macroevolution is not observable

[Valjean]

You acknowledge microevolution. How do the micro changes know when to stop, to they don't turn into macro changes?

 

[Gloone]

The alien astronaut thing is certainly not a theory.

Also, electrons are not observable. Will you stop using your computer, since it's silicon hardware was built to exploit them?

Ancient alien theory and Ancient alien technology is serious business Poly. Have you not seen all the posts on RF about it?

I have plenty of brains cells left to fry before I stop using my computer too.

 

[PolyHedral]

Ancient alien theory and Ancient alien technology is serious business Poly. Have you not seen all the posts on RF about it?

I have plenty of brains cells left to fry before I stop using my computer too.

If you doubt macroevolution, you've got to doubt electronics if you want to be consistent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ancient alien theory and Ancient alien technology is serious business Poly. Have you not seen all the posts on RF about it?

What about evidence? Is there any?

 

[Gloone]

What about evidence? Is there any?

I always found this interesting. Aside from all the gods, paths to spiritual enlightenment, and other things.

[youtube]CxankFWaRFc[/youtube]
YouTube - Ancient Egyptian Alien Technology 1/2 History Channel

If you want to skip past the first few minutes, about 4:20 in they actually start talking about physical evidence of technology. You may have already seen this video.

 

[painted wolf]

How is the mosquito evidence for speciation? No new specie was created, the mosquitos were still mosquitos

yes, a new species of mosquito. You do realize what a species is yeah? Mosquito is a catch-all term for several genera and dozens of species of insect. Not a single species itself.

and as further observations showed they all died.

That must be quite a shock to the mosquitoes still living down there.

So how is this a case of speciation?

Well, one new species of mosquito evolved due to reproductive isolation from another species of mosquito.

Do you know what speciation is?

Yes, but I'm guessing that you are a bit fuzzy on the details.

There was absolutely no sign of a new specie being created all that changed was the mosquitos behaviour which actually lead to the mosquitos death. Who ever added this example is being dishonest, the London Mosquitos prove the theory of devolution, not evolution.

Did you bother to actually learn anything about the London Underground Mosquito? They are still studying them, they haven't died out by a long-shot. Indeed they are finding more and more populations of them.
Insect From the Underground | Natural History | Find Articles at BNET

Mutations prove devolution. Every mutation that has ever been observed has been harmful, nothing to be gained out of evolution. The whole world is dieing. nature is fundamentally discontinuous.

No, not every mutation is harmful... most are totally neutral and you have a hundred or more of them right now... they make you different than your parents. One example of a bennifical mutation is the ability to digest milk as an adult.

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information.

Sorry but this is patently untrue. Mutations can add "information".

How do lots of little changes know when to stop, so they don't become one big change?

“Macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist has never been observed and how could it? where does this new information come from?.

First, Macroevolution is the development of new species from existing populations... It's been recorded several times.
Second, "information" can be added to and is added to by mutations. Particularly by duplications and this is almost always beneficial to the organism.
For example: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf

Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear. Macroevolution is a fairytale.

No one suggests that it does... you seem to be confused about what mutations are.

According to lead evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne macroevolution is not observable, it seems religion forums is the only forum in the world where people admit macroevolution is observable, please stop lieing to yourself it can not been seen with the physical eye.

really... because he wrote a whole book on the exact opposite of what you are saying. Are you sure you are not misrepresenting his words out of context?
Amazon.com: Speciation (9780878930890): Jerry A. Coyne, H. Allen Orr: Books

"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, "it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time" Macroevolution is not osbservable end of story.

Oohhh quote mines, big surprise....

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

How is the mosquito evidence for speciation? No new specie was created, the mosquitos were still mosquitos

It's a new species of mosquito. Do you know what a species is?

and as further observations showed they all died.

cite? I'm not aware of that. My understanding is that they're biting people in London as we speak.

So how is this a case of speciation?

A new species emerged from an existing species, in the exact way described by ToE.

Do you know what speciation is?

Yes, it's when a new species emerges.

There was absolutely no sign of a new specie being created all that changed was the mosquitos behaviour which actually lead to the mosquitos death. Who ever added this example is being dishonest, the London Mosquitos prove the theory of devolution, not evolution.

So the Biologists who described this new species don't know what they're talking about, and you do?
Heredity

Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

Katharine Byrne1,2 and Richard A Nichols1
What the heck is the Theory of Devolution? Never heard of it.

Mutations prove devolution. Every mutation that has ever been observed has been harmful, nothing to be gained out of evolution.

This is simply false. If you think it's true, please provide a scientific cite to support it.

• The origin of genetic variation is germ line mutations.
• Most mutations appear to be random and are harmful or neutral (do not affect) to their bearers.
• Some mutations can be advantageous.
• Mutation rates are low; one out of a million loci is typical.
• Although mutation rates are low, they are sufficient to create considerable genetic variation.
from here.

The whole world is dieing.

Evidence?

nature is fundamentally discontinuous.

What does this mean?

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information.

“Macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist has never been observed and how could it? where does this new information come from?.

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. [wiki]

Macro-evolution included the emergence of new species. New species, such as the London Underground mosquito, have been shown to emerge. Therefore macro-evolution has actually been observed.

Is it your position that no new species have ever been observed? If I provide you with an example, will you change your position?

Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.

There is no magic. It comes from mutations.

Macroevolution is a fairytale.

If by "fairytale" you mean science.

According to lead evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne macroevolution is not observable,

cite?

it seems religion forums is the only forum in the world where people admit macroevolution is observable, please stop lieing to yourself it can not been seen with the physical eye.

If I give you scientific cites, will you change your position?

[qutoe]"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, "it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time" Macroevolution is not osbservable end of story.[/quote] Oh, I see, so science is limited to what we can observe in real time? No astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, archeology for you? No drawing conclusions from the evidence? In short, no science at all?

 

[Autodidact]

... and it is a theory just like ToE is. But I guess that is just science for you.

No, it's not. Do you know what a scientific theory is?

 

[David M]

If you want to skip past the first few minutes, about 4:20 in they actually start talking about physical evidence of technology. You may have already seen this video.

lol, misrepresentations of the Antikythera mechanism. You realise that it works based on a geocentric model of the earth and celestial bodies which would make the "aliens" who passed on the technology it particularly unobservant. And it is not beyond the technology of the period.

The egyptian "light bulbs" at Dendera are about a credible as the "dinosaur pictures", here's a hint for you. The ancient egyptians did not light their tombs because they were tombs, they were used once and sealed up and tombs do show soot deposits, the ones on the tourist routes have been cleaned.

Btw Dendera is not even an ancient egyptian crypt, its Greco-Roman.

Dendera lamp - RationalWiki

 

[Sunstone]

I'm glad macroevolution™ is not observable: I can go back to sleep now. Call me the next time someone says something scientific, please. It always thrills me when people say something scientific like "macroevolution™".

 

[outhouse]

Ancient alien theory and Ancient alien technology is serious business Poly. Have you not seen all the posts on RF about it?

I have plenty of brains cells left to fry before I stop using my computer too.

alien junk on TV is trash all of it, its there because they sell it to the uneducated.

I have been to the places they tell you about and tehre is no, zero alien intervention at all.

 

[Gloone]

lol, misrepresentations of the Antikythera mechanism. You realise that it works based on a geocentric model of the earth and celestial bodies which would make the "aliens" who passed on the technology it particularly unobservant. And it is not beyond the technology of the period.

The egyptian "light bulbs" at Dendera are about a credible as the "dinosaur pictures", here's a hint for you. The ancient egyptians did not light their tombs because they were tombs, they were used once and sealed up and tombs do show soot deposits, the ones on the tourist routes have been cleaned.

Btw Dendera is not even an ancient egyptian crypt, its Greco-Roman.

Dendera lamp - RationalWiki

Well I don't take any of it literally. But I do find things like the Antikythera mechanism to be interesting. Thanks for links.