The debate "Micro Evolution is Fact. Macroevolution is Not." was started by
April 7, 2018, 12:43 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
NeoArchaic posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 18 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Foxxhole posted 1 argument, Gorgon posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
NeoArchaic, Conservative81, chickboy1776 and 9 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, Ash, Foxxhole, Gorgon, devindel, Nayana89 and 26 visitors disagree.
Agreed all around.
Honestly, this is my favorite debate subject. Kind of sad this particular thread doesn't seem to be holding many people's attention, though...
indeed, just trying to keep the science thread going :p
more than evidence enough, evolution is the basis of all modern biology much like quantum mechanics is the basis of all modern physics. without evolution, everything we know about biology falls apart.
there is no alternative explanation to evolution. nothing else explains all the findings together. the theory of evolution is beautiful.
Ehh, fair point, I guess. Only quibble I have is that a throwback is still a mutation, but I grant it is a throwback. Of course, I think you and I both agree that it's still evidence enough to show relation between us and disparate living organisms?
if you believe God created life as is, then you believe in a flawed, imperfect god with a deceptive nature closer to the description of the devil (the great deceiver).
much like the church of medieval Europe that chose to limit god to a tiny creation centered around them instead of a grandiose universe beyond imagination, your dogma only limit god's greatness. we have created static objects for millennia, but something that improves itself on it's own is a far greater accomplishment that is still beyond our reach.
webbing isnt a mutation, it is in our genes by default. what mutated were the Genes responsible for destroying the webbing in utero.
every human fetus goes through the entire evolutionary process in utero. starting with a simple tube like a worm, to a fish with gills, to an amphibian with webbed feet. the reason for this is that our genetic code was not created from scratch, but built up from the blueprints of our simpler forebearers.
Furthermore, anatomical details lile lenvth of digits easily mutates. If Bubs the cat can have mutated extra digits, the already feathered, relatively light, energetic dinosaurs could have mutated wings.
NeoArchaic, we see hands mutate to gain webs all the time. If a mammal had hollow bones, as dinosaurs did, (which was incredibly effective at oxygenating the body, as it is in birds,) you would see all kinds of flying mammals beyond bats, sugar gliders, and gliding squirrels.
This an argument from ignorance.
if God created all animals in the same day, why do we find them in perfectly chronological order from simplest to most complex every time? why are there no mammals in the oldest layers?
I asked if a hand can become a hand with some loose skin between the fingers... as happens to a small number of people regularly as a fact. didn't ask about a wing.
if your just going to be repeating a mantra, why did you bother coming to a debate app? I'll leave you to your chanting then
oh yes, the full description of the beginnings of the universe and life explained in 10 lines, 5 of which just read "and it was good"
the bible was meant to be a guide on how to live, not how the world works. God didn't just give you the bible (a holy book that has spent several millennia in the hands of, and translated several times by, imperfect and corruptible men). he also gave you a brain so that you could see the difference between a thorough explanation, and some poetry.
And the Bible tells us God created all life at the Beginning in a 7 day period.
A hand can not become a wing.
also, what you can microevolution is just mutation. it doesn't become any kind of evolution until it goes thru natural selection and spreads throughout the species. at which point it becomes part of the species' evolution.
much like the Christian's of centuries past refusing to accept that God created an endless exspance of greatness as opposed to just their tiny insignificant world? where they fighting for god's world or their own self centered significance? did you learn from their mistake or are you just repeating them?
if you want I can switch gears and show you how if God created everything as is, he must clearly not be perfect or all powerful cause he screwed up repeatedly.
if God truly was perfect he would realize that in an imperfect world with ever changing environments the most perfect design is one that changes to accommodate to its environment. evolution is far more perfect that a static frame. why do the religious always try to limit the greatness of God in their stubborn ignorance?
I didn't say hand to wing, I said hand to hand with some webbing between the fingers.
is that possible? or will you just restate your only sentence again?
lol he just provided examples of how this can happen and you response is the equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ears and screaming " I can't hear you".
why isn't it possible?
A hand can not evolve into a wing. Biology can not endeavor in this way.
you speak in absolutes but that doesnt make it so. forgive me for taking this slow but I feel my statements will be simply dismissed if I post the whole thing together.
the bone structure is nearly identical. perhaps it is because of the same creator, but it also shows that the jump isnt that far.
is it a microevolution to develop some more empty webbing skin between the fingers? before you just say it cant happen, why don't you read up about the actual people who are born with the extra skin between our fingers.
also our embryos start with webbed digits before those cells kill themselves. so is developing some webbed fingers impossible?
Similar creations because of their surprise Creator. A hand can never become a wing.
they are not hands, they are like hands, and the only difference is thin flaps of skin and how long the digits are.
go ahead and Google an xray of a wing. you will find 1 long bone from the shoulder (exactly like our humorous). 2 bones from the elbow (like our radius and ulna. followed by a small spot with alot of bones (like our wrist), and then a bunch of long digits that coincidentally number exactly the same as the bones in our digits.
this is a tiny change. indeed besides outwardly appearances, animal life is amazingly alike. almost all forms more advanced than insects having the same head to anus with 2 front limbs and 2 back limbs configuration. only 1 animal, snakes, regressed. and even fish fit pretty well into that mlld
Wings are not hands. Hands can not be used to fly.
wings are just hands.
they have the exact same bone structure.
it isnt that big of a leap.
Creatures can not evolve wings.
why do you think God would describe the intricate details of how the world fundamentally works to a bunch of savages who were just figuring out how civilization works?
millions of years? as I said, time can scale quite quickly. millions of years is about the time something that walked on 4 legs with a tail split and became a feline as opposed to a canine. millions of years was just mammals going from small mammals to many different mammals.
something like a bird from a non bird takes hundreds of those. but then again flight is no biggie as even amongst mammals bats found other ways and even things as large as squirrels are picking it up. maybe in a few million years....
My answer is safe -_^ I know what you are trying to surmise. Microevolutions beget macroevolution. "Small changes after millions of years are all that is necessary to change a species into something new and different." It is a conclusion based on the factual micro-evolutions we observe. However this theory is impossible because of certain animals. Like a bird.
no duh -.-
each individual "microevolution" which is actually called a mutation, is observable. but that doesn't erase previous "microevolutions" now does it?
so what happens when they start adding up after countless generations? let's start with a single cell that split into 2, and then both identical cells start experiencing different microevolution across the many generations. will they not eventually look absolutely nothing alike?
and please dont say they will continue to be observable -.- that's weak.
They continue to be observable.
and what happens to these microevolution over time? do they stop? or do they keep building up?
Microevolution is observable.
and this is microevolution that happens in real time before our very eyes like in viruses, bacteria, cancer cells, and really all cells right?
Micro evolution is observable, minute biological changes in a species.
what is the distinction between the two?
Micro evolution has evidence. Macro evolution does not.
it's all about the amount of time involved
science has never used these words. it's just evolution.
there is no difference between the two.