What is your definition of "microevolution" and "macroevolution"?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Wow. Well, at least they're honest about their position. I'd recommend people read that page in full. It's rather illuminating.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I just stick to the dictionary:

Macroevolution:
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. I.e. reptile to bird, fish to reptile, bacteria to Algae etc….

Microevolution:
1.evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

2.minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

I stick to the following principals:

Fact: observation of an event.
Theory: An explanation of how that event happened. A Theory is both predictive and falsifiable. To become a theory, the hypothesis must withstand scrutiny and derision of peer review. Theories can be trashed at anytime by new data.
Hypothesis: A preliminary explanation of an event that either has not been peer reviewed or rigorously tested.
Belief: Opinion with no factual underpinning.

Where have I not?


Are you doing a debating course? And using this website for practice?

I am involved because I don't like to see armchair scientists propagating falsities (or unproven theories) as proven fact. I apply this to both sides of the debate.

I have just read about 10 summaries on different research areas and I cannot find any proof of Macroevolution.

If you are familiar with every paper on the site please give us a pointer to the relevant papers? Thank you

usualy Micro Evolution is anything that has to be admitted to

Macro Evolution is anyhthing that would mean admitting to Evolution

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Science doesn't 'Prove' anything, if you knew anything about Science you would know this.

What mechanism stops lots of small changes adding up to a big one?

Science doesn't see any difference in Micro and Macro evolution, the latter is just the accumulation of the former over time.

At the end of trhe day Evolution is central to modern Biology as Plate Tectonics is central to Geology or GR is central to Physics. Without it nothing makes sense. Get over it.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Seriously, you are joking?, right!?

joking about what?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Thank you very much, antoniseb.

Now then, I would like to please request that in deferance to the board policies we limit our disscussion to science in general and astonomy and leave out biology. Specifically, I felt the topic of the Big Bang Theory was proving to be a fruitful one.

I apologize that I am unable to post more at the moment. I will be back later today.

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

How so? ID (as formulated by the Discovery Institute, and others) has nothing useful to say about cosmology, and certainly has made no predictions whatsoever.

As to the macroevolution/microevolution canard, I have one thing to say (besides all the things that are said on Talk Origins and in the NOVA program about Dover, which apparently neither JesusSaves nor Lonest@r have bothered to watch): Tiktaalik. That's all I have to say regarding biology in this thread, except to reiterate that those who still want claim that ID may have scientific merit really need to watch "Judgement Day" and really pay attention. It's an excellent program (and it is available for free on the website!), and covers all the major points very, very well.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Lonest@r wrote:

“Don't know Ben Stein's full position, as I just recently heard about it, but I did hear on an interview that he is not claiming to be right, just wants all the facts, theories, and ideas to all be equally represented.”

Some of us older dawgs recognize this for what it is; bait and switch. A few decades ago, the goal was to forbid teaching evolution (or anything that contradicted their particular beliefs). After losing that battle, the goal was ‘equal time’. Losing again, the goal became attempting to change the very definition of science. Finally, creationism was repackaged and promoted as I.D.

The problem is that I.D. is not science. This is an established fact both academically and legally. The Overton ruling constrains and defines what may be called ‘science’ and what must be called ‘religion’:

“Sec 4-c

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

Sec 4-c

“While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

Sec 4-d

“The conclusion that creation science has no scientific merit or educational value as science has legal significance in light of the Court's previous conclusion that creation science has, as one major effect, the advancement of religion. The second part of the three-pronged test for establishment reaches only those statutes as having their primary effect the advancement of religion. Secondary effects which advance religion are not constitutionally fatal. Since creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion. The Act therefore fails both the first and second portions of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

Later, the Jones ruling (the Dover case) made it final:

“Pg 132

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective.

Defendants previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext to the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment clause.

Pg 133

To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of ID Policy is the advancement of religion.

Pg 136-137

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Pg 137

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy.

Pg 138

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

The only controversy remaining is that this tattered dead horse is dragged into the public spotlight yet again.

Quick response comparing Big Bang anf ID..... it's hard to simplify into a nice intellegent chart, but I'll try, I can expand later when I get more time.....

My abbreviated version

ID
Nothing gets turned into someting by some unknown designer, life begins, and microevolution until life as we know it exists. All the details are explained via an intelligent designer...

BIG BANG
Nothing gets turned into something by unknown force (lightning, explosion, dark energy, blackhole), single/mutiple celled organisms develop, macroevolution starts creating more and more complex 'lifeforms' until life as we know it exists. Although science can be used to understand certain areas of life, no theory has been proven to show how the universe developed, basically labratory observations are used to extrapulate unproven theories....

Yes, but people can extrapulate different theories based on same evidence. Look at all the JFK conspiracy theories using science.

I am not saying they are right, just listening to both sides of the argument. that is why I said

Could we get a little clarification on what is allowed in thread? I thought that discussion of ID misconceptions and its relation to science were okay per rule 11B:

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That's not BBT. BBT is about the development of the universe.

And, that's not BBT either. You're getting into areas of biology.

Could you give your definition of "proven" in the context of a scientific argument?

The problem is that their page makes it quite clear that for them evidence takes second place to their belief. That takes their comments completely out of a scientific discussion.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Ag! No! No theory has ever been proven in the history of science, because science doesn't prove, it only disproves. "Prove," in a scientific context, translates roughly to "I don't understand how science works." Can the BBT, evolution, etc., be disproven? Sure. Plenty of ways. Can they be proven? No.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

BBT as I remember learning it was that the universe was basically one large mass, an explosion occured and fragments created the planets, moons, stars ect.. This explosion was also the reasoning as to why the universe was constantly expanding, but then we determined the it was expanding not radially, (like a theortical explosion) but elliptically..... I then came along string theory and dark matter. The biology part comes later.


Legalism at it's finest, that is my argument. Basically stating, science is defined as being......, therfore religion is not science, ID is religion, therefore ID holds no validity in science, and therefore will be ignored....

Sounds great...

Therefore silencing the opposing view...... kinda hard to make a one-sided argument....