Why Creationists are WRONG about MacroEvolution

	Duration: 09:13 minutes Upload Time: 07-01-04 20:38:28 User: cdk007 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: Here I show how creationists are wrong when it comes to MacroEvolution (MaE). MaE is defined as evolution at or above the species level. This means MaE includes speciation. Despite what creationists say there are examples of new species occurring in nature, and scientists have produced new species in the lab. Many creationists claim that MaE means there must be a huge change in appearance. This is false. Many sister species, existing in the same genus and the cases we have of new species occurring in nature, share many characteristics. A new species of mosquito will still resemble a mosquito, and a new species of worm will still resemble a worm. Only after many speciation events will large changes begin to accumulate. This may take tens to hundreds of millions of years. Many ID/creationists do accept MicroEvolution (MiE), but claim MiE is different from MaE. Here I show how a MiE step can lead to a MaE event through the evolution of the sperm egg receptor ligand complex. A species is best defined as a group of organism that can successfully produce fertile offspring. Once the sperm of one population can no longer fertilize the eggs of another population and vice versa, we have two species. Finally, many creationists claim that there is not enough variation within a species to allow for the large changes in phenotype (appearance). Anyone who claims this has obviously never seen the myriad of dog breeds, all of which were derived from the same species, wolf. My point here is, MacroEvolution includes speciation, and speciation has been observed in nature and in the lab. Also, MicroEvolutionary steps can result in speciation. Scientists do not doubt MacroEvolution, but they do debate how and under what circumstances it occurs. For a good read on MacroEvolution go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Comments
TrenchantAtheist ::: Favorites "WHICH definition, I wonder, for Evolution is he thinking of at this moment??? Does it include "common descent"? Is it the narrow definition that only talks about "allele frequencies of generations"???" - johnpaulwinters I know you're behind the times, johnpaul, but I think Stephen J. Gould said it best a couple decades ago... talkorigins()org/faqs/evolution-fact.html 07-09-12 08:07:14 __________________________________________________
voiceoftruth2006 ::: Favorites ">There is NO evidence against evolution. None. Not a bit. Evolution is a theory and a FACT. WHICH definition, I wonder, for Evolution is he thinking of at this moment??? Does it include "common descent"? Is it the narrow definition that only talks about "allele frequencies of generations"???" Both. 07-09-12 07:30:54 __________________________________________________
voiceoftruth2006 ::: Favorites "Because Astronomy in the early 20th Century was not under the politically correct spirit that permeates academia today.´" I mentioned biology and physics. What the fuck has astronomy got to do with it? Maybe I'm sometimes drunk, but you're always ignorant. 07-09-12 07:30:06 __________________________________________________
voiceoftruth2006 ::: Favorites ">The moon..ISN'T luminous. It's reflective. Of course, it reflects the Sun, but that does not alter the fact that the Moon emits light." It does NOT emit light. It REFLECTS it. There is a huge difference. "that measured neutrons emitted from the Moon as a function of their energy." Yes, and? What do neutrons have to do with light? It astonishes me that someone as ignorant of basic science as you are feels qualified to argue with a theory as well supported as evolution. 07-09-12 07:27:35 __________________________________________________
johnpaulwinters ::: Favorites >The moon..ISN'T luminous. It's reflective. Of course, it reflects the Sun, but that does not alter the fact that the Moon emits light. You should write NASA and tell them they are wasting their money. "Lunar Prospector Neutron Spectrometer. NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft carried an instrument that measured neutrons emitted from the Moon as a function of their energy." --thespacereview . com 07-09-11 20:08:27 __________________________________________________
johnpaulwinters ::: Favorites Well, he's gone again. I asked one of the KEY questions, which I guess he does not want to answer: WHICH Evolution is he talking about when he makes emphatic statements. They love to make claims about ToE, making it sound like it's proven because there is no evidence to the contrary. But that argument falls flat when you ask specifics. If you look behind the curtains, it spoils the illusion! 07-09-11 20:02:53 __________________________________________________
johnpaulwinters ::: Favorites >In which case you won't have any trouble with providing a piece of evidence which falsifies evolutionary theory, will you? WHICH Evoltuion are you talking about? Does it include descent from a common ancestor? 07-09-11 19:38:02 __________________________________________________
PsychoMantis1337 ::: Favorites damn straight I swear these "people" are just so damn ignorant. All of these people (as I applied to a certain cretin) have as much credibility as a lunatic leaving an asylum and calling himself, "The Professor" bah! 07-09-11 19:32:34 __________________________________________________
johnpaulwinters ::: Favorites >Why would an atheist scientist reject evolution? The only reason to not accept evolution is blind adherence to a religious creation story. False dichotomy. >There is NO evidence against evolution. None. Not a bit. Evolution is a theory and a FACT. WHICH definition, I wonder, for Evolution is he thinking of at this moment??? Does it include "common descent"? Is it the narrow definition that only talks about "allele frequencies of generations"??? 07-09-11 19:32:16 __________________________________________________
PsychoMantis1337 ::: Favorites OH GOOD GOD NO You know I've seen sheer stupidity arguing with that cretin equalsexes, but it doesn't seem to end there. this is why I have no become atheist, I was agnostic but now I am just a full blown atheist, this is just so damn sad. ugh, I can't go see a video about evolution or anything without these buggers running around 07-09-11 19:26:42 __________________________________________________