your fog example that you keep repeating is weak and not valid.
If it a perfect analogy. Your claim that "microevolution" is true and "macroevolution" isn't is asinine because they they're nothing more than terms used to distinguish quantitative scale, of the exact same process. If you believe that mutations change allele frequencies in a population over time, then it logically follows that this would lead to distinct populations that are only capable interbreeding with each other. It's just like saying you believe there's a process in which matters turns from a gaseus state to a liquid one, but you don't believe it happens enough to cause suspended water and ice droplets to form suspensions above the Earth's surface.
and ur always e-beefing, since before I had time to post on forums.
You're always e-beefing too. You're just not smart, not funny, and you suck at it.
There is still debate about the extent that mutations can change a species.. It's not like stating something like VVd looks like a weird, staving, east indian, gay, L.Banks.
Wack. But thanks for discrediting your whole "Wah, mean rude liberals are always picking on me" stance by proving that subpar posters such as yourself are just as abrasive with personal attacks, just dumber.
I didn't even diss you personally, but you've been airing out your vagina and lobbing subliminals at posters on some "Giiiiiirl I ain't saying no names but there's some posters in here that are trifling
" shyt this whole time, now you say this.
I see your nerves are still frayed over me verbally humiliating you years ago. You harbor spite like a bytch. I guess that's why your wife left your weak, marshmallow soft ass after you randomly mentioned how much wonderful she is and how much you love her in KTL every other post.
I've read it when people have said that, And that's not as debatable as some one trying to say well this particular animals has, through natural selection, adapted to living in a different climate and has developed a completely different bone structure... so that basically proves all theories on Evolution.
That was incoherent and didn't make any sense. But carry on...
Besides, why the lack of evidence that shows these dramatic species to species changes? Not that every species should be changing at the same rate, or that its necessary to have actually observed these changes.. but there isn't a complete record on any organism changing into a completely different one.
There is a complete record of speciation taking place. You can't watch it with your own eyes because there weren't people around hundreds of millions of years ago at all, much less setting up time-lapse photography cameras on every corner of the land, sea, and air. But you can study the fossil record and gene maps to see how species branched out. This isn't up for debate. You just don't understand. When there isn't a single biologist in the world that doesn't "believe" in evolution, that should tell you that the study of biology is not even possible without understand that it's real.
Geography can cause speciation. And seeing different versions of the same bird (or whatever), due to natural circumstances, doesn't prove macroevolution. However, we've observed micro.
You're just rambling again and not making any sense. Again, microevolution and macroevolution are the same biological process. Scientists just use the term macroevolution to indicate scale. Unfortunately, creationists used that subtle distinction to create a psuedoscientific talking point that people like you have ignorantly adopted.
I mean sure, we can provide examples of the type of speciation your talking about, but we would have to discuss artificial speciation. We have only really been able to show and observe this when talking about animals we've created that can't reproduce with the original.
Is this supposed to support your argument? The fact that artificial selection can exist proves the malleability of an animal's genome. In just thousands of years of dog-breeding, we've been able to create chihuahuas, pit bulls, mastiffs, poodles, etc. Imagine what hundreds millions of years of natural selection does.
I clearly said above the species level ANYway... meaning changes that observing fossils, geology, and current organisms hasn't (imo) proven to take place.
It has been proven to take place. You're just creating an arbitary burden of proof that would convince you, which I guess would be literally watching speciation occur over millions of years. Obviously there's reasons why you won't be able to see that.
So me saying natural selection, migrations, genitic drifts, and mutations cause microevolution, then stating that I don't believe in Macroevolution = me being a complete idiot, shouldn't make the money I make, turn in my degree, success, don't know how a n1gga even functions in life by saying the worst statement know to man??
People can excel at different things. I don't know about your life and don't care, but you lack intelligence in this area. All a species is is a taxonomic ranks, and it doesn't even have a completely clear, distinct definition. But it is usually used to describe a population of organisms that are capable of producing fertile offspring.
If you accept that allele frequencies change over time due to random mutations, but you don't accept that those changes can lead to phenotypical variances, and ones that are large enough to create distinct, populations only capable of interbreeding with each other, you are drawing a line and saying that the process stops at some arbitrary point, which is fukking stupid. It makes no sense on any level. Sorry if calling stupidity what it is makes me an "elitist." So how did all these species get here anyway. God put them all there?
Anyway, here...
In young Earth creationism and baraminology a central tenet is that evolution can explain diversity in a limited number of created kinds which can interbreed (which they call "microevolution") while the formation of new "kinds" (which they call "macroevolution") is impossible.[47] [48] This acceptance of "microevolution" only within a "kind" is also typical of old Earth creationism.[49]
Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science describe microevolution as small scale change within species, and macroevolution as the formation of new species, but otherwise not being different from microevolution. In macroevolution, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes leads to speciation.[50] The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference).[51] Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could. Even changes in the number of chromosomes can be accounted for by intermediate stages in which a single chromosome divides in generational stages, or multiple chromosomes fuse. A well documented example is the chromosome difference between humans and the other great apes.[52] Contrary to the claims of some antievolution proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on numerous occasions.[53] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. There was ambiguity in their ideas as to where to draw a line on "species", "created kinds", and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[/B]
But this thread wasn't about evolution. And maybe there aren't 'militant atheist' but I have friends that do not believe in God who would never speak about religion and religious people in the manner in which you all do. Or go out of their way to post an anti-muslim thread every damn day when every day there is something interesting to make a thread about.
I've seen many scientific threads that weren't derailed.
So what. Stop crying...jesus.
@ "Giiiiiirl I ain't saying no names but there's some posters in here that are trifling " shyt this whole time,
