Why Is Only "Micro Evolution" Acceptable?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you watch the link above, he explains it better than I could. Of course, evidence of water far inland is evidence of a flood. The problem is that while I see evolution being harped, I don't see them talking about that. If that evidence is correct, then it shows some serious bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't watch the entire video, but what I did watch was hilarious. LOL that anyone would take it seriously as a "scientific" challenge to evolution, geology, and chemistry.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, who are these true elites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you disputing that there is a war on Christianity in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, no answering-a-question-with-a-question dodges. We can discuss this *after* you answer mine:

So, who are these true elites?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants to answer, but he know he'll get banned if he does.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, who are these true elites?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you disputing that there is a war on Christianity in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, no answering-a-question-with-a-question dodges. We can discuss this *after* you answer mine:

So, who are these true elites?

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants to answer, but he know he'll get banned if he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have very little knowledge of who is whoin those realms. I use it as a generic term. It's part of my belief system from the Bible. Part of being a Christian is believing that there is spiritual wickedness in high places:

[ QUOTE ]
Ephesians 6:12 (King James Version)


12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Romans 1:18



God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,




[/ QUOTE ]

[Matt R.]

vhawk,
His definition of microevolution was

[ QUOTE ]
2) The accepted meaning of 'microevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does not affect what species said animal can mate with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I think it's wrong is because microevolution is not a "change in an animal's genetic makeup". It's a change in allele frequencies over an entire population.

Similarly, for macro:

[ QUOTE ]
3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really misleading, because if a SINGLE genetic mutation effected the species an animal can mate with, it would probably lead them to being completely infertile (and a single mutation certainly wouldn't create a whole new species). It takes a lot of mutations, adding up over generations, with no gene flow between populations, for a species to diverge.

I mean, the definitions were correct in a rough way (kinda sorta) in that he included speciation in his definition of macro. But, when you think in terms of "single mutations" being macroevolution it becomes really misleading. For one, I think it leads one to believe macroevolution (and by extension, speciation) is some magical event beyond microevolution that leads to a new species popping up all of a sudden. This leads some people to think that macroevolution is impossible.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I have very little knowledge of who is whoin those realms. I use it as a generic term. It's part of my belief system from the Bible. Part of being a Christian is believing that there is spiritual wickedness in high places:

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon man. Stop being a p*ssy and tell us who you think they are. I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say already, so come clean with it. Start a new thread about it maybe?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have very little knowledge of who is whoin those realms. I use it as a generic term. It's part of my belief system from the Bible. Part of being a Christian is believing that there is spiritual wickedness in high places:

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon man. Stop being a p*ssy and tell us who you think they are. I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say already, so come clean with it. Start a new thread about it maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want me to name people? I really don't have any idea except for what other people say. I've read the same names that you probably have and I have no more proof than what is quickly available and widely known by every user of this forum.

Quite frankly, I'd rather remain as blissfully ignorant on the matter as possible. Maybe that makes me a p****. So be it. I still maintain quite a bit of hope that none of the conspiracy theories are true.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
vhawk,
His definition of microevolution was

[ QUOTE ]
2) The accepted meaning of 'microevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does not affect what species said animal can mate with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I think it's wrong is because microevolution is not a "change in an animal's genetic makeup". It's a change in allele frequencies over an entire population.

Similarly, for macro:

[ QUOTE ]
3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really misleading, because if a SINGLE genetic mutation effected the species an animal can mate with, it would probably lead them to being completely infertile (and a single mutation certainly wouldn't create a whole new species). It takes a lot of mutations, adding up over generations, with no gene flow between populations, for a species to diverge.

I mean, the definitions were correct in a rough way (kinda sorta) in that he included speciation in his definition of macro. But, when you think in terms of "single mutations" being macroevolution it becomes really misleading. For one, I think it leads one to believe macroevolution (and by extension, speciation) is some magical event beyond microevolution that leads to a new species popping up all of a sudden. This leads some people to think that macroevolution is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Changes the genetic makeup and changes allele frequencies seems just about the same to me, but if its a meaningful difference to you, ok. I think thats being nitty.

However, it is absolutely possible for a single mutation to create a different species. This mutation would be pretty unlikely, I suppose, but its entirely possible. Usually what happens is that two groups are seperated by some physical boundary for a period of time, and a whole bunch of changes are allowed ot accumulate, due to lack of gene flow. This is what allows this single or small group of genetic changes that result in reproductive incompatibility to spread among the entire group. Your objection is based on the idea that this single mutation wouldn't cause a speciation event because it would only occur in one individual, and this individual would just then die. You wouldn't call that individual a new species. Thats true, practically speaking, but theoretically one single mutation could result in a speciation event.

[Copernicus]

"The true elites of this country have far more money than the Christians do."

and the next thing will be the illuminati. Mempho has no interest in evidence, just conspiracy theories.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
"The true elites of this country have far more money than the Christians do."

and the next thing will be the illuminati. Mempho has no interest in evidence, just conspiracy theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I boxed into believing in the Illuminati just because I realize that the majority of the megawealth in this country doesn't subscribe to Christian doctrine?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The true elites of this country have far more money than the Christians do."

and the next thing will be the illuminati. Mempho has no interest in evidence, just conspiracy theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I boxed into believing in the Illuminati just because I realize that the majority of the megawealth in this country doesn't subscribe to Christian doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Realize" is a pretty hilarious word choice. Sounds so much more legitimate than "believe for no reason."

You are probably right, FWIW.