16
edits
Changes
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 01:53, October 13, 2010
, 01:53, October 13, 2010→Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :)
::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)