Macro and Micro Evolution

Paulk, When you say the fossil record shows evidence for evolution that is a lie, because for you to have come to that conclusion you could only have assumed it. I assume the fossil record is not evidence based on the information I have. You assume it is based on the information you have. The information I have is that the fossil record cannot be evidence because it does not have enough transitional fossils. You say it does have enough transitional fossils, I say it does not. This is a really lame argument. Even if you show me a smooth transition, that is not enough, I will say it is not a smooth transition, Because I believe that the fossil record smoothness should be so defined that it compares to the skin color ratio from black to white. You dont agree, I do think it needs that. I believe I have said this over and over before, that the transition is not smooth enough. I tried to give a calculation and you didn't accept that eather, eather way, You have not provided sufficent proof as to show me that the fossil record is showing evolution so I guess it is just a bunch of bones like I said already also. Anyways, you have not proven anything except your own ignorance because you think I am a liar when really, I have not lied once. I thought I answered your question before as I think I have answered your question in this thread. Why do you keep wanting to call me a liar, I really dont know, the only reason I can think of is so you look better and so you win by making me a liar. If that is your tactics then fine so be it. Whatever I really dont care if I convince you or not, that is not why I am here. GoodbyeThank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-29-2003]

Ok paulk, Maybe you are right that I am not dealing with the real issue but there is no reason why I am not besides I didn't realise what you were saying since my understanding of micro and macro are completly different then yours. I agree "if" macro-evolution is "Factual", So far in this thread I gave macro a theoretical foundation. I only said that macro is highly possible, which means I left the door open to the fact that it might also be what didn't happen. Which also means if I dont find Macro "factual", then I would not be agreeing. You have to make macro "factual" before I will agree with the fact that there is many fossils missing which are primarly "micro-e". You will see my post below regarding what you call an "agreement". I see what you call evidence (my definition is different). I would not call this evidence because, how do you really know that their is a connection between these two species? You don't have anymore then similarities which means you assume. You dont have the fossils which would be needed in order to show many small changes becoming one large change. According to your understanding of Micro and Macro. The absence of micro-e fossils? I will only agree if you can show me with respect that macro-e has occured factually.You gave me a few exampls, these are the pages:1.)Page Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of Newfoundland2.)ADW: Not Found3.)http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Lecture%207.pdfI will agree that this information is good information and very interesting at best. I wont agree that the two characteristics which you "proclaim" relatedness between these two species are anymore then similarites and also, these similarites are not enough to say this is a good example of macro-e or even micro-e. According to your definition of macro and micro. I have studied it, this does not mean I know everything about the fossil record. It only means I have studied it, I may not know every single little detail for even people who have studied the fossil record all there life dont completly understand it 100%. So by trying to make a mockery of the fact that I said I have studied it, does not have any part in the fact that I may know of these similarites between these two species or not. Regarding dna, similarites are not enough to say evolution occured.Thank You
SonicP.S. The fossil record and the similarites plus the dna record are not part of this thread, we are trying to talk about Micro and Macro only. May we take this conversation over to this thread.http://EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? ------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Mark,You pointed out that I dont agree that the fossil record is evidence. But then also pointed out that I agree with the process of science which is: evidence,theroy,more evidence to back it up. What is so hard about my place in this process. I dont think the fossil record is evidence of evolution which sticks me before the process of science. I would not have ever said, back when they foudn the fossil record to be evidence, that it was evidence.You are right, it is no-ones fault that they have found fossils which seem to be transitional fossils according to evolutionists, to me they are not really transitional fossils they are just fossils. You have to prove to me that macro occured without a doubt. Now you pointed out a phylogene which have macro-e, a good chance. The problem with this is that I feel that that phylogene is nothing more then based on similarites not relatedness which means it is also wrong, sure there is a high possibility that the similarites are similar? How does that show Macro-e. I see that if it was relatedness and not similarities it would be in fact evidence which reports macro-e did occur, but I dont agree that it is relatedness but only similarities. Show my work? I dont even really need to stick to the 1% idea, Just because their are similarites it does not neccesarily show evidence for evolution. You have to make macro evolution factual first.-We are discussing Macro and Micro in this forum, we cannot proceed to convince sonic untill we come to a level of agreement on micro and macro.Thank You
Sonic

Ok, I believe we should move this to the other thread:
http://EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? ------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Ok,Definitions I will accept. (if italics are added) What do you guys think?Microevolution: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level. (this means small genetic changes in a population and could include speciation as long as new organs are not being developed.)Macroevolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes. -as in species formation- (this is any speciation which would start or end a development of new organs)The definitions are carried over from Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary (I added the comments in italics).------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003][This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

Ok, Paul, can you show me what you mean, is there a webpage someplace? No, you are missunderstanding me. I need proof that the word "macro-evolution" is a factual reality. If you can provide evidence (i.e. not just a indication), then I will accept that most of the fossils which are missing are a form of micro-e. To me, regardless if it is scientific or not the word theoretical in any context cannot mean anymore then a guess at worst, and a educated guess at best. Which means I WONT depend on it at all or support it.Here is what I said in the last post maybe you can take this understanding above and apply it to this quote and maybe understand what I ment.

quote:

---

I agree "if" macro-evolution is "Factual", So far in this thread I gave macro a theoretical foundation. I only said that macro is highly possible, which means I left the door open to the fact that it might also be what didn't happen. Which also means if I dont find Macro "factual", then I would not be agreeing. You have to make macro "factual" before I will agree with you that there is many fossils missing which are primarly "micro-e".

---

next First, the demand for fine grained fossils is not just my need, it should be yours, it should be everyones but that is not up to me to make the mind up of others, all though I feel it is ignorant to base evolution from the fossil record if in fact we dont have those fine grained transitions. Now you also missunderstood me about the skin color, it was a metaphore not reality, that is if you were to LOOK at the transition in skin color you will see a fine grained reality from black to white. This "idea" should also be applied to the fossil record. NOTE: that I did not ever say that the skin color transition was MACRO it is indeed Micro. What I said about DNA is a fact. -quote from last time-

quote:

---

Regarding dna, similarites are not enough to say evolution occured.

---

When a scientist looks at the dna between ape and man, they only find similarites that is all. These similarites do not mean in FACT that we are related to apes. When a scientist speaks of the DNA being related between ape and man, it is built around his educated guess or "theory" which means it is not in FACT true. The indication is built because he FEELS that the similarites show relatedness. I don't need proof for this, this is commonsince.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Really. That webpage has never been wrong so I wont assume it is wrong now. What are the definitions used by biologist? I understand it does not always cause a formation of new organs but it does almost always involve the development of new organs which means that these new organs may not take on pheonotypic changes but they will remain silent and eventually they will take on phenotypic changes, as such we must indeed say those definitions I posted are correct.(in fact that webpage has not been wrong with definitions) Yes they are similar, this does not actually mean we are connected by evolution.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

I think that Macro-e and micro and their defintions are confused, and in order for anyone to really know what they mean we need a bio.Somebody who could explain each different part of it and its process and how they are observed, etc. I bet if we had one it would match the definitions I have given to a "T" (that is, the definition at creationscience.com or m-w.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

Too better understand what that means try reading post 284 and 291------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

I think you are right. I guess I'll agree.Micro-e:Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.Macro-e:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.So then the question in the begining was that Micro and Macro are of little importance but it appears that if we agree to a terms, that is those above, then they are importent.------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

Untill next time, perhaps------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic