Always talking about micro-evolution?

A legitimate gripe.Points:
1)The moderators can't follow everything in any great detail.2) Board policy is that no moderator editing for content is done. Exceptions to this rule are very rare (Seriously, I think it has happened once that I know of).3) Per #2, members are pretty free to make fools or jerks of themselves. This may be fools/jerks small or large. Making too big of a jerk or fool of yourself may get you suspended.4) If the moderators were to inject a comment every time we see something objectionable, it would be far more thread disruptive than what we were objecting to.All this moderator discussion is off-topic. Please take any further to the "Change in Moderation?" topic!!! (see link below)Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-03-2004]

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

But how can we learn if you always say " ha - lack of knowledge "You will scare people into not asking layman questions, or make them feel inferior. I am trying to learn about natural selection, when asking an evo here though, because of the way some are, I feel slightly cautious to ask - cos I get the feeling they'll just bark this at me:"ha - see you don't even know what natural selection is "I do/have read about evolution at sites and obeyed requests from evos. BUT do I have to become a scientist to have an opinion?I think I know a bit about evolution now, you're acting like we know nothing. And now, how does this kind of thing help? - everyone has an opinion, there are also evo Layman - many, but what , they aren't speaking drivel when they judge us and make assumptions, and come here to rip the Bible to pieces (for e.g.) using an evo position to do so? ? ?Think about it, and pretend to be a creo user for a week - I garuntee insults.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
nolege = knowledge, your steryotypes are false Mr Hambre, I told you what you wanted to hear.

quote:

---

All this moderator discussion is off-topic. Please take any further to the "Change in Moderation?" topic!!! (see link below).

---

Any further moderation discussion in this topic is deemed cause for suspension.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

deleted[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

Deleted[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-03-2004]

Mike the Wiz writes:

quote:

---

I think I know a bit about evolution now, you're acting like we know nothing.

---

Then what about the observed speciation events, or the many observations of change among populations? Five speciation events for mice on Madeira, dozens in the case of leopard frogs? Green algae going from unicellular to multicellular? Don't these constitute evolution? Aren't these clear enough illustrations of the operation of the Darwinian variation/selection process, from which we can infer the common ancestry of species in general?Tell me if this level of adaptive change is evolution. If so, why can't we use what we learn from it to formulate hypotheses about the history of life on Earth?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mike, I said that creationists tend to be found on creationist run sites. I described it as a tendency - not an absolute - and so it is.And I didn't call you a dimwit.

I don't understand what the issue is between micro and macro. An example of micro evolution is a coyote evolving into a wolf (or vice versa). An example of macro evolution is a frog evolving into an elephant. Or even more macro would be rocks or hydrogen gas (or just non-life) evolving into a human.

I think what you meant to say was "coyotes and wolves evolving from a common ancestor." Just a quibble. Micro-walking is walking to the store. Macro-walking is walking to the next town.Is there a difference? Sure, but it's just the same process operating over different periods of time, so there's hardly any good reason to draw a distinction. Same with micro/macro evolution.

In fact by the definition usually used by biologists a coyote evolving to a wolf (a different species) is macroevolutionBut the question is whether macro-evolution is anything more than lots of microevolution adding up. In your examplem amphibian to elephant it is very likely that that is all it is. If coyote-to-wolf is a single step then amphibian-to-elephant is just a *long* walk.I don't know where "rocks to human" comes from and "hydrogen to human" involves a lot that is outside the scope of evolution (at least one generation of stars just to get the heavier elements!). So labelling that "macroevolution" is misleading at best.

It's fairly well accepted that dogs are a subspecies of wolf. That is, dogs and wolves share a recent common ancestor. Is this evolution? The subpopulation that gave rise to dogs underwent genetic change over time due to geographical isolation, and gradually the descendents of this subpopulation became distinct enough from wolves that we designate them differently.In the case of humans, it seems that we share a recent ancestor with chimpanzees. We understand the mechanisms of this sort of divergence and change, and the genomes of humans and chimps have enough telltale similarities to convince any rational person that he shares ancestry with other primates. Is this evolution?There are plenty of fossils that detail the transitions that took place as a certain species of land mammals gave rise to families of aquatic mammals. Each step of the transition is gradual but significant. Do any of these transitions constitute evolution? Does the entire history linking sea mammals with their land-dwelling ancestors constitute evolution?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Good example, although not well applied. Using your terms, but in keeping with the spirit of my example, micro walking is like walking from Chicago to Milwaukee. Macro-walking would be like walking from Chicago to the south pole (visualize that). Why would you limit your macro-walking to just going to the next town?

Because you haven't shown anyone the oceans or mountain ranges that you think are in the way. You claim that there are barriers but have no clue about what they might be.

---

Common sense isn't

Because there's a known, observable barrier that prevents you from walking between those two points.What's the barrier between species (or even "kind") transformation? You can't just assume there is one without some evidence.

The rocks to humans example comes from public school text books. Life originated after it rained on the rocks for millions of years, is what we're taught. That's where the so-called "broth" came from that the original microbes thrived in. The "rocks" really refer to the planet itself, which came from events in the solar system, which was simply a eventual result preceeded by an incredible amount of hydrogen gas. This is all basic stuff out of textbooks. Are you claiming to believe in evolution while ignoring the origins of that which evolved. E.g., you look at an elephant, and wonder what preceeded it. Once that ancestor is identified, you'll wonder what preceeded that. Soon, you'll be able to draw the elephant's family tree in full color (assuming the fossil record has no missing links). But where do you stop? When the fossil record runs out? Or when lightning struck the rock just before a living microbe appeared? How did you determine when evolution started? Why leave out the pre-galaxy hydrogen gas? I may sound absurd, but the question is still valid: "How did you determine when evolution started?"