randman

You can argue the terms micro and macro are artificial, or perhaps just ways to describe a process. The point is that it is clear what I and others are saying regardless of how you want to use the terms.
Fact is changes within one's "kind" a word that predates species by the way is something noone debates, and Creationist models predict that the potential even for new species within that kind exists. If you are posting here, I am sure you are aware of the distinction so let's not pretend we don't understand, nor argue over semantics.
What creationists argue, and I am convinced of, is that the range of possible mutations and such is limited, that there is a limited potential, and that the kind of macro-changes evolutionists posit are outside of that limit.
Since it is the evolutionists that maintain that examples of micro-evolution, as defined as changes within species and limited speciation, lead to macro-evolution, it is incumbent on evolutionists to prove that this is the case, and they have not.
Nor does the only har data around, the fossil record, show the species to species changes of small micro-evolutionary changes leading to macro-develoment such as one kind of thing like a lizard becoming a bird.
The best evolutionists can do is to list an extinct species whose immediate ancestors are unknownm as transitional based on similarities.

Coragyps

So your argument, in essence, is that the sum of many small changes cannot be a large change? I refute this proposition thus, or thusly:

dino
dono (I don' know what this means)
bono (Sonny)
bond (James, James Bond)
bind
bird

Kosh

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Every...stinkin'....week.

Randman, what's your level of education and what
was your area of study?

Also, what is the mechanism that would prevent
too many micro-evolution changes result in
macro-evolution?

randman

1. So you are saying micro-evolutuionary changes caused macro-evolution.
2. If that is so, why do we not see species gradually change over time in the fossil record into something else? The fossil record does not show this. In fact, the chief characteristic of most species in the fossil record is stasis, or the lack of change.
3. It is incumbent upon you to show that what causes micro-evolution can add the type of changes to enact macro-evolution. You must prove your mechanism, not the other way around, and frankly, it has not been proven.

Coragyps

I would say that "macroevolution" is nothing more that microevolution repeated several times. Look at the fossil sequences of reptile to mammal, or the whales in a recent National Geographic , or of horses from Hyracotherium down to today. Bunches of intermediates! Sure there are some missing: we're talking about tens of millions of years here! I can't even concieve of a time span of fifty years, and I've been around longer than that.

randman

That's the problem. I have looked critically at those things.
National Geographic depicts some fanciful illustrations, but when you look at the bones, you see their story does not add up.
The horse story is another good example. I was taught a straight-line, proven, etc,..line of path, and guess what, it was bull.
Everytime I look into the data, what I find is unbeleivable overselling of speculative data as fact.

Kosh

Details and supportive evidence?

Chilli

randman:

1. What is your definition of a kind?
2. What mechanism stops small changes from adding
up to larger changes?
3. Are you saying that reading a few out of con-
text quotes of Gould caused you to abandon
evolutionary theory?
4. Are you ever going to check out the numerous
links that have been provided to you, explain-
ing how your views of evolutionary theory are
wrong?

If you are here to learn, you will find much of value. The regular posters in these forums are excellent at answering questions and keeping up to date with the latest in the scientific world. However, if you are here to merely argue and not to debate (give and take), then I might suggest heading over to Rants and Raves forum.

RufusAtticus

Well then, you should develop your own terms. Otherwise, you just keep arguing from a position of ignorance. Microevolution does not refer to change within a "kind." Since microevolution is a scientific term and kind is not. What would you say if someone argued "Blood is green; by green I mean red you should remember that."

You seem to be arguing that folk classifications have more explanatory value than mondern techniques. If folk classifications are so powerful, why do we have other, more recent methods of classification?

BTW: please provide a creation model for kinds.

Please identify the limiting mechanism. There is nothing in molecular genetics that suggests that such a mechanism exists. Unless you have a mechanism, you cannot claim that limits exist. You can't even provide evidence that suggests such a mechanism exists. I've delt with the concept of "kinds" a lot, and have yet to find a creationist who can identify the barrier. You should read this post I did on genetic barriers.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul01.html" target="_blank">Genetic Barriers Don't Exist</a>

Read the above link. You will see that the was much debate in evolutionary biology about whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. The evidence, which is indicated in the above link, settled the debate. So you are wrong to claim that there is no evidence indicating that microevolution can lead to macroevolution.

Actually you are forgetting that we have other data: genomic sequences, which indicate that the same types of genetic changes that distinguish individuals within a taxon also distinguish taxa. Furthermore, there is nothing in genetics which indicates kinds.

-RvFvS

Principia

POST #1000 !!!