Originally Posted by MarkedAchilles

Macro and Micro has been observed first hand is what he s tryng to say.

And those terms are out of date if you guys care. They are not being used anymore.

They are the ultimately the same thing. Micro = inch. Macro = mile. Figuratively.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

No. Do you refute that evolution can't be proven?

Yes. In one of the instances I linked you (or maybe it was someone else) to earlier today, I showed you an article where over a few years, the genetic material of a species changed. That is the definition of evolution. In that one instance, evolution has been proven.

However, I do not refute that evolution can't be proven, in terms of definitively proving the first life-form ever to exist evolved into other life-forms, and eventually us.

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

Yes. In one of the instances I linked you (or maybe it was someone else) to earlier today, I showed you an article where over a few years, the genetic material of a species changed. That is the definition of evolution. In that one instance, evolution has been proven.

That evidenced evolution indeed, however science can't prove anything. Not even Germ Theory.

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

However, I do not refute that evolution can't be proven, in terms of definitively proving the first life-form ever to exist evolved into other life-forms, and eventually us.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

That evidenced evolution indeed, however science can't prove anything. Not even Germ Theory.



Populations evolve, not individuals.

Some science has been proven mathematically. That is the only way anything is really proven.

From biology, chemistry and evolution the proofs in each field has been in mathematics applied to each.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

That evidenced evolution indeed, however science can't prove anything. Not even Germ Theory.

I wash my hands of this sillyness. This isn't a debate about evolution - it's a debate about who'se more concise with their words. Our personal idealogy hold us to words differently.

Populations evolve, not individuals.

And how does a population evolve? It's unreasonable to think hunderds of constituents would all randomly suffer the same mutation. Instead, one member of said population incurs the random (and in the case of better the species, favorable) mutation. That mutation is passed on to it's decendants. The cycle continues for generations, until the entire population is ripe with said mutation.

While a population will indeed evolve, it begins with an individual.

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

I wash my hands of this sillyness. This isn't a debate about evolution - it's a debate about who'se more concise with their words. Our personal idealogy hold us to words differently.

So I should just let slip any disregard for verbatim associated with one's position? How can you get your ideology right if your words are wrong?

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

And how does a population evolve? It's unreasonable to think hunderds of constituents would all randomly suffer the same mutation. Instead, one member of said population incurs the random (and in the case of better the species, favorable) mutation. That mutation is passed on to it's decendants. The cycle continues for generations, until the entire population is ripe with said mutation.

While a population will indeed evolve, it begins with an individual.

Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population. Not in an individual. Natural selection filters any mutation harmful for reproduction, so an individual will have little to no affect on the entire species unless a male and a female are born to different families yet somehow have a similar freak mutation, then somehow end up isolated from other humans and interbreed. Which won't work because the kids must now breed with their siblings which produces a high rate of stillbirths and birth defects. So, evolution is reliant upon reproductively dominant traits in a population and not single mutations in an individual.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

So I should just let slip any disregard for verbatim associated with one's position? How can you get your ideology right if your words are wrong?



Evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population. Not in an individual. Natural selection filters any mutation harmful for reproduction, so an individual will have little to no affect on the entire species unless a male and a female are born to different families yet somehow have a similar freak mutation, then somehow end up isolated from other humans and interbreed. Which won't work because the kids must now breed with their siblings which produces a high rate of stillbirths and birth defects. So, evolution is reliant upon reproductively dominant traits in a population and not single mutations in an individual.

Mutations may lead to the creation of dominant or recessive alleles. Pass those on and that is gene frequency change. Thus this is an example of the individual starting the populations evolution. Wolbachia interactions instantly change other organisms in this way to give instant phenotypical change and some cases species change. That would be individuals undergoing evolutionary change.

Mutations do not need to hapen to have evolutionary change. It can happen epigenetically.

Drug resistant TB...excellent evidence for evolution.(heheh alliteration)

Originally Posted by Steve Da Egg

Drug resistant TB...excellent evidence for evolution.(heheh alliteration)

AIDS becoming resistant to every treatement applied to it is quite obvious as well.

Originally Posted by E Nomini Patri

AIDS becoming resistant to every treatement applied to it is quite obvious as well.

Damn those retro viruses. DAMN YOU RNA!