For clarification: Micro Ev is where you lose stuff in your DNA or genes such as Albinism, or something of that sort.
Micro Ev doesn't give useful organs or anything of the sort like Macro Ev claims to do.
This is a gross misunderstanding of these terms. Ultimately they are just two different approaches to understanding the same process - evolution. While each method might entail different conclusions, this is because of each method's approach, rather than some fault of the theory. But microevolution is completely consistent with a creature within a species to gain new organs. You in no way "lose stuff in your DNA". While being an albino is a mutation within a species, thus relegating it to the methodologies of microevolution, we shouldn't understand it to be limited to these cases. A mutation, in evolutionary terms, in neither good nor bad. It's just different. So even to suggest that macroevolution gives us "useful organs" is a fundamental misrepresentation of the theory.
Just a few minutes of research could save so much discussion...
How far up your . . . ear . . . did you have to reach for that one? Seriously, do some research and stop being wrong all the time. I'm tired of holding your hand(your palms are sweaty, btw) and correcting you all the time.
Also, is Obama really blocked now? Obama? Seriously?
Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of "micro-evolution"!
You win the cookie for better simplified explanation.
redace yours fails...hard.
Logically you would think that a Dinosaur with half a wing and half a beak wouldn't be able much very well. Logically it seems that Dino-birds would Die because they have wings that they can not use, beaks that get in their way etc. Why is it that we find TONS of fossils of dinosaurs, many fossils of birds, yet your evolutionary scientists get so happy when they find 1 or two dino-bird fossils that are still in dispute?
You again fail. The traits that would later become things like wings and beaks would have other uses. For instance with wings. they went from clawed talons used for grabbing (and this grabbing motion became the motion for flight). The talons eventually kept there feathers for isolation. Further changes allowed for furthers jumps to grab prey that was out of reach then gliding to get prey even further away. Eventually they no longer grabbed stuff with there talons but with there mouth so the claws began to disappear in favor of better adapted wings for flying. Now from talons used to grab prey to fully functional wings at what point were they not useful to the species?
As for the "disputed" for most transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds I've only seen this on creationist sites so it's likely an attempt to make a dispute where non exists or at least no longer exists or in other words they are either lying or using outdated, refuted evidence.
Freedom of speech dictates we allow creationists their right to tell us why we're wrong. The greatest thing about people is that when someone makes a plausible statement about the divine that is an unquesitonable mistake, there are a few good people who go out of their way and in many cases spend years in research to prove themselves right and in most cases through history the church wrong!
The other thing to noteis that the catholic church now largely ignores any topic they feel may have a good chance of being proved wrong with science. Also just for the record i aint no faith hater, just a church basher.
Also all christian faith has its beginnings in the catholic church. Just as an aside from a previous remark.
[quote]Also all christian faith has its beginnings in the catholic church. Just as an aside from a previous remark.
Nope, Christianity has it's roots in Judaism. The first recorded mention of Catholicism was in a letter dating to around 110AD.[/quote]
Well, i See Scruffy's point.
But there is a reason there are both Christians and Catholics now. Because we split away from them because we thought they were wrong. (And actually, if it wasn't for that reformation, Science would be a lot farther back than it is now)
A mutation, in evolutionary terms, in neither good nor bad. It's just different. So even to suggest that macroevolution gives us "useful organs" is a fundamental misrepresentation of the theory.
But doesn't that go against the first law of thermodynamics?
But microevolution is completely consistent with a creature within a species to gain new organs.
I have yet to see anything good come out of micro ev. first law of thermodynamics again.
Also, is Obama really blocked now? Obama? Seriously?
It must have been a typo, maybe I typed 0sa/\\/\\a instead.
The traits that would later become things like wings and beaks would have other uses. For instance with wings. they went from clawed talons used for grabbing (and this grabbing motion became the motion for flight). The talons eventually kept there feathers for isolation. Further changes allowed for furthers jumps to grab prey that was out of reach then gliding to get prey even further away. Eventually they no longer grabbed stuff with there talons but with there mouth so the claws began to disappear in favor of better adapted wings for flying. Now from talons used to grab prey to fully functional wings at what point were they not useful to the species?
Ok, so that might explain one part. But There still isn't a lot of "Transitional" fossils.
As for the "disputed" for most transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds I've only seen this on creationist sites so it's likely an attempt to make a dispute where non exists or at least no longer exists or in other words they are either lying or using outdated, refuted evidence.
Well, I have only seen articles about the transitional fossils on pro-evolution sites.
How far up your . . . ear . . . did you have to reach for that one? Seriously, do some research and stop being wrong all the time. I'm tired of holding your hand(your palms are sweaty, btw) and correcting you all the time.
Nope, Christianity has it's roots in Judaism. The first recorded mention of Catholicism was in a letter dating to around 110AD.
Yes but the quote was in reference to it not being from catholidcism so your note is pointless. Its over-egging the pudding old chum. I was making a statement as to decisions coming from any of the modern non catholic faith groups have a basis of structure coming from the catholic faith.
