That's what world-famous chemist, James Tour declared! Here's an excerpt from his lengthy article that really give an insider's account of what's going on in the science community. http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/ - - - Updated - - - Who is James Tour? http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/
In that lengthy article, he also discussed the politics of macro-evolution. http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/
For those interested, here's the movie which James Tour refers to, "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed." [video=youtube;V5EPymcWp-g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g[/video]
The guy is a chemist. When he then writes that he does not know squat about the subject then why would his opinion matter? http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/
That's the beauty of science, there are a very many fields of expertise inhabited by many thousands who devote their lives to understanding little chunks of our reality. In those little chunks they are very competent and we listen to what they offer....occasionally they feel the need to step into a chunk they do not specialize in. It is wise at that point to refer to the scientists who deal with that chunk instead of the one who does not. The scientist who study Macro Evolution have a pretty good understanding of it, and have published the data a lay person needs to grasp the concept. Though even they do not claim to understand it all (because they cannot manipulate time), the fundamentals are there to review. The issue people have with it is simply the lack of "Pictures" of it happening which is impossible. This is often used as a reason to support things outside of science that have absolutely no evidence and are fable.
Micro evolution is this It takes thousands or hundreds of years. Macro evolution is this stretched over millions of years. Sahara used to be a tropical rainforest. Then climate change happened. Sahara slowly lost its trees and turned into a grassland. But no one had a lawn mower. So the grass was very high So primates in the region had to stand up to to look above the grass in search of potential predators or prey. Over thousands of years of doing this, they began to learn how to walk. And their bodies adapted as a result of this. Monkeys could use tools. We see it in nature today. They learned by observation that if there was a fire, other animals and predators would stay away from it. So they began used fire to ward off scavengers and predators. Sometime they discovered that if they throw their food on the fire, it will taste better. Not only that, but the meat lasts longer. So they started to cook their meat. Before, their bodies had to expand much of its energy just to digest the foods. With fire, their bodies had to work less to process the now cooked food. This means that there was more energy in their body to expand the things that they needed and started to use more. Their brain. So what happened was their brain expanded as a result of this. As their brains expanded over thousands and thousands of years, they began to use tools more complex tools Ardi is 4 million years old. That's a long time to evolve. By this time Sahara was turning into an inhospitable desert so prehistoric man left to settle other more habitable regions. So have I explained macro evolution for you? How an ape can turn into a man?
The most you can say about scientists outside of their field is that they may be better than the general public on average, in sort of a vague correlation. Often, when it comes to opinions of scientific issues, scientists that don't specialize in a field relevant to that issue will fall somewhere between the general public and true experts in their opinions. In large part, this is simply because they are more likely to defer to those who are experts in that field just as they expect others to do with them. They also understand how science works better than the general public, which means they know how to find out what the true consensus is, or if there is one. These are only general tendencies though, and there is no guarantee that individual scientists will have this level of awareness on an issue, even if they do have expertise in a relevant area. If they don't, then their level of awareness is even less certain. We have mounds of evidence for macro-evolution, whether you understand it or not. Of course, you can make a philosophical argument that nothing is ever 100% understood. You can always follow an explanation with another "why?" or "how?", and continue in that vein indefinitely. For most practical purposes though, total understanding is not necessary.
That movie is highly edited garbage. Tour, however is the real thing. One of the few actual scientists who genuinely don't understand evolution. Here's someone who does, taking his claims apart. http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the quantity of accumulated changes in the gene pool and those quantities are correlated with different amounts of elapsed time. As to the chemistry involved, genetic scientists are identifying the actual chemical changes which have occurred in the DNA and are building databases of that information, although this branch of science is quite young.
Scientist say that tiny "alien" microbes rain to earth from space and it cause mutation in our own DNA today. These mutations could be beneficial, speeding up evolution. Or these mutations could be bad. At which point humans who has that faulty mutations would die off. Not only do space microbes can cause mutations in humans and other animals, space microbes are stronger too So evolution is a combination of ●adaptation ●natural selection ●mutation cause by glitch in DNA code. ●Mutations cause by terrestrial bacteria causing glitch in dna code. ●Mutations cause by space microbes (which is 3 times as strong as the bacteria on earth) causing glitches in DNA
You are right that there is no argument for micro-evolution. The term macro-evolution is used to describe all those years of micro-evolution taken place.
Could you point me to some actual peer reviewed and published research supporting this claim of yours. Thank you.
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=144828 The mysterious metal [titanium] sphere has been photographed spewing out a biological substance, which scientists believe could be genetic material. It was discovered by a team of researchers at the University of Sheffield and the University of Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology. While several theories on the tiny ball’s origins have been volunteered, the most intriguing sound like pure science fiction. They include the idea it was sent here by aliens with the intention of propagating life on earth, a scientific theory known as “directed panspermia.” Notable scientists to advocate this idea include astrophysicist Carl Sagan and Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of DNA. The abstract of their manuscript states: Professor Milton Wainwright, who led the team, described the orb as “a ball about the width of a human hair, which has filamentous life on the outside and a gooey biological material oozing from its center.” Speaking to the Daily Express, Wainwright said: “We were stunned when X-ray analysis showed that the sphere is made up mainly of titanium, with a trace of vanadium.” “One theory is it was sent to earth by some unknown civilization in order to continue seeding the planet with life.” “Unless of course we can find details of the civilization that is supposed to have sent it in this respect it is probably an unprovable theory,” he added. Mysterious metal ball. Credit: University of Buckingham Scientists discovered the perplexing orb when they sent balloons 27 kilometers into the atmosphere to collect dust and particle matter from space. Wainwright led the research project with a view to proving that microscopic life organisms are continually arriving from space. He said the metal ball left a tiny impact when it struck the balloon. READ MORE:Mars mystery: Enormous plumes detected erupting on Red Planet “On hitting the stratosphere sampler the sphere made an impact crater, a minute version of the huge impact crater on earth caused by the asteroid said to have killed off the dinosaurs.” “This impact crater proves that the sphere was incoming to earth from space, an organism coming from Earth would not be travelling fast enough when it fell back to earth to cause such damage.” “This seems never before to have been found on earth,” Wainwright added. Wainwright hopes a similar research project being conducted by NASA will find the same results his team have. READ MORE:Jupiter's 'Great Red Spot' shows true colors, glows white in new infrared image The scientific findings come less than a year after British and Japanese scientists launched the Institute for the Study of Panspermia and Astroeconomics (ISPA) with the purpose of proving life on earth originated in the cosmos. In a statement, the ISPA said: “Mainstream science and institutions have fought against theories which expound these beliefs but now evidence from meteorites, from samples of bacteria from space and from space observation is making resistance more difficult.” “Proving that the Earth is in a constant exchange of matter with the larger cosmos would have implications not only in terms of our identity, but could also give us insight into alien viruses, which may be important for our group identity, evolution and survival itself.” ----------- Also It follows findings that DNA capable of inserting itself into living creatures and replicating can exist in harsh space conditions. A tiny ‘plasmid’, a circular strand of DNA used in genetic engineering, was sent into space from Sweden in 2011 on the exterior of a TEXUS-49 rocket. The mysterious organism has baffled scientistsUniversity of Buckingham The mysterious organism has baffled scientists After enduring 1,000C heat it was found to still be intact and with its biological properties when it returned to Earth. ------------- https://www.rt.com/uk/233507-metal-ball-alien-seed/ http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/aliens-send-space-seed-to-earth_n_6608582.html http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/554074/Alien-seed-sent-Earth-aliens-Scientists-baffled ------------------- Im going to school so I can also provide actual scholarly articles on panspermia. You probably know that thousands of micro meteorites rain down from space each day. Once you accept the idea of panspermia, the conclusion is clear
I asked for actual peer reviewed and published research supporting your claim that, "Scientist say that tiny "alien" microbes rain to earth from space and it cause mutation in our own DNA today." (Your words). You haven't provided any actual peer reviewed and published research supporting this claim of yours. In additon, none of the references you did provide support your claim. Please try again.
The 800 lb elephant in the room is the fact that many species have arisen and become extinct over time. We laugh at the Creation Museum showing men and dinosaurs co-existing, but they have to believe this. Otherwise, they would have to acknowledge that not every species was created at the same time. If some species come into existence later than others, then you have evolution. That is exactly what evolution is. The theory part is how you explain evolution. Even if you somehow succeeded in disproving the theory, the factual phenomenon of evolution would still exist.
If you can't cite people of authority - like the calibre of James Tour - who can you you cite? Furthermore....it's not his authority as a scientist that we cite him for. It's his message, which is corroborated by so many others. You know, you can easily prove him wrong by doing one thing: GIVE ME AN EVIDENCE FOR MACRO EVOLUTION.
That's just been debunked! The wolf is not the ancestor of dogs! http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6689/20140116/dogs-wolves-common-ancestor-interbreeding.htm Anything you'll find that suggests it's evidence for macro evolution.......is pure assumption, or gross extrapolation.
Where are the fossils? If we've all evolved....you'd think the transitional fossils wouldn't have been this difficult to find! Not a single one! That's cause and effect, is it? It's not macro evolution. It's adaptation! Over thousands of years, we still see primates in jungles and zoo cages, and they don't behave anywhere near like humans! I haven't heard of any delegates of primates coming out of the jungle waving a white flag, trying to have a treaty with humans....have you? And we can teach circus animals new tricks! You see a cat using and flushing the toilet! [video=youtube;zQbHS4YJOMc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQbHS4YJOMc[/video] That's not macro evolution. That's adaptation. That's kinda like someone inventing the can opener, and using it instead of the knife to open a can! Now, everybody uses a can opener. Some are even electric....and some are even free standing. You don't even have to hold the can! That's also like discovering salt....and using it for cooking because it makes the food taste so much better! Who doesn't use any salt this days, or any spices to make food taste better? That's ADAPTATION!
A recent analysis of modern dog and wolf genomes reveals that they evolved from a common ancestor between 9,000 and 34,000 years ago — long before human transitioned to agricultural societies. The study, published in PLoS Genetics on January 16, 2014, contradicts many studies that came before it, which claimed that domestication of dogs was linked to the agrarian phase in human history. http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6689/20140116/dogs-wolves-common-ancestor-interbreeding.htm
You have not explained anything. You've confused adaptation. There was Lucy.....and now, here's Ardi! Sorry Fallen.......Ardi hominid is not evidence for macro evolution. That there are no clear evidence for macro evolution after centuries of research, and with modern technology to boot, is a clear indication that macro evolution is most likely, a myth. - See more at: http://www.pravdareport.com/science/earth/13-10-2009/109836-ardi-0/#sthash.7xP6rtRE.dpuf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus Anything you'll find that claims to be evidence for macro evolution is pure assumption......or gross extrapolation.
Religion has nothing to do with this. Deal with the facts! Why don't you prove him wrong. Cite an evidence for macro evolution!
