You do not even understand at what level Micro ends and Macro Begins. And you really don't understand that Micro means QUANTUM as far as what we are talking about. Anything at the Atomic Level and up is MACRO. AA
UGHHH!!! You did not even bother to read, learn and understand what I posted to you. WE KNOW AS A 100% PROVEN FACT.....all Elements up to IRON are generated by SOLAR FUSION in the furnaces of stars. We also know AS A 100% PROVEN FACT....that all HEAVIER ELEMENTS from IRON UP.....are Generated by SUPERNOVA. Now you REALLY do not know what you are talking about as far as this topic. AA
Or you could say it this way: Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. . At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced. Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html If indeed macro-evolution did not produce the variety of life today, then one would expect to find unique forms of life independent of each other all the time. The fact that no one has ever found a unique form of life that did not share basic characteristics with every other form of life is a clear indication that all life shared a common origin. If you dispute this claim then you are saying that all life mysteriously used the same mechanisms independently. That is highly improbable given the millions of species. It is highly more likely that all life originated from a single instance or multiple variations on a form that started the chain of events leading to life as we know it.
How is it possible that some members are so ignorant to reality? And even when they are shown irrefutable evidence they still ignore it as well. AA
Yes, and you claim above that there is some biological process (somewhere in the genes...your words) that limits genetic change so that MACRO EVOLUTION (I thought I'd use ALL CAPS just like you did) cannot occur. Your assertion is just that, a mere assertion. No evidence, no analysis, no research. Just bald assertion. No doubt you merely assert because you are (i) need to maintain your sky fairy and related religious dogma fantasies and (ii) you are intellectually lazy. That's a powerful combination. Too bad for you.
It's not even an assumption....it's lunacy. You know if there is something I don't know I am HAPPY if another member teaches me about it. As I would rather be proven wrong and then straightened out as far as the facts then continue to go around spouting ignorance. AA
Guess I shouldn't be surprised that your own conceits count for evidence in what passes for your mind.
Yeah....I guess your right. The thing is our Universe is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. Our Universe is FINITE. But the Multiverse is not. Some of these members have so limited an understanding of reality I actually feel sorry for them. Because the REALITY....is more amazing than they will ever understand. AA
This is true about climate science too. I stick to true experts and ignore the politicians and those who believe in politicians. Macroevolution has many facets. Some things are such a mystery that the specialist scientists do not understand this. Let me give you one example. The human Some who know a lot about chromosomes allege all humans came out of Africa and some claim the Ape is the father of humans. This does not explain the neanderthal. It does not explain the various colors of humans. Even the theory black turned to white due to climate seems incorrect. Based on the fact that Africa spans many climate zones and were climate a factor, whites would be native of Africa as would Asians. No, macroevolution is really difficult.
Bobby...I hate to tell you but Human's are APES. The family Hominidae, known collectively as the great apes, includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and HUMANS..........;[1][2][3][4] alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo) LINK....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape AA
BTW, I stumbled onto a great series on PBS last night by Hawking called Genius. If you can see it, do it. He covered origins last night in one episode, very interesting stuff. He finds three regular people (the two groups I saw were of above average intelligence) and then puts them through some tests to see if they can find the answers themselves to key physics questions. His careful progression through the deep space photo to the red shift to the expansion of space was friggin brilliant, check it out.
I get a kick out of the argument from authority. When I do it, I get called out. When you do it, crickets chirp. Look, taken to the bone, and there is no other possibility, the grandfather of life is bacteria. But this is based on supposition. Still using your theory, it has to be. Wonder why the left in general never postulates that human life has been deposited on earth by, well ... aliens from space? But you go ahead and see yourself as some sort of Ape. It is not up to me to mind what you believe.
How did the star get to exist? Anyway....it's still assumption. It's a hypothesis. A lot of things didn't make "sense" ....until science proved otherwise. Who would've thought the earth isn't flat, but is a sphere?
If it was deposited by aliens from space, then it was clearly in a unicellular form. The logic really isn't that hard to follow, is it? You have all these diverse microbes, and then you have multicellular organisms, which are made up of cells resembling just one branch of those diverse microbes: eukaryotes. Kind of like how you have lots of romance languages descended from just one branch (latin) of ancient Italic languages. People often mistake appeals to expertise for appeals to authority. The difference is that expertise are demonstrable. In school, did you study with the kid who failed the last test?
My main concern is that the public is led by the nose. The students are led by the nose. The ridicule coming from the left threatens thinking humans. It is as if we are told science figured this out so shut the f up and just become a believer. All holes in the theory are papered over by left wingers in general. Then you have abiogenesis to explain.
what is the difference between micro and macro evolution? what is the process which stops micro from turning into macro?
How do you know that it would've been in a cellular form? How many space aliens have they studied? See? You're making assumption!
Because unicellular life is the most diverse and basal life on earth. See my analogy. As I said, this logic applies to linguistics as well as biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_(phylogenetics)
The alternative to "shutting up" is to become well informed. The problem arises when someone is questioning science, but can't open their mouth without revealing their unfamiliarity with the subject. That shows that you are questioning prematurely. There's a video on youtube that I think sums up this way of thinking well. Yes, question science, but start by searching for things you don't know. *Then* you can move on to disagreeing. The downside is that if you're not a scientist, there are absolutely things you don't know. Also, being informed enough to legitimately question scientific opinions is often pretty tough going. Especially for something as entrenched as evolution. More work than most are willing to do, frankly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ
The most plausible explanation at this point is the action of gravity compacting debris from the big bang until the gasses created fusion, but as you indicated this is unproven. It does however have verifiable data behind it and has been tested. The creation by unseen entity hypothesis cannot be tested at all and has been dismissed by science because of it. At a minimum we absolutely know stars exists and can see them.
