution is in reality just evolution. And again I haven't read any of those books. I don't even know if they are scientifically accurate. They might be, they might not. Hell it might be dumbed down to the laymans terms. perhaps the tersm have been adopted but it doesn't mean there are TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF EVOLUTION.
Do you understand now?
Prove that they don't exist as a concept that Scientists go by.
*facepalm* If we are gonna get into this battle then you should give up now. You don't understand or at least you choose not to understand enough to try and get into a semantics battle over scientific terminology.
Macroevolution when used and IF used is only used to describe the phenomenon of accumulated microevolution. There is no distinction between micro and macro excet time and scale.
