Stellar Fusion is a process of Macro Evolution. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. AA
Well? Quantum evolution is just a hypothesis! I backed it up! Which part of this is hard to understand? That supports the claim of James Tour, doesn't it? Macroevolution is only made up of assumptions and extrapolation. And, hypotheses.
It's not hypothetical. It is a part of every natural physical law and process existing. Fusion, Fission, Chemical Reaction are all processes of Quantum Evolution as well as Macro Evolution. When stellar fusion turns Hydrogen into Helium that is Macro Evolution. AA
Stellar fusion my foot! You don't know what you're talking about! Give me evidence that we all came from the same ancestor! That's the issue! You're not suggesting....stars are our ancestors, are you?
LOL! Why would you bother to ask for evidence why you ignore and deny all the evidence ever provided to you in this and countless other threads? What's the point?
I'll have to ignore for now, Alpha....until you can come up with an evidence for macroevolution. - - - Updated - - - Which so-called evidence is that? Be specific.
I didn't just give you evidence. I gave you 100% PROOF POSITIVE. The Virus existed before life and a Virus is NOT ALIVE although it does have DNA. A living cell will come across a Virus which is a non-living long chain molecule and take it in as the cell mistakes the virus as food or O2. The Virus then reprograms the living cells genome by encoding it's Viral DNA into that genome and the cell begins to use it's own material to create many viruses until so many exist within the cell the cellular membrane ruptures and explodes and this helps spread the virus. Every now and then a virus will be taken in to a cell in the process of splitting via mitosis and one half of the cell survives the virus and the other does not but both have their genomes encoded with viral DNA. Now there are millions of different viral DNA encodings in the genomes off all different forms of life on Earth. BUT ONLY ONE VIRAL DNA ENCODING IS THE SAME IN ALL LIFE FORMS GENOMES!!! The ONLY way this is possible is if all life evolved from an original single celled life form. It is 100% PROOF POSITIVE. AA
Macroevolution takes time. Its occurrence is logically and rationally inferred from several data points. Mountains take a long time to form from sea level to, say, 15,000 feet above sea level. Numerous relevant data points are collected which lead to a simple, rational and highly-probable conclusion that the mountains formed over a long time due to plate tectonics. A wagon train leaves Saint Louis in 1855 heading west. It is observed only two more time. Once in Colorado and again in Oregon City, Oregon. A rational thinker will conclude that the wagon train travelled each mile and every step between those two points, even though they don;t have sufficient evidence to conclude which exact path was taken. Now, let me turn to an example of macroevolution under the biological theory of evolution - the whale. The tentative conclusion, based on the following empirical evidence, is that whales evolved from a land mammal: 1. A whale's spine flexes up and down to swim, not side to side like fish. A mammalian spine, like other mammals, flexes most powerfully and with most leeway up and down. 2. Whales bear live young (mammalian trait). 3. Whales nurse milk from mammary glands. (mammalian trait). 4. Whale fetuses acquire hair at one point in their development, then drop it. 5. Whales have a hip-like structure. 6. Whales are seen with remnants of hind limbs. 7. Whales have five finger bones in their fins instead of the cartilage structures endemic to fish. Most mammals have this too. This is evidence of macroevolution. It's not conclusive, nor dispositive. Nevertheless, any rational thinker should agree that it is evidence which supports a conclusion that whales evolved from land mammals. Why is this stuff so hard for you young Earth creationists to understand? Is it because it conflicts with your childhood religious indoctrination or past or current peer pressure to conform to infantile, obsolete and disproven religious-sourced woo woo? Get real.
Credit: Glenn Anderson Rather than quibble over the arbitrary distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, I'm going to try to address the apparent spirit of the question. By macroevolution I'm going to assume the questioner is referring to common ancestry, the idea that all living things are related via shared ancestors. TL;DR: absolutely, so much so that scientists don't doubt it. But I suppose you want more details. To begin with, we need a framework by which we can judge evidence to see if it supports a proposition. Otherwise, I can just go around claiming that dogs support my proposition that candy is good for you. See, it must be true. For these purposes we will use the notion that the proposition must be able to make accurate predictions about the natural world, and we will judge the evidence against these predictions. If the evidence we find is consistent with the predictions that are made, then we will judge it supportive. And if it is is inconsistent, then it will be judged against the proposition. Build up enough contrary evidence, and soon your proposition doesn't look very good. Build up enough supporting evidence, and you will soon find other people taking notice and adding their own support. Not just any old predictions, either, but predictions that are nontrivial, predictions that make bold claims, and predictions that could be shown false. And these predictions must be necessary consequences from the proposition being made, they can't just be arbitrary statements. And in this context, our proposition is the hypotheses that all species are related via shared ancestry. And this methodological framework I'm using is more or less the Hypothetico-deductive method of science. So, lets derive a prediction from the concept of common ancestry, and see how it can be tested. Any discussion of common ancestry needs to delve into taxonomy, since this is how we reconstruct species' relationships. It all started with Carl Linnaeus, who put together one of the first, really useful systems for classifying species in 1735 with the publication of Systema Naturae. In this he organized species into a structure known as a Nested Hierarchy. This is an organization of objects, in this case, species, such that you get groups within groups within groups. Much like the files and folders on a hard drive. The criteria used to form these groups was a set of characteristics that all members shared. For instance, all vertebrates have a back bone, all mammals were vertebrates which produce milk, etc.. Also, interestingly, no species belonged to more than a single branch in the resulting tree structure. Even though superficially a whale might look a bit like a fish, based on the characteristics that would define fish, they would not be placed there. Okay, so what? Well, here is where common ancestry comes in. While Linnaeus may have had an interesting observation, it is common ancestry that provides an explanation. The traits whereby species are classified, were inherited from an ancestor in which the trait first evolved. All mammals produce milk, because they inherited milk production from a common ancestor. And we can use this to deduce some necessary consequences: predictions, from the hypothesis of common ancestry. For one, we can conclude that there is, in fact, a single, true taxonomy for life, one that reflects the actual lines of descent. And if that is true, then we should find that all attempts to reconstruct and refine this taxonomy, regardless of the dataset being used, the methods, or the scientists doing it, should converge on the true taxonomy of living things. There are a lot of different types of data that can be analyzed trying to find a tree structure, we can use Morphology, or Genetics or even the structure of protein catalysts. Today, the method to detect tree structures in this sort of data is called Cladistics. It is a set of statistical and algorithmic methods for deriving trees from a matrix of character traits. So, for the purposes of this example, I'm going to use cytochrome c, I'll be quoting from this excellent essay: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Here is the Figure 1 referenced in the following quote: So, how risky was that prediction? If the hypothesis of common ancestry was false, It basically had a 1 in 10^38 chance of being correct. So, its confirmation is a very strong bit of evidence supporting common ancestry. Now, this is just one small confirmation, of one particular prediction of common ancestry. If you read the rest of that excellent essay (The Scientific Case for Common Descent) you will find many, many more. From the the transitional fossil record, to atavisms, to shared endogenous retroviruses. Common ancestry is the central, unifying paradigm of biology. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Scientists don't accept something as profound and central as common ancestry without a great deal of support. And over the last 150+ years, evolution has withstood a heck of a lot of testing and scrutiny and criticism. And has come out the stronger for it. Is there any scientific evidence for macroevolution? F@ck yeah! Evolution is the basis for modern biology. The idea of common ancestry
On this you are quite wrong. Hiding you head in the sand and pretending the evidence does not exist does not equate with lack of evidence. You have stated a scientific hypothesis. What experimental protocol and methodology would you put in place to test this hypothesis? Of course, that "something" (your word) which stops microevolution from becoming macroevolution must be carried from one generation to the next in the gamete DNA. It would need to be able to count and keep a record of the number of changes to the genome over those generations and pass that information on from parent to offspring, again and again. And, of course, once the amount of change reached some limit, the subsequent gametes would be instructed to not allow for any mutations or other change in the genome, thereby having power over certain laws of chemistry and physics. Yeah, you have a great hypothesis. Show us how it works in reality. Just not in any way you can demonstrate. So your ICR masters so claim. They lie.
Fallen pretty much says it all. This is the argument that no young-earth creationist can defeat. The frustrating thing is, you can learn to confirm evolutionary predictions all on your own if you really want to test them. You can go to a website that uses BLAST a program for comparing biomolecular data. There, you can plug in a DNA sequence or particular protein, and find closest matches to other organisms. Again and again, you will find that an evolutionary pattern emerges. For example, if you go to this link, and click the wrench icon to BLAST the human LDH protein alpha chain, you’ll see that the closest matches are the gorilla, gibbon, orangutan, and chimp LDH protein alpha chains. Just what evolution predicted! Likewise with the African Crocodile hemoglobin subunit beta. You can see that the closest matches are with other crocodilians, but after that, the runners-up are birds. This is unsurprising, because crocodilians and birds are the only surviving archosaurs. From a YEC perspective, there is no reason whatsoever to expect such a close similarity between birds and crocodiles, but evolution predicts it with ease. A lot of YEC's miss the point entirely, saying similar designs are found because of a common creator. That would only explain random similarity though- mammaries on a snake. Feathers on a shark. Stuff like that. What it doesn't explain is the incredibly predictable and precise *pattern* of similarity.
While this does appear to not qualify as a Appeal to Authority fallacy, there is almost nothing on Google about this man except on creationist sites. But even if we assume this whole thing it true, still means nothing. Dr Richard Lumsden is only one of the 2% of scientists who believe in creationism. And I reiterate, none of this matters because creationism is not a scientific theory and will NEVER be accepted as such. Just because we may not know how life started does NOT mean that God did it.
Sure, why not? https://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html A fetus is an example of macro evolution at work. Our DNA quite literally takes us through each of the stages that humanity has evolved from over time. From fish to reptiles to mammals and ultimately to our own human species. The images in the link demonstrate that there is no visible difference in those embryos because we all evolved from the same common ancestor. Some more in depth material on the common fetal development processes. http://www.britannica.com/science/animal-development/Reptiles-birds-and-mammals
Here are the refutations to your claims: - See more at: http://www.space.com/22875-alien-life-claim-space-microbes.html#sthash.PdfZi5rC.dpuf Horizontal gene transfer is based on assumption or extrapolation. See your source quote below. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...n-infiltrated/ https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...n-infiltrated/ See? Assumptions and extrapolations.
It's curious to note that your source above contains this statement: It could be because embryos are designed that way! Humans share 95% DNA with chimps! That's not evidence for macroevolution! It could also be used as an argument for Intelligent Design! Similarity could just as easily be explained as the result of a common Creator. Human designers often reuse same features and elements, although they make alterations or modifications. Why can't the Intelligent Designer do the same thing? Since we all live in the same world.....it should be expected for us to have similarities in DNA since we have similar needs. Wouldn't it be quite surprising if every living thing had completely different sequences for each protein—especially ones that carried out the same function? Having highly similar functionality and physiological needs would be expected to have a degree of DNA similarity!
So that's what evolutionists love to say. But it doesn't change the fact that so far.....there is no evidence for it. In fact, what supposedly evidence(s) they claim for macroevolution, are getting debunked instead of proven!
Here's the refutation for that 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp https://trueorigin.org/theobald1b.php
Post #85 completely destroys your whole argument as well as the fact that whales have femurs. You do know that everyone sees you ducking and dodging. I wouldn't be surprised if your credibility in making your argument is completely trashed.
You seen to be ignoring a basic fact. Thus microscopic titanium sphere came from outer space. We know this to be a fact because it left an impact crater. I know that you are quite challenged when it comes to this kind of stuff, so let me explain. The fact that it left an impact crater means that it came from beyond our atmosphere. That's outer space. In case you didn't know. Can't be too careful with people's ignorance now-a-days. That means that it's extraterrestrial in origin. No scientists have ever seen anything like it so it's alien to them. Extraterrestrial - or from outside the earth or its atmosphere Alien - not familiar or like other things you have known : different from what you are used to You have not proven anything but the fact that you can't understand english. And science.
Read my response to that (#92).....and check out the RED-highlighted terms! They're all assumptive terms!
