• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Evolution will no longer be taught in Turkish schools

Still no proof of macro evolution. Please try again. I'm waiting.


Evolution is simply evolution. The exact same process that he's showing you is macro-evolution seen on a micro scale. When you make that little micro jump a hundred thousand times, what you wind up with is something completely different than where you started. That's all macro-evolution is.
 
I have provided you proof of speciation.

What you referred to as crocodiles changing into ducks doesn't exist.
Maybe you don't understand basic terminology. Look up macro evolution. Speciation is not macro evolution. I have asked you to show proof, which you cannot.
 
Evolution is simply evolution. The exact same process that he's showing you is macro-evolution seen on a micro scale. When you make that little micro jump a hundred thousand times, what you wind up with is something completely different than where you started. That's all macro-evolution is.
Can you show proof of animals evolving into a different species?
 
Okay Evolutionists.....you guys got me. There is finally observable proof of macro evolution:

jim-breuer-goat-boy.jpg
 
Can you show proof of animals evolving into a different species?

Yes, actually. Despite the fact that new species arising usually takes thousands of years of evolution to occur, it's happened during our time here. Trying to watch for species to diverge into other species is like watching rocks move.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
 
Yes, actually. Despite the fact that new species arising usually takes thousands of years of evolution to occur, it's happened during our time here. Trying to watch for species to diverge into other species is like watching rocks move.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
jgarner, this is not macro evolution though. There is no change in kind.
 
Evolution is simply evolution. The exact same process that he's showing you is macro-evolution seen on a micro scale. When you make that little micro jump a hundred thousand times, what you wind up with is something completely different than where you started. That's all macro-evolution is.

It's not tho. Micro evolution naturally selects from pre-existing genes/traits. Macro evolution creates entirely new ones.

Why do you keep ignoring this difference?
 
Turkey is another country much like Egypt I always wanted to visit due to the amazing history and landmarks but probably never will because of how freaking dangerous and extreme they've become.
 
Maybe you don't understand basic terminology. Look up macro evolution. Speciation is not macro evolution. I have asked you to show proof, which you cannot.

Can you show me where you get your definition of macroevolution?

Like, look it up and paste the link for me.
 
Can you show me where you get your definition of macroevolution?

Like, look it up and paste the link for me.
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
noun
Biology
noun: macroevolution; noun: macro-evolution
  1. major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
 
It's not tho. Micro evolution naturally selects from pre-existing genes/traits. Macro evolution creates entirely new ones.

Why do you keep ignoring this difference?

Show me where this distinction is made in scientific literature.
 
It's not tho. Micro evolution naturally selects from pre-existing genes/traits. Macro evolution creates entirely new ones.

Why do you keep ignoring this difference?

So what you're saying is that a member of a species can only get traits that are already seen in the species?
 
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
noun
Biology
noun: macroevolution; noun: macro-evolution
  1. major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

What you just quoted completely eviscerates your clumsy usage of the term.
 
So what you're saying is that a member of a species can only get traits that are already seen in the species?

I'm saying that a organism can only recieves traits, organically, that already exist within the gene pool. Sometimes traits degrade. Sometimes they degrade to such a degree that they appear to be entirely new traits altogether. But upon careful inspection we find they are just damaged or degraded pre existing genes.

It is theoretically possible to gain a new, more complex trait through mutation but we rarely if ever have seen that. And such a mechanism is woefully illequipped to explain the development of the universe.
 
I'm saying that a organism can I put recieves traits, organically, that already exist within the gene pool. Sometimes traits degrade. Sometimes they degrade to such a degree that they appear to be entirely new traits altogether. But upon careful inspection we find they are just damaged or degraded pre existing.

It is theoretically possible to gain a new, more complex trait through mutation but we rarely if ever have seen that. And such a mechanism is woefully illequipped to explain the development of the universe.

How do you determine what's possibilities exist within the gene pool then? Do you understand all the species' genomes that well? After all humans share 60% of the gene pool with bananas.

It's not only possible to gain complex new traits, it's been observed. Like the Italian wall lizard developing a new digestive system (which had never been observed before) in decades after being migrated. Decades of course being an absurdly short time in the span of genetic change.
 
I'm saying that a organism can only recieves traits, organically, that already exist within the gene pool. Sometimes traits degrade. Sometimes they degrade to such a degree that they appear to be entirely new traits altogether. But upon careful inspection we find they are just damaged or degraded pre existing genes.

It is theoretically possible to gain a new, more complex trait through mutation but we rarely if ever have seen that. And such a mechanism is woefully illequipped to explain the development of the universe.

What does evolution have to do with development of the universe?
 
So I guess we're in for a 40 page TCK evolution thread again. I guess its been a while since we've had one of these...

Ha, as soon as I saw the thread title I thought:
Al-Bundy-Well-Here-We-Go-Again.jpg
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,240,573
Messages
55,703,915
Members
174,904
Latest member
romanych
Back
Top