GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.

They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.

Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better. That's misleading. The idea that humans are "more evolved" than fish is absurd. Put them both at the bottom of the ocean and we'll see who survives longer. Put them both in the desert.

Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.

On the contrary, they most cerainly are.

Quote:They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.

That is the assumption of evolutionary theory. It is a flawed one, as real science attests.

Try scaling up anything really found in nature.
Consider the correspondence principle
Scale up a chemical reaction.
Drop a toy car from 20 feet and see what happens. Now compare to a real car.

Scaling up is far more complicated than simply "lots of microevolutions over a period of time". Particularly for genetics. In fact, the more gentics is understood, the more it is counter-intuitive to evolution...If you change one gene, it was thought you'd change one trait. Ergo, you can have the sum of microevolutions that you cite.

Only it doesn't work that way. Gene's often overlap...they use the same genetic code. So, if you change one gene, and get an improvement, you will often change another gene, and that's highly unlikely to be acceptable.

Evolution in tiny steps is known to be less likely now than even as genetics was understood 20 years ago.

AND that doesn't even consider the fact that there is little to no empirical evidence for it! Why do you think Gould had to come up w/ his Punctuated Equillibrium theory? This what cracks me up when evolutionists bash ID and claim it's based on "faith".

Quote:Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better.

Yeah, well throw around terms like 'survival of the fittest' and what do you expect? I agree that evolutionists use misleading vocabulary...that's because they are always trying to hand-wave their lame 19th C theory. Alchemy is just as hard to understand.

Quote:Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.

And that's a tautological argument.

Lethemeul Wrote:

SouthGAEagle Wrote:People with the sickle cell trait are immune to malaria. Those who didn't have the trait died of malaria. Those who did survived.

But isn't that adaptation, not evolution? They are, after all, still homo sapiens.

I really am asking because I don't know the answer.

Of course it's not evolution. It's a population shift.
But, it is the one bit of empirical evidence that can be provided. By mixing definitions of evolution, you readily influence 9th grade biology students to convince them that it's true.

DrTorch Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I think adaptation would be considered "micro-evolution" because it does not result in a new species.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not scientific terms.

On the contrary, they most cerainly are.

Well yes, but not in the manner in which they are often used when discussing this subject. I went too far with my statement.

Quote:

Quote:They are the same thing. What creationists call macroevolution is just the effects of lots of microevolutions over a long period of time.

That is the assumption of evolutionary theory. It is a flawed one, as real science attests.

Real science, eh? Lets see it.

Quote:Try scaling up anything really found in nature.
Consider the correspondence principle
Scale up a chemical reaction.
Drop a toy car from 20 feet and see what happens. Now compare to a real car.

Scaling up is far more complicated than simply "lots of microevolutions over a period of time". Particularly for genetics. In fact, the more gentics is understood, the more it is counter-intuitive to evolution...If you change one gene, it was thought you'd change one trait. Ergo, you can have the sum of microevolutions that you cite.

Only it doesn't work that way. Gene's often overlap...they use the same genetic code. So, if you change one gene, and get an improvement, you will often change another gene, and that's highly unlikely to be acceptable.

Evolution in tiny steps is known to be less likely now than even as genetics was understood 20 years ago.

AND that doesn't even consider the fact that there is little to no empirical evidence for it! Why do you think Gould had to come up w/ his Punctuated Equillibrium theory? This what cracks me up when evolutionists bash ID and claim it's based on "faith".

Again, you make a lot of claims here. You seem to be insinuating that Gould did not base his ideas on actual evidence. That's incorrect.

Nobody is denying that a change in genes will affect more than one thing. I think we've all acknowledged that. The side effects may not be acceptable, but the species may survive none-the-less.

Scaling? I'm not sure where that camefrom, but yes, we have no 10,000 ft high ants. If it is in reference to humans growing taller, I guess that's why taller people have problems with their joints. Where are you going with this?

Quote:

Quote:Another problem with the understanding of evolution here is that some people think that evolution means a creature getting better.

Yeah, well throw around terms like 'survival of the fittest' and what do you expect? I agree that evolutionists use misleading vocabulary...that's because they are always trying to hand-wave their lame 19th C theory. Alchemy is just as hard to understand.

Hand waving? You mean like when Behe waved his hands at Kitzmiller when shown a stack of papers that detailed evolution?

Quote:

Quote:Humans have adapted to a specific environment. That is what they have evolved to live in. So because you may see something as disadventagous does not mean that evolution does not work, it means you can't see why it evolved that way. See sickle-cell example above. On the surface it looks like a bad thing, but if you see why it did that, you'll understand that it is just an adaptation.

And that's a tautological argument.

Except for the fact that it can and has been tested for. And hey, it works.

If you want to help your ID guys out, why don't you go and calculate the CSI of something. I've never atually seen any results other than. This rock has no CSI, or this human has lots of CSI. Well, how much? See science would try to have a number. ID has "lots" and "none."