I fixed your post for youÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.
Thanks for that.
First Ã¢â‚¬â€œ microevolution is nothing more than Ã¢â‚¬Å“adaptationÃ¢â‚¬Â within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomenaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t need to be called Ã¢â‚¬ËœmicroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, or even Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ at all, as it was always called Ã¢â‚¬ËœadaptationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
Ok i agree with you on this point.
Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into another species. For example, an ape like creature Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolvesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified)
Right now im not sure how literally you meant this as you put (oversimplified) but why do you think a species evolves into another species. Heres another analogy. If you take a picture of multiple people everyyear from when they are born till when they are 30, then show the first and last photos to someone, they are often unable to match them up( they are completedly different), but if you show them every picture it is obvious who is who.
Further, whenever you make a statement like Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolution works because future evidence will support itÃ¢â‚¬Â you are committing the logical fallacy of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Argumentum ad FuturisÃ¢â‚¬Â. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Assertum Non Est DemonstratumÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœto assert is not to demonstrateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
I see what you mean, i never meant to state that future evidence will support macroevolution and thus that is why it works. I meant more that if we agree on mircoevolution(or adaptation) as having happened and continuing to happen, why shouldn't macroevolution also be happening and have happened. Just so i know, what kind of evidence were you looking for, the most common that comes to mind is fossil but if you would like experiments on evolution i can probably find some of those.
Fourth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said Ã¢â‚¬Å“It depends what you mean by christ.Ã¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.
Im unsure what you mean by false analogies, i use analogies to explain things. When i said Ã¢â‚¬Å“It depends what you mean by christ.Ã¢â‚¬Â( not an analogy) what i meant was that if someone refers to christ they often mean jesus, however by saying christ they often also imply supernatural, which i dont believe. I also dont feel these are faith statements. In my life people dont write accounts of a fictional person's life and make them out to be true, so i can conclude it is likely Jesus was a real person. I also know that back in Jesus's time much was not understood about the world and people would have easily seen quite natural things as supernatural, therefore i feel its reasonable to be skepticle about any 'miracles' performed.
And what environmental fluctuation continues in a particular direction for millions of years, singling out only one kind of animal, for example reptiles, and turns them into birds? It just doesn't make sense. The number of necessary changes is enormous and would require every tendency to adapt, to do so in that particular direction.
There has to be something concrete, that you as an evolutionist can point to to explain how evolution can determine a particular path of development. In some cases we have statis. In others we have enormous changes, and yet other cases we can see sea creatures turning into land animals and then back again, animals climbing up in trees, living there for a few million years, and then climbing down again. What is it that is pulling the strings? Fluctuations in the environment occur way too quickly to explain all this.
The thing is, evolution( as far as i understand it) doesnt single out one kind of animal. If i may introduce analogous structures http://en.wikipedia....alogy_(biology)
, basically what im saying is that while it may be true that reptiles evolved into what we call birds( i have no idea personally), around the globe, other mammalian animals may also evolved into birds. Also, yes the changes would be enormous, however there is almost no way( i never say for certain) that they would have happened at once. If the enviroment changed so rapidly that the selection pressure was for what we class as birds now, those reptiles would have died. Changes such lower temperature could have selected for a more spikey skin to hold in warmth, later different food availability may have selected for more beak like mouths, etc. There is no direct 'path' from one to the other.
It depends what you mean by changes in the enviroment, in terms of the seasons obviously they happen quickly and in evolutionary terms don't count as actual changes. In terms of the climbing up and down. I'v been taught that Africa was once much more covered in forest than it is now, thus it would have been more effecient to swing between the trees than walking. However as the climate warmed and the forest dwindled, trees became more spread apart and would require more land travel between them.
For the record i realize that i stated that species don't evolve into each other but later talked about reptiles evolving into birds. I did this for the sake of argument and would be happy to clarify if anyone wants.