SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,126
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 121:
Line 121: + + +
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 13:22, July 25, 2012
, 13:22, July 25, 2012no edit summary
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
==No, It's Not==
A lot of the evidence used for Evolution in fact supports Microevolution, but not Macro. The fossil record completely contradicts Evolutionary theory, which is why the theory of [[Punctuated Equilibrium]] was proposed. Numerous [[Recent_controversy_in_hominid_ancestry|fossil finds]] over the past decade contradict gradualistic Evolutionary theory, like Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardi), Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, as well as discoveries that numerous ancestors coexisted, most notably Erectus and Habilis and Ramidus and Afaransis. Furthermore, [[Microevolution#Rapid_Rates|rapid Microevolution rates]] are strong indication that the vast time frames hypothesized by evolutionists are in fact wrong, since Microevolution occurring over decades rather than millions of years is not compatible with conventional Evolutionary theory. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 09:22, 25 July 2012 (EDT)