Evolution is not a theory; Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

[Coloradomtnman]

Evolution is not a theory; Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

Evolution is observable in nature. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There are no valid modern biologists who do not accept evolution as a fact.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The Short Proof of Evolution

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

Proof for Evolution?

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

In an effort explain how evolution happens, Darwin put forth several theories which all kinda work together: Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, etc.

So, does everyone understand now? Any questions?

 

[Avatar4321]

What on earth does this have to do with religion or ethics?

 

[Cecilie1200]

What on earth does this have to do with religion or ethics?

I think he's under the three mistaken impressions that 1) only Christians/religious people oppose the idea of evolution as fact rather than theory, 2) that macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing and one proves the other, and 3) that Christians/religious people reject both for that reason.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What on earth does this have to do with religion or ethics?

I think he's under the three mistaken impressions that 1) only Christians/religious people oppose the idea of evolution as fact rather than theory, 2) that macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing and one proves the other, and 3) that Christians/religious people reject both for that reason.

Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution or creationists to invalidate one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that all organisms are decended from other, simpler organisms which implies that human beings are descended from primates. As though God created everything and then allowed for genetic mutation to work only so far.

What that requires is both a denial of the discoveries of anthropologists during the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Africa and Europe of early hominids, and the simple logic that random mutation over the course of billions and millions of years can result in the simple strands of DNA in viruses and bacteria eventually developing into long complex chains like those in human beings.

I don't believe that all Christians/religious people don't accept evolution. One can be
spiritual without living in a prolonged state of suspended disbelief. One can even be spiritual without being religious. As astonishing as that might be to those dwelling in the Bible belt.

I just can't stand it when I hear people argue that evolution is a theory not realizing that it isn't a theory and to continue to argue the point. The argument is obsolete. This is the behavior of a superstitious and primitive mentality. And it is narrow-minded.

A healthy skepticism is to say: we don't know how life developed, but once it did, millions and billions of years of low radiation and other environmental factors have altered those first life forms into the multitudes of diverse forms of life that exist today. I think that is what most people who realize that evolution exists believe or think.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Evolution is not a theory; Natural Selection is a theory to explain evolution.

Evolution is observable in nature. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There are no valid modern biologists who do not accept evolution as a fact.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The Short Proof of Evolution

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

Proof for Evolution?

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

In an effort explain how evolution happens, Darwin put forth several theories which all kinda work together: Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, etc.

So, does everyone understand now? Any questions?

Wow I understand Judson Laipply's Evolution of Dance so much better now.

[youtube]dMH0bHeiRNg[/youtube]

 

[Terry]

Cafe' I love that video! Thanks for it.

 

[Terry]

part 2

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inLBPVG8oEU]YouTube - Evolution of Dance 2[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

What on earth does this have to do with religion or ethics?

I think he's under the three mistaken impressions that 1) only Christians/religious people oppose the idea of evolution as fact rather than theory, 2) that macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing and one proves the other, and 3) that Christians/religious people reject both for that reason.

Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution or creationists to invalidate one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that all organisms are decended from other, simpler organisms which implies that human beings are descended from primates. As though God created everything and then allowed for genetic mutation to work only so far.

Wrong, Sparky. There is a very, VERY big difference between the idea that a species evolves and changes inside itself, and the idea that one species evolves and changes into an entirely different and separate species. This is why there are the two specific terms, macroevolution and microevolution, to differentiate between the two. One does not prove the existence of the other, and a person does not have to believe in one to believe in the other. Just FYI, you might want to rethink the value of specificity and precision in your terminology, since nothing needs to "imply that human beings are descended from primates". Human beings ARE primates, so naturally they would be descended from primates, whatever one's evolutionary beliefs.

What that requires is both a denial of the discoveries of anthropologists during the late 19th and 20th Centuries in Africa and Europe of early hominids, and the simple logic that random mutation over the course of billions and millions of years can result in the simple strands of DNA in viruses and bacteria eventually developing into long complex chains like those in human beings.

No, it doesn't really deny the existence of any of these things. It simply denies that any of this constitutes proof of evolution between species, because it doesn't.

I don't believe that all Christians/religious people don't accept evolution. One can be
spiritual without living in a prolonged state of suspended disbelief. One can even be spiritual without being religious. As astonishing as that might be to those dwelling in the Bible belt.

Nice try at word-parsing in order to slip in a semi-subtle insult, but no dice. I never said you thought ALL Christians/religious people didn't accept evolution. I said you likely thought that everyone who didn't accept evolution was Christian/religous.

As astonishing as it might be to those dwelling in the warm glow of their own self-importance, it is possible to not accept evolution as a proven, bedrock-hard fact and still be thinking, educated, and scientifically aware. It is also possible to disagree with you without it making me ignorant OR you brilliant.

I just can't stand it when I hear people argue that evolution is a theory not realizing that it isn't a theory and to continue to argue the point. The argument is obsolete. This is the behavior of a superstitious and primitive mentality. And it is narrow-minded.

Sorry again, Sparky, but unless I've forgotten something from your initial post - which is possible - the only "evidence" you have that evolution is NOT a theory is the existence of evolution within a species, something that no one has ever denied and which does not in any way prove that one species can evolve or has evolved into a totally separate species. So until you say something which really can't be argued or refuted, I'd be obliged if you would spare us the automatic leap to "this is settled, and you shouldn't argue, and you're just primitive". PROVE that you're right, and THEN do your victory dance.

A healthy skepticism is to say: we don't know how life developed, but once it did, millions and billions of years of low radiation and other environmental factors have altered those first life forms into the multitudes of diverse forms of life that exist today. I think that is what most people who realize that evolution exists believe or think.

No, a healthy skepticism is to say, "We don't know how life developed, AND we don't know how it became a multitude of diverse life forms after it did, but it's possible that it happened this way." Because frankly, you can't say, "Once it did, such and so happened", because you really don't know. You weren't there. No one was. And no one can conclusively prove it, which is why so many people who exercise ACTUAL healthy skepticism rather than the blind, fanatical faith that you call healthy skepticism, are still mulling the issue over and considering other possibilities. It's called "having an open mind", and I'm told it's quite useful in the scientific fields.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Once you understand that man creates God in his own image, not the other way around, then it's easy to understand global warming, Darwinism, Islam, Christianity, liberalism, and every other religion.

 

[hansom]

Can we do away with semantics and opinion, and deal with real-world examples?

Subject:
Soft tissue in skeletal dinosaur remains. Discuss? A simple web search produces at least 2 instances in the US.

 

[Diuretic]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

 

[necritan]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

Jesus did

 

[Cecilie1200]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

I don't know precisely who coined the terms, but one can assume it was someone who didn't like the imprecision and blurring together of the two that you get from simply talking about "evolution". It's sort of like people who lump together "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research". It really is important to differentiate EXACTLY what you're talking about.

 

[Diuretic]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

I don't know precisely who coined the terms, but one can assume it was someone who didn't like the imprecision and blurring together of the two that you get from simply talking about "evolution". It's sort of like people who lump together "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research". It really is important to differentiate EXACTLY what you're talking about.

Agreed. I know it's sometimes a pain but it's very necessary to be clear about what's being discussed. And in your example it makes sense. "Stem cell research" can be divided into "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" and I suppose that there are other forms as well. So, there's "micro" and "macro" in evolution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

I don't know precisely who coined the terms, but one can assume it was someone who didn't like the imprecision and blurring together of the two that you get from simply talking about "evolution". It's sort of like people who lump together "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research". It really is important to differentiate EXACTLY what you're talking about.

Agreed. I know it's sometimes a pain but it's very necessary to be clear about what's being discussed. And in your example it makes sense. "Stem cell research" can be divided into "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" and I suppose that there are other forms as well. So, there's "micro" and "macro" in evolution.

Sure. Like I've said before, there's a big difference between a species changing inside itself, and a species changing into another species. And it's a huge leap in logic to say that because species change inside themselves, that proves that they also change into other species. So you have to differentiate.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't know precisely who coined the terms, but one can assume it was someone who didn't like the imprecision and blurring together of the two that you get from simply talking about "evolution". It's sort of like people who lump together "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research". It really is important to differentiate EXACTLY what you're talking about.

Agreed. I know it's sometimes a pain but it's very necessary to be clear about what's being discussed. And in your example it makes sense. "Stem cell research" can be divided into "adult stem cell research" and "embryonic stem cell research" and I suppose that there are other forms as well. So, there's "micro" and "macro" in evolution.

Sure. Like I've said before, there's a big difference between a species changing inside itself, and a species changing into another species. And it's a huge leap in logic to say that because species change inside themselves, that proves that they also change into other species. So you have to differentiate.

I'm (trying) to understand it, my head's spinning just trying to keep up with this stuff.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

I'm out of my intellectual depth, I really am. This is going to take me ages to read and understand. I just want the "internet forum combat edition" so I can just pick fights and chuck these ideas around

 

[LOki]

There is a very, VERY big difference between the idea that a species evolves and changes inside itself, and the idea that one species evolves and changes into an entirely different and separate species.

No there isn't. Those are pretty much the same thing.

There's very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a portion of that population splitting off where that daughter population experiences changes within it's population, such that the daughter population is differentiated enough to establish speciation from the original population.

There's also very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a large significant change, where that particular change allows significantly greater survival and reproductive success, engenders a distinct difference in the population where within a few generations the old feature is no longer present (replaced by the new more successful feature) in the population, and that the cumulative effect of such significant changes results in entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears.

Whether speciation occurs serially or in parallel, in fine gradations or great leaps, it happens by the same fundamental mechanics of gentic drift, genetic mutation, and natural selection. Laboratory experimentation supports this, field observations support this, the fossil record supports this, the genetic record supports this, the molecular biology supports this.

There is, however, a big difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a species' entire population magically "poofing" into another species. Creationsists (consistent with their magical theory of speciation) made up this magical evolutionary phenominon, and often call it "macroevolution" to obsfucate the validity of the evolutionary theory.

Some other opponents to evolution accept the small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, and call that microevolution. They then cite that along the continuum if time, none of these small incremental changes, from one genration to the next, within the species' population results in speciation--but they do this by ignoring the differnces between the ends of the spectrum, and demand that since no speciation occurred from one generation to the next, no speciation can be asserted when the populations are separated by thousands of generations--this second term being what they refer to as "macroevolution." It's Fallacy Of The Beard; it's Loki's Wager.

Coloradomtnman is right, Sparky. "Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution . . ." It's irrelevent to me whether those opponents are superstitious, or retards, or superstitious retards.

You do however make a good point later, regarding precision and how it's a little redundant to assert that human beings were descended from primates, considering how human beings are primates. I'm sure, however, that Coloradomtnman meant to specify "simpler" or "more primitive" primates, or maybe just "differnent" primates.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is a very, VERY big difference between the idea that a species evolves and changes inside itself, and the idea that one species evolves and changes into an entirely different and separate species.

No there isn't. Those are pretty much the same thing.

There's very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a portion of that population splitting off where that daughter population experiences changes within it's population, such that the daughter population is differentiated enough to establish speciation from the original population.

There's also very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a large significant change, where that particular change allows significantly greater survival and reproductive success, engenders a distinct difference in the population where within a few generations the old feature is no longer present (replaced by the new more successful feature) in the population, and that the cumulative effect of such significant changes results in entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears.

Whether speciation occurs serially or in parallel, in fine gradations or great leaps, it happens by the same fundamental mechanics of gentic drift, genetic mutation, and natural selection. Laboratory experimentation supports this, field observations support this, the fossil record supports this, the genetic record supports this, the molecular biology supports this.

There is, however, a big difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a species' entire population magically "poofing" into another species. Creationsists (consistent with their magical theory of speciation) made up this magical evolutionary phenominon, and often call it "macroevolution" to obsfucate the validity of the evolutionary theory.

Some other opponents to evolution accept the small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, and call that microevolution. They then cite that along the continuum if time, none of these small incremental changes, from one genration to the next, within the species' population results in speciation--but they do this by ignoring the differnces between the ends of the spectrum, and demand that since no speciation occurred from one generation to the next, no speciation can be asserted when the populations are separated by thousands of generations--this second term being what they refer to as "macroevolution." It's Fallacy Of The Beard; it's Loki's Wager.

Coloradomtnman is right, Sparky. "Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution . . ." It's irrelevent to me whether those opponents are superstitious, or retards, or superstitious retards.

You do however make a good point later, regarding precision and how it's a little redundant to assert that human beings were descended from primates, considering how human beings are primates. I'm sure, however, that Coloradomtnman meant to specify "simpler" or "more primitive" primates, or maybe just "differnent" primates.

Sorry, but this entire long rant is just dead wrong. You started from a wrong premise, and then proceeded to lecture incorrectly ad nauseam, proving nothing except that you believed a false premise. They aren't the same thing, and they don't prove each other, no matter how many paragraphs you take to tell me that you think they are and they do.

I'm sure that's what he meant, too, but that isn't what he SAID, which is why it illustrates my point about having precise words rather than general ones.

 

[LOki]

There is a very, VERY big difference between the idea that a species evolves and changes inside itself, and the idea that one species evolves and changes into an entirely different and separate species.

No there isn't. Those are pretty much the same thing.

There's very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a portion of that population splitting off where that daughter population experiences changes within it's population, such that the daughter population is differentiated enough to establish speciation from the original population.

There's also very little difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a large significant change, where that particular change allows significantly greater survival and reproductive success, engenders a distinct difference in the population where within a few generations the old feature is no longer present (replaced by the new more successful feature) in the population, and that the cumulative effect of such significant changes results in entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears.

Whether speciation occurs serially or in parallel, in fine gradations or great leaps, it happens by the same fundamental mechanics of gentic drift, genetic mutation, and natural selection. Laboratory experimentation supports this, field observations support this, the fossil record supports this, the genetic record supports this, the molecular biology supports this.

There is, however, a big difference between small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, resulting in an entirely different and separate species than it's ancestral forebears, and a species' entire population magically "poofing" into another species. Creationsists (consistent with their magical theory of speciation) made up this magical evolutionary phenominon, and often call it "macroevolution" to obsfucate the validity of the evolutionary theory.

Some other opponents to evolution accept the small, incremental changes, over generations, within a species' population, and call that microevolution. They then cite that along the continuum if time, none of these small incremental changes, from one genration to the next, within the species' population results in speciation--but they do this by ignoring the differnces between the ends of the spectrum, and demand that since no speciation occurred from one generation to the next, no speciation can be asserted when the populations are separated by thousands of generations--this second term being what they refer to as "macroevolution." It's Fallacy Of The Beard; it's Loki's Wager.

Coloradomtnman is right, Sparky. "Macroevolution and microevolution are words for fictitious ideas developed by those who oppose evolution . . ." It's irrelevent to me whether those opponents are superstitious, or retards, or superstitious retards.

You do however make a good point later, regarding precision and how it's a little redundant to assert that human beings were descended from primates, considering how human beings are primates. I'm sure, however, that Coloradomtnman meant to specify "simpler" or "more primitive" primates, or maybe just "differnent" primates.

Sorry, but this entire long rant is just dead wrong.

Demonstrate the entire thing is wrong--each and every bit in it's entirety.

You started from a wrong premise, . . .

Demonstrate the premise is wrong.

. . . and then proceeded to lecture incorrectly ad nauseam, proving nothing except that you believed a false premise.

Demonstrate the premise is false.

They aren't the same thing, . .

Demonstrate they are not the same thing.

. . . and they don't prove each other, no matter how many paragraphs you take to tell me that you think they are and they do.

Demonstrate that I said they prove each other.

 

[Ravi]

I keep reading about "microevolution" and "macroevolution", who came up with those ideas?

Misuse

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference).[1] Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

from wikipedia.