He only thinks he does. A bit down his blog, Moran says: He thinks. That doesn't sound like a confident statement of understanding it, is it? Moran also admitted that he's not an expert on macro evolution. He's showing he's like the pot calling the kettle black! No, he didn't refute James Tour. James Tour talks about EXTRAPOLATION in claims of evidence(s) for macro evolution. And all you have to do is dig up articles that claims to be evidence for macro evolution - you'll see that legitimate science articles are peppered with assumptive terms like, "may"...."likely"....."could be"......may have been"......"possible"......etc., Moran says: Looks like Moran has problems understanding what James Tour had signed. James Tour didn't imply the ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY IS WRONG. Here's what he signed: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” He's calling for CAREFUL EXAMINATIONS of the EVIDENCE. He has doubts, and he cited EXTRAPOLATION as reason for it. How does that translate to saying the entire field of study being wrong? I stopped reading his blog right there. His opinion is a waste of time.
With a mind so closed, you will never accept any evidence. The horse can be traced back through the fossil record for millions of years.
It didn't reveal that. It assumes that! http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6689/20140116/dogs-wolves-common-ancestor-interbreeding.htm On the opposite assumption....they may not have been any wolf lineages that dogs diverged from. Unless they provide an evidence for macro evolution, it's all speculations and extrapolations. With the absence of any fossils, and from all the findings that are emerging....it's most likely, there is no macro -evolution.
James Tour, Chao Professor of Chemistry, Rice University. Real scientist in an unrelated field. Has said that he felt the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and that he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes, though does not (officially) rule it out. Does not accept Intelligent Design, though he accepts the bogus creationist distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Describes himself as a Messianic Jew. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#T
I don't think I've a closed mind. Far from it. I've given legitimate refutations of claims, and showed precisely that as James Tour had claimed, everything about macro evolution is extrapolation. As for the horse..... https://www.scienced...91210092001.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae We've already debunked that horse. I think DNA will eventually debunk macro evolution for good!
Fossils with transitional morphology are not rare. Fossils illustrating the gradual origin of humans, horses, rhinos, whales, seacows, mammals, birds, tetrapods, and various major Cambrian "phyla" have been discovered and are well-known to scientists.
Quite the opposite. The sciences, especially molecular biology have supplied powerful additional evidence and detailed confirmation. The amount of information about evolutionary history stored in the DNA and proteins of living things is virtually unlimited; scientists can reconstruct any detail of the evolutionary history of life by investing sufficient time and laboratory resources.
Try citing someone who actually studies life on Earth, you know, a biologist. I can't give evidence for Macro Evolution since I am not a biologist, but I can suggest reading the books by Gould, Dawkins, Darwin, etc... Of course, it doesn't really matter. Even if the theory of evolution was disproved today, Creationism/ID would never take its place. Ever.
There is no missing link. Nor will there ever be one. I have never claimed anyone to be a missing link. That's just plain uneducated. Anyone with enough education knows that evolution doesn't follow a single path. Hence, all the linear charts that you or I have seen was not an accurate representation of evolution, nor was it ever meant to be one. But the fossil evidence of early man like ardi and lucy, millennium man, etc clearly show our progression from an earlier state. I think you are confused. But if that wasn't enough to convince you of macro evolution, let's look at this Whales have a vestigial pelvis and leg bones that serve no purpose. These structures are evidence of evolution
2015 Genetic evidence from an ancient wolf bone discovered lying on the tundra in Siberia's Taimyr Peninsula reveals that wolves and dogs split from their common ancestor at least 27,000 years ago. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html#sthash.LvP1gQ64.dpuf
Comments like this prove your ignorsnce. We have problems finding large fossils as it is. If dinosaurs roamed the earth in large numbers then why dont we find their bones everywhere? They were everywhere weren't they? This is the sort of false logic that you are using. Millions of years could do alot of damage. It will make fossils crumble and bones turn to dust. Human bones are not "large". The fossil bones of ardi are 4 million years old and it's falling appart. We supposedly started to evolve 25 million years ago. Most bones do not become fossils. And judging by your comment, you clearly don't understand this. Fossils are formed in a very particular way. Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock. How many of our ancestors do you think died in a watery environment and got buried by mud and silt? Not many Most decayed naturally and so we have no remains. But the few remains we do have show gradual progression. Lucy and Ardi for example. Adaption takes place over few years to few hundred years. Microevolution takes place over thousands of years. Macro evolution takes place over millions of years.
I think you admit microevolution occurs (although you call it adaption). You deny macroevolution occurs. What is the biological process which halts microevolution from becoming macroevolution? If there is such a process it must be passed from one generation to the next through DNA. Please identify the genes involved. No creationist has ever answered this question, as far as I have seen. But, before you answer that question, let's see if we are in agreement in the definitions of terms. Please define microevolution. Please define macroevolution. And, one more question to see if we are on the same page concerning evolutionary theory: Do frequency changes in the alleles in the gene pool of a population accumulate? That's a yes or no question, by the way.
It can just as reasonably be asserted that we have mounds of evidence for the validity of astrology. If only you had even the faintest glimmer of understanding as to how truly you speak. Actually there's a rather more significant difference: microevolution has been observed in real time; but of course macroevolution never has, even in organisms short enough to lend themselves to such observation.
Before I address your response, let's see if we agree on how macroevolution is defined, according to the biological theory of evolution. My statement above, which is in bold, is my understanding of what macroevolution is supposed to be, at least according the relevant scientific theory. Do you agree with that? If not, please provide your understanding of what macroevolution is (or is not) according to the biological theory of evolution. Not according to what you might think it is, but according to what the biological theory of evolution says it is. Thank you.
No, that definition is worthless, given that the issue is only interesting as applied to human beings, which most evolutionists don't have sense enough to substantively differentiate from animals. No sense ruminating about whether any definition of macroevolution comports with that without a clear statement as to what precisely it says, so let's see it.
How helpful. So, you do not want to attempt to see if we can agree on what macroevolution means under the biological theory of evolution? I've already provided a definition. You call it "worthless" and run down a rabbit hole. Provide yours. Let's see if we agree. Or don't, your choice.
Doesn't matter whether I do or not... ...since you're not willing to provide a precise enunciation thereof. Which nobody can check against "the biological theory of evolution", so even on strictly textual grounds it's worthless.
Fine, we can just leave it at that. No agreed definition for macroevolution. No offer of a definition from you, because you believe it can't be defined within the biological theory of evolution because you believe there is no evidence for it. Of course, you would have to have a definition of "macroevolution" first before you could make that claim. Which you don't. Funny how you used the term above pretending you had a meaning for it. But you didn't. We're done playing whack-a-mole.
This is because he is an IDIOT!! It is NOT Macro evolution!!! It is QUANTUM EVOLUTION. And it connects the Quantum World to the Macro Universe. AA
If you accept microevolution, you necessarily accept macroevolution, since all it is is the sum of a whole bunch of microevolutionary steps.
Exactly. Quantum Evolution is the process by which our Universal Space-Time dimensionality dictates natural physical laws that cause Quantum Particle/Wave Forms to continue to arrange themselves into more and more complexity. Stellar Fusion is one of these mechanisms. AA
Well, of course there would be numerous fossils of the same family, the change that happen within a group. The descendant is clearly the same type as the ancestor. That's micro evolution. I'm talking about macro evolution - transitional fossils that transcends the boundaries of a single species. - - - Updated - - - Cite your source.
We found that every single life form on Earth we have mapped the Genome of has a one in the same Viral DNA encoding. While every species has millions of different viral DNA encodings only one Viral DNA encoding exists in all species of life on Earth. This is 100% Proof Positive that all life on Earth evolved from an original single celled life form. AA
You want a biologist? Here's Richard Lumsden. http://factsandfaith.com/richard-lu...niversity-biology-professor-turned-christian/ [video=youtube;1FBEUyyAX1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FBEUyyAX1Y[/video]
All about macro evolution is assumption and extrapolation! DNA is debunking - one after another - what evolutionists had claimed as "evidence!" By now, if there is any evidence to be found, they should've found ONE (at the very least). As for the whale..... http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-the-whale-pelvis-a-vestige-of-evolution Just assumption or extrapolation.
