There is no such thing as "macroevolution". It's one of the lies of the Creationists. But I have told you that before.

"Macro-evolution" is a part of fake evolution. Fake evolution is what Creationists made up so they can win an argument against something.

as far as I understand it... their rationale is that genes can be DELETED but not CREATED or MODIFIED... (aka they do not beleive in mutations).

From which they conclude that you can have "micro evolution" (removal of genes within a population to elicit a change... say, remove all the brown eye genes in a population leaving only blue eye genes)

And "macro evolution" is what you get when you do have mutations creating new genes (in which they do not beleive)... as understood in the skewed view of how real evolution works that creationists have (hint: they tend to get it wrong).

Rather then arguing the specific nuances of their "macro-evolution" definition in ways that will go completely over head head, I find it easier to just point out that if mutations did not exist there would be no cancer (and we would not be able to observe them but this requires a bit more sense to grasp and I don't want to confuse them)

What I understood is that they believe that there is a fixed defined point over which species dare not evolve.

That "argument" is why it is so important to them to claim (lie) that Darwin's theory says that species turn into other species, because for their "argument" to work, they absolutely need a point that can be a border between species and hence a point that cannot be crossed.

What they fail to explain is where that point is and if it existed how it would stop evolution.

And what they fail to be honest about is that Darwin's theory does not describe a mechanism which would possibly know such a point.

"Macro-evolution" is then, I understand, evolving over that border. It's a lie since there is no logical reason for such a border to exist.

I assume angels will fall onto the ground and remind animals to stop evolving should they reach that fantasy border.

(But which animal speaks Aramaic these days?)

That depends on who you ask. their arguments vary as they desperately try to invent some rationale that will work (they never will).

I have seen both "definitions" for "macro evolution" being used. the border over which mutations will not cross, and the "mutations are impossible" version. both are stupid and wrong.

This might be interesting.

An argument from consequences is never a good way to reach an accurate conclusion. Technically, eugenics in some ways predates evolutionary theory. What else were royal families practicing to keep the bloodline "pure" if not eugenics? A species that performs eugenics might indeed improve their "fitness", or they might turn their evolutionary branch a dead end. Either way, extinction is likely; either through "self evolving" themselves into a new species, or removing some "flaw" that impacted their ability to adapt. (Significant mutations are generally harmful, and the cause of many genetic diseases; but impossibly removing the "abilty" to mutate would remove the ability to evolve.)

Evolutionary theory is not a religion, it is not a collection of dogma, stories, and traditions; and has nothing to say about the "supernatural".

And has already been stated, evolutionary theory is not about abiogenesis, Earth's or Sol's formation, or the big bang either.

the spartans also practiced eugenics, that is because despite not being QUANTIFIED, it was obvious to anyone that the basic tenents of evolution existed, just like one can sense the gravity, one can observe that children get traits similar to their parents and draw obvious conclusions from that. The big difference is that now we know that it is DNA and that DNA CAN copy incorrectly causing mutations.

Another way eugenics causes extinction is by reducing the genepool causing incest (everyone is too similar, descendant from the same great individuals)

Very good summary.

SETARCOSNOUS POSTS:

Again, definitions are in order....

There are 2 parts to Darwin's ET...the one where Darwin noticed that a population of animals within kind (finches in this case) would, over time, change so that certain features ..the finches' bill in this case....become more pronounced, longer, more curved, etc. ...This theory is now universally accepted as true....as it's been sceintifically observable....this reshuffling or recombination of genes is called "Variety Within Kind"....and for those who prefer to label variety within kind as evolulution...it's more accurately called microevolution.

But it can't be denied that Darwin and his collegues went one step further with the theory..

Darwin, (not having the benefit of scientic knowledge of DNA) by applying the dogmas of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" then went on to theorize that all living creatures, over eons of time  "evolved" into totally different creatures..a crossoever of genes ocurred between different kinds.... for example....reptile to bird...monkey or ape to apelike creatures and that in turn evolved into modern man. This is all documented as Darwin wrote a book describing this. This is called Macroevolution, Evolutionism or Darwinism.  

Macroevolution has become a religion, an atheistic, naturalistic philosophy, becasue there is no scientific proof that crossover changes from different kinds occurred over billions of years producing living creatures we have today and therefore, those who believe it must believe by unwavering faith in Darwinism.

You are absolutely correct in saying that evolution, that is ...macroevoluton, Darwinism, has nothing to say about the Supernatural. Darwinism contradicts Scripture and claims its cause, "natural selection", was automatic with no room for Divine guidance or Design. Darwinism sees no need for a transcendent Creative Force and becasue it philosophically denies the Supernatural, has made in big in today's world extending the philosopy in politics, sociology, anthropology, education, and so on.

And this, btw, hits the nail on the head....Darwin's theory provided a seemingly plausible concept for which a transcendant God is not required this is why Evolutionism is so important to some people.....It's very popular among athesists, agnostics, and sadly even liberal theologians.  

So you are going to lie again?

The claim that there are two distinct types of evolution "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a lie.

The following is from gotquestions.org. It explains micro (small scale) and macro (large scale) evolution quite clearly.....

Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally-occurring, biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).

Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.

Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological changes, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists therefore often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.

Microevolution

We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say for example that within the dog genome there is both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.

Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e. microevolution).

If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.

Genetic Mutation

Now imagine that within a longhair Hh population a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.

Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic therefore has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information, they lose it. It is not therefore an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted as, but microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)

Macroevolution

Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from the an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]

The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”

The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution [i.e. macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)

Creation vs. Evolution

When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomena. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no truly scientific evidence for macroevolution, and in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation vs. evolution debate.

Lula, that site is Bible oriented; that would be like asking a traditional jew what his favorite pork product was.

And yet it happens all the fucking time.

As I said, you apperantly do not beleive in cancer. or in observable facts for that matter.

No, evolution does not deal with how the first living organism/s were created, there is no "evolved from inorganic matter" in evolution. There are some scientific fields unrelated to evolution, and they deal in the formation of living organism from ORGANIC compounds (you seem to think in vitalistic terms, organic means hydro-carbon molecule...)

No, its not macroevolution, its merely mutations, and they happen all the time.

Alderic,

First, there isn't anything Bible orientated or religious in this article. 

Second, Instead of complaining about the messenger, refute the message if you can.

Taltimer,

Re: #91....Please refrain from using profanity.

Good one!

Darwin's theory does not know of a difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", of course. The so-called difference is an invention (lie) made up by stupid Creationists.

I still wonder why the "Christian principle of honesty" doesn't interfere with their lies.

The credibility of the source is paramount, and the source here...loses credibility.

Haha, thanks. I was going to mention Elizabeth Tayler and mexican food, but felt the one I used instead was much more apt.

You know...I've tried, Kingbee has tried, Daiwa has tried; yet you would think one of us would've made ground after 94 replies. Also, there's a difference between attacking the messanger, and the source; I wasn't attacking you, the messanger.

The whole idea of trying to debate you on evolution when you're so fully entrenched in your narrow beliefs...is foolish. The act would be a futile effort; like banging your head against a steel wall, hoping to make a dent.

Granted, I could try...but if history is any help - it would be pointless and a waste of breath.

Something If interesting is why some Christians jump on the bandwagon to bash Darwinism, which, while it is a significant concept and all, is outdated and subsequent research has furthered the understanding on the topic.They're still stuck on it, when really...Darwanism (in my view and from what I've read) isn't..."used" so to speak. You know what I mean?

Not only that, but why attack Darwin? Check out Anaximander, Empedocles, Lucretius, Al-Jahiz, Ibn Miskawayh, Brethren of Purity, Zhuangzi, Pierre Marpertuis, Erasmus Darwin, Alfred Wallace, or Jean-Baptiste Lamarch. All of these people formulated ideas on evolution in a various ways.Heck, Gregor Mendel - a priest - helped forumlate the modern synthesis on biology.

Imagine that!

Again: Why only Darwin?

Indeed

~Alderic

Creationists are horribly ignorant. The simple answer is that they do not KNOW all those people, they do not know anything about evolution, they do not know anything about biology. If they knew about Gregor Mendel they would be attacking him too, probably...

Unfortunately you're right in that it comes down to one word: Ignorance. *sighs* What's also humorous, is that Darwin's theory is not THE theory...it's one of many.

Darwin's theory provided a seemingly plausible concept for which a transcendant God is not required for the evolution of species.  Period.

The only people who inject God, transcendant or otherwise, into the discussion are the anti-Evolutionists, as if the only reason the theory was conceived was to refute God.  As if Darwin sat around saying 'I need a good way to refute the existence of God.  Let's see, I bet I can find a way in the Galapagos Islands, so off I go.'

And the theory must be wrong because some atheists believe it to be true.  That's the kind of logic lunacy we're dealing with.

How come every time someone suggest that god created the universe in six days people assume I have not studied evolution for eighteen years. From my own experience I've found it's not realising that some of the theories contradict each other.