Comments on: What can an atheist possibly celebrate?

By: iluvSLF

iluvSLF — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Cont.

To “macro” …
Cont.

To “macro” evolution as unprovable. Theoretically it is perfect. Minor adaptations compiled through hundreds of generations forced on the species by natural selection create a new and more robust organism. At least as of a few years ago when i studied these things we could not explain how major leaps in genetic code were made even over thousands of generations.

Now. cut the bull zeal. it’s why even i hate the out of atheists some times.you’re worse than religous bigots

By: iluvSLF

iluvSLF — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

I’m going to go …
I’m going to go ahead and clarify something because on the internet people tend to be ish. I’m an atheist and I incorporate evolution into my views on the formation of life. However we have in-so-far found no means by which the genome can be expanded (more information added). Mutations yes, certainly. It is theorized that in the earliest occurances microbes simply incorporated other microbes (why mitocondial DNA differs from others… may not be mitocondrial). This is why i refer…

By: sinprelic

sinprelic — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

you’re right, but …
you’re right, but it’s been an undisputed theory for 150 years. the evidence is only piling on to a proof. that’s why creationism is a joke, because it was disputed the same year it was created. several times!

By: slantythecamel

slantythecamel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Was about to reply …
Was about to reply to that guy, and noticed you already did and quite well. Good job.

By: NathanWubs

NathanWubs — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

A scientific theory …
A scientific theory is the highest merit you can get in science. Anyone who start saying facts is stupid. Theory of evolution is the theory behind evolution. Evolution itself can be proven over and over again. Even with just the common flue virus.

By: AsG1989

AsG1989 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Micro evolution and …
Micro evolution and macro evolution are stupid terms, evolution is evolution. Alot of small change = big change over time

By: absurdmike

absurdmike — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Macro evolution IS …
Macro evolution IS provable, and has heaps and heaps and heaps of evidence, AND it fits together seamlessly with micro- evolution.

they are the same thing. There is no magic distinction between macro and micro evolution. small change + long time (or even quite short time) = huge change.

look it up man, the evidence is easy enough to find.

I can’t believe i’m doing this, i never argue with people on youtube. ah well, it seemed worth a try at the time.

By: RayZR

RayZR — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Evolution is indeed …
Evolution is indeed provable. For example, resistances bacterial populations develop overtime to many antibacterial chemicals.

Now, you may argue that this is “microevolution”, but from my experience, the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are not especially respectable terms in academia. Evolution is evolution. Your “macroevolution” is only an extension of “microevolution”.

By: RayZR

RayZR — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

Cont.

Separate …
Cont.

Separate species are recognized by their inability to mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. A horse and a donkey are very similar, and it is not difficult to imagine that they both evolved from a common ancestor. Yet, they cannot produce fertile offspring, establishing that they are in fact separate species.

By: RayZR

RayZR — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:34:17 +0000

If you understand …
If you understand and agree with the concept of “microevolution” , then it is not so difficult to apply those ideas to evolution over millions of years. This “macroevolution” you mention is simply “microevolution” piled upon itself until enough differences occur until the organism is geno- and phenotypically dissimilar from the original organism it came from, to the point where the two organisms are incompatible mates.