The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

Absolutely false. This is the just the same tired old false YEC propaganda that keeps getting recirculated. I can show you secular research papers where the radiometric dates 'agreed' with the 'evolutionary view' but that were still rejected by secular scientists, because the methodology was flawed. Scientists most certainly do not just assign dates, "nor do scientists date the fossils from the rocks and the rocks from the fossils." These are all myths, my friend (that I believed myself) until I actually learned firsthand how geochronology is done.

Out of Place Bones Beyond the Study of Prehistoric Subsistence

"However, sometimes after the analysis has begun, there can be surprises. Sometimes the fragments are “out of place,” or not what is expected using modern faunal distribution maps. These fragments may represent species that once lived in an area but are now extinct or no longer present within the region or species that were brought into the site as the result of long-distance hunting forays or trade. In this review, the focus will be on bones identified from archeological sites throughout Alaska that are “out of place“ geographically. It highlights some of the Pleistocenemega fauna—the big game animals—hunted by the earliest Alaskans, as well as some species of sea mammals—walrus, ringed seal, and polar bear—hunted far outside their current ranges at times when past climatic and ice conditions were much different than today." ~~~~end of quote

This is not a creationist's site.

So when they find something out of place, they go to what they have been taught.

 

[TB2]

You are confusing a number of things. The Law of Biogenesis is different from microevolution is different from macroevolution. Please review the previous statements I've already made. Nothing you've said alters the prior factual statements I've already made.

 

[ChristB4us]

You are confusing a number of things. The Law of Biogenesis is different from microevolution is different from macroevolution. Please review the previous statements I've already made. Nothing you've said alters the prior factual statements I've already made.

I know they are different. Feel free to share how you see the differences then. I do not recall you sharing those differences as plainly before.

 

[TB2]

I know they are different. Feel free to share how you see the differences then. I do not recall you sharing those differences as plainly before.

Microevolution = change in allele (gene) frequency over time in a population

Macroevolution = evolution at or above the species level. Speciation is an example of Macroevolution.

 

[ChristB4us]

Microevolution = change in allele (gene) frequency over time in a population

Law of Biogenesis as life did not come from nothing but life comes from similar life. That means changes can occur in a species like a cow can become a different kind of cow, but still a cow. That is speciation.

Macroevolution = evolution at or above the species level. Speciation is an example of Macroevolution.

Microevolution is referred to speciation also as evolution at the species level.

Bing Search result list

1 evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. end of quote

What is microevolution?

"Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, between one generation and the next, the frequency of a gene for brown coloration in a population of beetles increases" end of quote

It is also defined as evolution at or below the species level.

Merriam- Webster dictionary

:comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" end of quote

Now look at your definition for macroevolution from your quote. By saying evolution at or above the species level then you have microevolution at or below the species level, then you have microevolution & macroevolution meaning the same thing as evolution taking place at the species level.

In my time in high school, they had the definition as separate but see how they changed the definitions to meaning the same thing?

That is how they get away with saying they have examples of macroevolution when it would be originally dubbed as microevolution.

There is no example of macroevolution that any one can cite and claim that it can be observed and proven.

That is why I say microevolution was dubbed from the Law of Biogenesis to make macroevolution believable when macroevolution is a lie.

@TibiasDad @DialecticSkeptic @Sereni-tea @Gus Bovona

There are misinformation and lies in science that universities and dictionaries cannot keep the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution separate any more.

Now they are messing with the Law of Biogenesis as if it is not a law as proven as real science but a theory instead, while making various evolution theories as laws of science which has never been observed nor proven.

You got false prophets and false teachers in Christianity and so you have false teachers in science. There is no discipline in that false theoretical science when they cannot keep the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution straight.

 

[Yttrium]

Now look at your definition for macroevolution from your quote. By saying evolution at or above the species level then you have microevolution at or below the species level, then you have microevolution & macroevolution meaning the same thing as evolution taking place at the species level.

In my time in high school, they had the definition as separate but see how they changed the definitions to meaning the same thing?

That is how they get away with saying they have examples of macroevolution when it would be originally dubbed as microevolution.

Originally it was just dubbed evolution. Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. There are no special mechanics to macroevolution, It's still change of frequencies of alleles in a population over time/generations, thanks to mutation and selection.

There is no example of macroevolution that any one can cite and claim that it can be observed and proven.

Of course there isn't, because you've defined macroevolution to be the amount of evolution that can't be observed. If we've observed it, it doesn't count as macroevolution to you. It's not really important, though, because macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution with no separate mechanisms.

 

[ChristB4us]

Originally it was just dubbed evolution. Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. There are no special mechanics to macroevolution, It's still change of frequencies of alleles in a population over time/generations, thanks to mutation and selection.

Of course there isn't, because you've defined macroevolution to be the amount of evolution that can't be observed. If we've observed it, it doesn't count as macroevolution to you. It's not really important, though, because macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution with no separate mechanisms.

You & that false science are only assuming microevolution is producing macroevolution when microevolution will always be microevolution if you stick to its original definition.

So stick to the real definition of what real science is as what can be observed and proven.

How come they never use metamorphosis as an example of macroevolution? Because it is in its DNA to do that normally.

it is not in any living thing's DNA to have the capacity to evolve beyond the species level as a cow will always be a cow; it can become a different kind of cow, but still that living kind called a cow.

 

[Yttrium]

You & that false science are only assuming microevolution is producing macroevolution when microevolution will always be microevolution if you stick to its original definition.

So stick to the real definition of what real science is as what can be observed and proven.

How come they never use metamorphosis as an example of macroevolution? Because it is in its DNA to do that normally.

it is not in any living thing's DNA to have the capacity to evolve beyond the species level as a cow will always be a cow; it can become a different kind of cow, but still that living kind called a cow.

So you say. But so far, we haven't found anything that would stop changes from adding up. You acknowledge that microevolution happens, and you assert that there's a limit, but we can't find that limit anywhere. It's just 1 + 1 = 2. Things add up. Eventually things add up to significant changes.

 

[ChristB4us]

So you say. But so far, we haven't found anything that would stop changes from adding up. You acknowledge that microevolution happens, and you assert that there's a limit, but we can't find that limit anywhere. It's just 1 + 1 = 2. Things add up. Eventually things add up to significant changes.

So you say and yet in spite of all these changes, the so called prior species remain? How can that which affects change leave others unchanged?

They do not know the method nor the cause of macroevolution because it can never be observed nor proven. It is only assumed.

It has as much credibility as saying in science that men are from Mars and women are from Venus.

 

[Yttrium]

So you say and yet in spite of all these changes, the so called prior species remain? How can that which affects change leave others unchanged?

Populations split up. The different groups experience different selection pressures. Their alleles change differently. A group that's under no pressure to change probably won't change much. A group with stronger selectoin pressures will likely change more.

They do not know the method nor the cause of macroevolution because it can never be observed nor proven. It is only assumed.

of course they know the cause. Mutation and selection. We observe that all the time. We observe changes building up. 1+1=2.

 

[TB2]

Now look at your definition for macroevolution from your quote. By saying evolution at or above the species level then you have microevolution at or below the species level, then you have microevolution & macroevolution meaning the same thing as evolution taking place at the species level.

No, you're misunderstanding. At the "level" of species is taxonomic designation. Macroevolution/Speciation is an event that happens at the species level. It is the origin of a new species. Microevolution is change in allele/gene frequency over time *within* the same species population and does *not* involve the origin of a new species

In my time in high school, they had the definition as separate but see how they changed the definitions to meaning the same thing?

No, they mean different things as I explained above

That is how they get away with saying they have examples of macroevolution when it would be originally dubbed as microevolution.

That is incorrect. Microevolution is change in a population in the same species. Macroevolution is the origin of a new species. We observe macroevolution/speciation all the time. Even in real-time in labs.

 

[ChristB4us]

Populations split up. The different groups experience different selection pressures. Their alleles change differently. A group that's under no pressure to change probably won't change much. A group with stronger selectoin pressures will likely change more.

How can one group experience pressure to change that other groups do not?

If the method of macroevolution has been found, then why is science not macro-evolving mankind now by these pressures?

Because they still do not know what causes macroevolution and so therefore you are spousing an supposition and not a fact.

of course they know the cause. Mutation and selection. We observe that all the time. We observe changes building up. 1+1=2.

I see mankind & established system breaking down because of sin and death in the world, i.e. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So we disagree.

 

[Yttrium]

How can one group experience pressure to change that other groups do not?

For example, let's say a population of animals splits into three groups. One group travels up north, one group wanders off to the west, and one group heads southeast. The group up north has a problem with the cold, which kills a lot of them off. The group gradually develops thicker fir. And then they're hit with nasty predators. White-furred members are able to hide better. The population as a whole becomes white-furred, since the non-white-furred members get killed off.

Now the western group does pretty well at first, but then they run out of food. There's food higher up in the trees, but not all of them can reach it. The taller members thrive, the shorter members die off. But they keep needing to get to get taller and taller to get to the food.

And the southeast group encounters no problems at all, so there isn't much of any noticeable change in the population.

If the method of macroevolution has been found, then why is science not macro-evolving mankind now by these pressures?

There isn't a separate method of macroevolution. It's just a lot of microevolution. Macroevolution is enough microevolution to get enough changes that you can consider the current population a different species than their distant ancestors.

 

[Gus Bovona]

How can one group experience pressure to change that other groups do not?

Different environments, which means different selection pressures.

If the method of macroevolution has been found, then why is science not macro-evolving mankind now by these pressures?

Because they still do not know what causes macroevolution and so therefore you are spousing an supposition and not a fact.

It's not science's job to make mankind evolve.

I see mankind & established system breaking down because of sin and death in the world, i.e. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So we disagree.

The 2nd Law doesn't say that entropy increases everywhere for every system. Entropy only increases in a closed system, but earth is not closed because we get energy from the sun. Life on earth uses energy from the sun to decrease entropy locally (and only temporarily).

 

[ChristB4us]

For example, let's say a population of animals splits into three groups. One group travels up north, one group wanders off to the west, and one group heads southeast. The group up north has a problem with the cold, which kills a lot of them off. The group gradually develops thicker fir. And then they're hit with nasty predators. White-furred members are able to hide better. The population as a whole becomes white-furred, since the non-white-furred members get killed off.

Now the western group does pretty well at first, but then they run out of food. There's food higher up in the trees, but not all of them can reach it. The taller members thrive, the shorter members die off. But they keep needing to get to get taller and taller to get to the food.

And the southeast group encounters no problems at all, so there isn't much of any noticeable change in the population.

There isn't a separate method of macroevolution. It's just a lot of microevolution. Macroevolution is enough microevolution to get enough changes that you can consider the current population a different species than their distant ancestors.

Wanting something and evolving into it is a pipe dream. Men wanted to fly for the longest time and still did not get wings should tell you something.

They fantasized that a cow would stand in the shores of the ocean with the waves crashing in as that environment made it change into a transitional marine animal until it became a whale is a pipe dream.

The cow would stay out of the water after being knocked down by the waves a couple of times. Common sense would dictate that.

So I understand what you are sharing but you need to take a step back in how environment does not really tell a genetic make up of any living thing that they need to add some extra genetic information to start changing into something else to survive when they would just die as is.

 

[ChristB4us]

Different environments, which means different selection pressures.

Until it can be observed and proven that is just a pipe dream for the mechanism of macroevolution.

It's not science's job to make mankind evolve.

It never will because macroevolution is false.

The 2nd Law doesn't say that entropy increases everywhere for every system. Entropy only increases in a closed system, but earth is not closed because we get energy from the sun. Life on earth uses energy from the sun to decrease entropy locally (and only temporarily).

The fall of man by sin and thus the fall of creation is why everything will get worse. You are not seeing sin's effect on creation and that includes the universe.

 

[TB2]

Until it can be observed and proven that is just a pipe dream for the mechanism of macroevolution

Macroevolution hasn't simply been proven it's been observed

 

[Yttrium]

Wanting something and evolving into it is a pipe dream. Men wanted to fly for the longest time and still did not get wings should tell you something.

Uh, yes, this is true. Very observant. Doesn't really relate to what we were talking about, though.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Microevolution is referred to speciation also as evolution at the species level.

No, microevolution does not refer to speciation—because the population is still the same species after the shift in allele frequencies.

Take a look at your own cited sources. You queried the Bing search engine about microevolution, which it defined as "evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period." You can ask Bing yourself and verify this but it uses the term "small group" to mean a species population. In other words, according to Bing, microevolution is intraspecific variation.

And how was it defined by the Understanding Evolution website by the University of California, Berkeley? "Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population." Again, intraspecific variation (i.e., within a species population).

The Merriam-Webster dictionary also defined it as intraspecific variation, describing it as "comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level."

According to your own sources, microevolution involves the population remaining the same species (i.e., no speciation event).

In my time in high school, they had the definition as separate. But see how they changed the definitions to meaning the same thing?

I don't know what you are missing but they are still separate. They don't mean the same thing. Microevolution is about changing populations, whereas macroevolution is about changing species. They are interconnected and interdependent, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

That is how they get away with saying they have examples of macroevolution when it would be originally dubbed as microevolution.

They get away with saying they have examples of macroevolution because they have observed speciation events. Macroevolution refers to the forces of selection among interspecific variation that produces speciation and extinction events (i.e., different species originating from other species over time).

Universities and dictionaries cannot keep the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution separate any more.

Except they are, in fact, still keeping them separate.

Now they are messing with the law of biogenesis, as if it is not a law ... but a theory instead, while making various evolution theories as laws of science which has never been observed nor proven.

Laws describe and predict. Theories explain. They are categorically different things. Laws do not become theories, nor do theories become laws. I am not aware of biogenesis ever being called a scientific law, and evolution is still a scientific theory.

Also, theories are never observed because they are explanations—and what they explain are things we do observe. We observe A, B, C, and D. How do we make sense of what we're observing? That's what theories do. Same thing with the heliocentric model of the solar system. Nobody has ever observed what the solar system looks like, but that theory does a really great job at explaining the things we do see.

 

[ChristB4us]

Macroevolution hasn't simply been proven it's been observed

Then you are confusing what they had originally say is microevolution as from the Law of Biogenesis as variations within the species level as a cow will always be a cow and can never cease to be a cow even though they can become a different kind of cow.