Do you believe in macroevolution?

[redlittlejim]

Evidence for Evolution

• Long before the true age of rock strata were known, the relative age of the earth's rocks was determined from the principle of superposition – younger rocks are formed on top of older rocks. Based on the fossils in sedimentary rocks, the geological time scale split rocks up into epochs, periods, eras and eons. The fossils show a distinct pattern of increasing complexity and a movement from water to land. Over 90% of what is fossilised no longer exists today. There are lots of gaps in the fossil record when it comes to looking at specific organisms. However, there are some clear sequences, none better that the ancestry of the horse. From a two foot high mammal to the full sized horse of today, each stage is clearly chronicled in the fossil record.
• The existence of vestigial organs is not explained by direct creationism. Humans have an appendix which would be a caecum if we were herbivores. Snakes and legless lizards still have the limb girdle bones, both pectoral and pelvic. They also have the remnants of hind limbs forming flaps
• Common DNA between closely related organism e.g. human and chimpanzee
• Common structures e.g. the route taken by the vas deferens in all mammals.
• Homologous structures e.g. the wing of a bat, flipper of a whale and arm of a human are all basic pentadactyl limbs

Are you telling me that you can pick random animals that are similar out of the millions out there and it means they all evolved from the one or the other

 

[D3pro]

Does it matter who is right and who is wrong? Your all going to die the same way bahahahahahahaha

 

[CrystalMoon]

I was going to post my opinion here earlier today but decided not to as I am in awe of all the Brainiacs lol and figured I would just cum across as unedumacated..... Then me being me always I need to stick my 2 sense worth in lol.... I do believe in macro evolution(as much or as little as I know about it) to me it seems logical(mind you I am not one of the most logical of people lol) Ohhh please be gentle with me oh Brainiacs of the forum(I "likes" you all)

 

[Bluetongue1]

Are you telling me that you can pick random animals that are similar out of the millions out there and it means they all evolved from the one or the other

There is nothing random about what was chosen. These are animals with a common evolutionary linage, such as mammals. Whether it is a mammal that walks upright or swings through he trees or is aquatic and swims or flies, the same basic bone structure is present in the limbs of each. Yet compare a whale or dolphin fin or a seal's flipper to a bony fish or shark fin - same use but entirely separate structure. If you were creating an aquatic animal, why give it the same internal limb structure as something that climbs tree or runs on all fours and totally different to all the other bony skeleton aquatic creatures. The common internal structures indicate a common lineage at some stage.

Blue

 

[redlittlejim]

Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"

 

[Klaery]

Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"

Oh dear. What you say is far off base so I won't even address it..

You do understand though that attempting to pick apart one theory means nothing for another theory. To be productive you need to provide evidence of said other theory.

 

[snakerelocation]

This assertion of relying on Darwins "speculation" is wrong. We have since built on his original theory with mountains of supporting evidence. DNA evidence alone is over whelming and DNA was unknown in Darwins time.




I think its ideal to only believe in factual evidence, whats the alternative believing in false evidence or concepts that have zero evidence (like creationism)?

What exactly is it that is far from believable, are you referring to speciation ?



No a human does not come into existence from nothing.

and yes, the black is the new white, and fords are better than holdens, and also elapids are better than pythons.......
go on, contradict just for the sake of it....... you seem to miss the important points, and typically focus on sumthing you can argue with. Grow up

 

[redlittlejim]

i like to think hybrids are going to be the next GREAT THING in evolution

 

[Australis]

and yes, the black is the new white, and fords are better than holdens, and also elapids are better than pythons.......
go on, contradict just for the sake of it....... you seem to miss the important points, and typically focus on sumthing you can argue with. Grow up

Feel free to clarify any important point i missed. Im sorry if pointing out the short comings of your hollow argument was hurtful

 

[snakerelocation]

Feel free to clarify any important point i missed. Im sorry if pointing out the short comings of your hollow argument was hurtful

the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.

 

[Klaery]

the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.

The dna evidence seems pretty accurate and conclusive to me and most anyone else that looks at it.

Apart from that I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Are you saying that evolution is so unbelievable that it cant be true? Apart from saying I don't agree that to be the case I will leave that there. But a question for you is don't the other options seem even less unbelievable?

As a side Homo sapiens are far from perfect.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Or there just isnt millions of bone structures to fit millions of species so chances are some will match. then just pick the ones that do and say "WaLa Evolution"

We are talking 3 bones structures – that found in all Cartilaginous Fish (sharks and rays), that found in all Bony Fish and that found in Mammals. Aquatic mammals breath by lungs, not gills; they are endotherms, not ectotherms; they have a four chambered heart not two chambered; they have a sealed circulatory system, not an open system; they produce milk and suckle their young; they are covered with skin that has some hair, not slimy scales; the list does go on. Why do these aquatic animals have so much more in common with land based mammals than with other aquatic vertebrates?

A theory is that which provides the best explanation of all the available facts. I am simply explaining why I believe in the theory of evolution.

I am not actively trying to discredit the theory of creationism, but when you challenged the supporting evidence for evolution it left me with little choice but to highlight some illogical aspects of nature under that theory.

Blue.

 

[waruikazi]

the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.

What about the retarded ones?

 

[snakerelocation]

What about the retarded ones?

thank you waruikazi, i rest my case, as for evolution- everything has to have an alpha and omega.

 

[waruikazi]

thank you waruikazi, i rest my case, as for evolution- everything has to have an alpha and omega.

Hahaha, best come back evah!

 

[Wrightpython]

The dna evidence seems pretty accurate and conclusive to me and most anyone else that looks at it.

Apart from that I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Are you saying that evolution is so unbelievable that it cant be true? Apart from saying I don't agree that to be the case I will leave that there. But a question for you is don't the other options seem even less unbelievable?

As a side Homo sapiens are far from perfect.

You wrote Homo lmfho

 

[JungleManSam]

Hot cross buns slightly warmed with a dollop of butter goes down a nice morning tea snack.

 

[Surroundx]

What defines a species? That is not a simple question to answer and is debated all the time in the science world. A widely accepted theory is that a species consists of living things that can breed together and produce fertile offspring. Microevolution is easy to prove as you can see it with your own eyes and measure it with genetic analyses. The occurrence of macroevolution depends on how you address the definition of a species.

It's not a simple question to answer because it's arbitrary. If all individuals of all "species" which had ever lived (and do live) on Earth were lined up next to each other then what we would see is a continuum of such slight gradations that making distinctions would be arbitrary.

Micro and macroevolution do not necessarily go hand in hand. How long would it take for a species to become distinct from it's predecessor? How would we measure that the species is actually distint and not just a continuation of it's former self? I am not saying that macroevolution isn't possible, just asking how you would define it.

I can't speak for any scientist, let alone all of them. But from what I have read, at least a number of them consider macroevolution to simply be the temporal extrapolation of microevolution, though I suspect the percentage is quite high. And I agree.

Biological evolution is not simple change and it involves a lot more than then changes in the frequency of an allele.

Evolution, at base, is simply any net change in the frequency of alleles. You are confusing the mechanisms which cause the net change, with evolution.

In biology evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species.

Biological evolution is much more than the production of new species. If it isn't, then what is the production of subspecies and races? Speciation is only a small part of Darwinian evolution, Blue.

 

[miss_mosher]

Hot cross buns slightly warmed with a dollop of butter goes down a nice morning tea snack.

Has to chic chip hot cross buns though *drools*

 

[Jamesss]

the point that something so perfect as a child happens in only 40 weeks give or take, and that fact that evolution has to happen so slowly, if a fetus progressed at a speed of the evolution process, then it would be dead before it was even born.
Dna evidence- we all know that its not 100% accurate.

...WOW! are you legitimately that dumb, or are you just trolling? I reeeeeally hope this is a troll, but I'll act like it isn't.
How can you try to draw a comparison between pregnancy/formation of a person...and evolution? How does that even seem logical in your head?
Evolution is the random mutations in each generation stacking on top of each other to form a large change over a long period of time...pregnancy is the creation of ONE generation...herpa derpa derp.