[004]
BlueChameleon
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view.\\\" Well, some people see through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn\\\'t make their sight any better.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven, and tell you why, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it wasn\\\'t what you thought it was.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven, and tell you why, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it wasn\\\'t what you thought it was.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view.\\\" Well, I see through my plain eyes and others see through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn\\\'t make their sight any better.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it wasn\\\'t what you thought it was.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it wasn\\\'t what you thought it was.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view.\\\" Well, I see through my plain eyes and others see through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn\\\'t make their sight any better.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it ain\\\'t what you thought it was.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley. The last one in particular tackles the controversy of macroevolution, and I think you\\\'ll find it ain\\\'t what you thought it was.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"I see through a Christian Creationist view and others see it through an evolutionary naturalistic view.\\\" Well, I see through my plain eyes and others see through rose-tinted glasses, but that doesn\\\'t make their sight any better.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley.
\\\"I can say that how has macroevolution been proven anyway\\\". Yes, you can. And I can say that macroevolution has been proven by the comparisons of DNA sequences of different species, which align very neatly with anatomical and palaeontological evidence which suggests that one species can be more related to a second species than to a third species, hence a family tree of lineages of species which is pretty solid for animals and plants.
I can say that it is possible for one species to fade into another in the same way that, say, ring species like Herring Gulls and Black-Backed Gulls do around the Arctic Circle, or that certain Californian salamanders do, and I can say that the evidence for ring species in time rather than in space is provided by, for example, the long list of hominid fossils that trace the evolutionary blooms from \\\'\\\'Ardipithecus ramidus\\\'\\\' to \\\'\\\'Homo hiedelbergensis\\\'\\\', two distinctly different \\\'\\\'genera\\\'\\\'.
I can also say that the radiometric dating techniques used to date such fossils have a reasonable degree of accuracy depending on how far back you want to go, can be cross-referenced, and indeed can be compared with the distinctly layered rock formations in places like eastern England, the Grand Canyon, the Burgess Shales and the Ediacaran hills of Australia, to name a few, and that it all fits with the \\\"theory of macroevolution\\\".
I can also say that the controversy rests not on whether or not it is true, but rather on whether or not macroevolution uses only the same mechanisms as microevolution or has its own distinct mechanisms as well. I can also say that \\\"new info\\\" is created by the mutations of the bases of DNA, caused by mutagens and/or exposure to radiation, largely but not exclusively as if you were changing a 0 to a 1 in computer programming by accidentally making a mistake or typing error when copying it out at reproduction (don\\\'t extend the metaphor too much), which, done once, doesn\\\'t give much but done several times could lead to \\\"new info\\\".
I can also say that a lot of mutations can result in death before reproduction, but that this would not be the problem. The problem would be enough good mutations accumulating to be viable for natural selection, which, given that living things aren\\\'t always clones of their parents, leads to variability among offspring and unequal chances of some surviving. This means that we have both an additive and a subtractive element to microevolution, which by its very nature must become more and more extreme the longer it is run, and since megafauna alone has had at least half a billion years to do this, I think it would be an understatement to say that life has had \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' much time to do it in.
I can also say that to propose the opposite - that evolution goes up to the species level and then stops, going no higher - would be to suggest that a mechanism must be introduced to stop the process, and I can also say that no such mechanism has yet been found (assuming it is there to find). I can also say that, given the applicability of most of what Darwin wrote, your statement that \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some sound ideas but alot of it might not be right\\\" should be inverted to \\\"Darwin\\\'s theory it had some incomplete ideas but alot of it is, as far as we can tell, right\\\", given that his chapters on natural selection, geological evidence, theoretical problems with his theory, and artificial selection (not a complete list) contain ideas that still haven\\\'t been disproved.
I can also say that I too am grateful for what technology and science brings, though I cannot say that \\\"I believe God created us to be smart creatures who strive to protect,nurture,and have dominian over the planet\\\" because if I did then I would ask myself why exactly I believed humans were created when the Earth itself says they evolved, and from where exactly did I get the idea of God?
I could say all that, but I\\\'m not sure a Discussion post by some Anonymous carries much weight, so might I recommend some literature to you instead? Try \\\'\\\'The Blind Watchmaker\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'The Greatest Show On Earth\\\'\\\' by R. Dawkins, \\\'\\\'Why Evolution Is True\\\'\\\' by J. Coyne and \\\'\\\'The Problems Of Evolution\\\'\\\' by M. Ridley.
