Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[cbirch2]

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

Im sure berkley puts controversial evidence on its website without a disclaimer....lol

Obviously in the eyes of berkley evolution (including speciation) is fact.

Go ahead and print the quote where they say speciation is a fact.

I already copied and pasted the statement where they said it MIGHT be.

You seriously didnt understand that quote. It says nothing about evolution being only plausible. It says they have no idea whats going to happen to the iguana. Wow. That was incredibly stupid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[snip for simplicity and point],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Very good. Any basic college text in genetics would cover these elements of the science, and cover them in sufficient interdisciplinary detail, so as to settle the issue, once and for all.

As an aside, I notice none of the macro-evolution deniers have bothered to answer the questions I would pose students in a first semester course in animal genetics.

Does anyone know how many chromosomes chimpanzees have? How many do humans have? Someone CLAIMED to have taken SEVERAL courses in genetics, hmm. Why don't I believe that? Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

Wow you are getting in over your head.

Probably because that is as far as you went with it.

Remember my question to you ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Could you at least pretend to understand English?

From the Berkeley site:

"Evolutionary biologists would love to know what happens next: will the colonizing iguanas die out, will they survive and change only slightly, or will they become reproductively isolated from other Iguana iguana and become a new species?"

You notice that there is a question. That is not evidence that it has been proven. It's a statement that says they would like to have proof.

Do you get the difference?

Is English your second language? Perhaps you should change your search settings to allow you to read things in your own language?

So now you deny evolution because scientists can't predict the future of what a species will do?

These arguments get better and better .

 

[Dr.Drock]

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

Macroevolution

Does anyone see an "if" or "maybe" in there when Berkeley is talking about macroevolution?

I'm being told I have a reading problem, do I? Or does the person making such a claim?

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.


Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.


The history of life, on a grand scale.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.



Download this, and the graphic at the top of the page, from the Image library.


A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history



Does anyone here see Berekeley questioning whether or not macroevolution happens?

 

[cbirch2]

Chromosome two anyone? Anyone...Anyone...Bueller...Bueller...

 

[cbirch2]

What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.


Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.


The history of life, on a grand scale.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.



Download this, and the graphic at the top of the page, from the Image library.


A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history



Does anyone here see Berekeley questioning whether or not macroevolution happens?

No you pretty much hit the nail on the head. They think the fact that we cant predict the future disproves evolution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.


Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.


The history of life, on a grand scale.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.



Download this, and the graphic at the top of the page, from the Image library.


A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history



Does anyone here see Berekeley questioning whether or not macroevolution happens?

No you pretty much hit the nail on the head. They think the fact that we cant predict the future disproves evolution.

Yeah I'm guessing a lot of ad hominem is on the way.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree..........................................snip for space....................


Does anyone here see Berekeley questioning whether or not macroevolution happens?

In a word NO! Berkeley's series of web pages is an EXCELLENT SUMMARY of the current state of genetics and evolution science, designed for today's teachers to digest easily and use in public or private education.

It is an excellent source of well-established science information and educaiton.

That's what I thought, lots of good summaries and memory refreshers in there.

I'm not even trying to convince people in here, I've given up on that, just trying to get them to admit if you deny speciation and macroevolution, then you're denying evolution.

Honesty is a good start.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Point to" "Might be" "Possibly"

Those terms are indicative of exactly zero proof.

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[snip for simplicity and point],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Very good. Any basic college text in genetics would cover these elements of the science, and cover them in sufficient interdisciplinary detail, so as to settle the issue, once and for all.

As an aside, I notice none of the macro-evolution deniers have bothered to answer the questions I would pose students in a first semester course in animal genetics.

Does anyone know how many chromosomes chimpanzees have? How many do humans have? Someone CLAIMED to have taken SEVERAL courses in genetics, hmm. Why don't I believe that? Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

If you're gonna ask a question like this don't you think you need to prove it happened ?

You're are asking a question about a mechnism above the species level that you can't prove happened and biologist can't agree on. I don't know where you teach genetics but i think you would have come up with a better question.

48 and 46 24 pairs 23 pairs. if you're trying to insinuate we evolved from the chimp prove it because that is a big difference not to mention other differences like chromosome inversions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol um when did you ever once prove me wrong? The only time i was ever wrong was the coelacanth, and not even for the reason you thought. I still dont think you understand that one.

Do i need to make another list.

You don't remember saying oil was from dead plants and animals ? and trying to prove it with wiki.

You don't remember saying macro and micro were made up terms by creationist ?

God i don't have time for this nonsense, You get the point.

Oil is from plants and animals you tard. Three links saying "oil may have formed where it wasnt supposed to" is far from enough evidence to overturn 100 years of science.

As for macro and microevolution, thats about all you have dude. And im still right. No biologists use those terms. Yea its on wiki, that means someone on the internet knows the term.

No it isn't you moron.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.





It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

Im sure berkley puts controversial evidence on its website without a disclaimer....lol

Obviously in the eyes of berkley evolution (including speciation) is fact.

Berkley is filled with people like you.

they are so biased and everyone that goes there knows it.

Their Ideology is the same as yours you nitwit.

 

[cbirch2]

Do i need to make another list.

You don't remember saying oil was from dead plants and animals ? and trying to prove it with wiki.

You don't remember saying macro and micro were made up terms by creationist ?

God i don't have time for this nonsense, You get the point.

Oil is from plants and animals you tard. Three links saying "oil may have formed where it wasnt supposed to" is far from enough evidence to overturn 100 years of science.

As for macro and microevolution, thats about all you have dude. And im still right. No biologists use those terms. Yea its on wiki, that means someone on the internet knows the term.

No it isn't you moron.

The debate is not whether oil comes from plants and animals. The debate is whether it can also be produced by inorganic methods. Anyone that thinks oil cant be created from decaying organic matter is a retard. Its done in labs every day.

 

[cbirch2]

I see, your stance is Berkeley finds there to be zero proof of speciation?

Evidence for speciation

"Scientists have found a lot of evidence that is consistent with allopatric speciation being a common way that new species form"

Cospeciation

"Evolutionary biologists can often tell when lineages have cospeciated because the parasite phylogeny will "mirror" the host phylogeny. "

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[snip for simplicity and point],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


It shouldn't be this easy to find the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming, but it is.

Very good. Any basic college text in genetics would cover these elements of the science, and cover them in sufficient interdisciplinary detail, so as to settle the issue, once and for all.

As an aside, I notice none of the macro-evolution deniers have bothered to answer the questions I would pose students in a first semester course in animal genetics.

Does anyone know how many chromosomes chimpanzees have? How many do humans have? Someone CLAIMED to have taken SEVERAL courses in genetics, hmm. Why don't I believe that? Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

If you're gonna ask a question like this don't you think you need to prove it happened ?

You're are asking a question about a mechnism above the species level that you can't prove happened and biologist can't agree on. I don't know where you teach genetics but i think you would have come up with a better question.

48 and 46 24 pairs 23 pairs. if you're trying to insinuate we evolved from the chimp prove it because that is a big difference not to mention other differences like chromosome inversions.

Why does the layout the alleles on our 2nd chromosome match exactly the end to end layout of the alleles on two adjecent chimapnzee chromosomes. If chromosome 2 isnt the result of the fusion of two chromsomes why does it have a vestigial centromere and a sequence of telomeres at its center?

can you explain that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No you pretty much hit the nail on the head. They think the fact that we cant predict the future disproves evolution.

Yeah I'm guessing a lot of ad hominem is on the way.

Funny how one of those religious Christian minister types predicted the end of the world a couple months ago.

He was kind of all wet afterward.

Wow allie does this comment look familiar

Is that not what i said they do in the other thread.


Now if he only knew Christians know the scriptures say that no one knows the day and hour.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree..........................................snip for space....................


Does anyone here see Berekeley questioning whether or not macroevolution happens?

In a word NO! Berkeley's series of web pages is an EXCELLENT SUMMARY of the current state of genetics and evolution science, designed for today's teachers to digest easily and use in public or private education.

It is an excellent source of well-established science information and educaiton.

It's morons like them that has screwed this country up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow later trader seems to only ask questions not answer them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Very good. Any basic college text in genetics would cover these elements of the science, and cover them in sufficient interdisciplinary detail, so as to settle the issue, once and for all.

As an aside, I notice none of the macro-evolution deniers have bothered to answer the questions I would pose students in a first semester course in animal genetics.

Does anyone know how many chromosomes chimpanzees have? How many do humans have? Someone CLAIMED to have taken SEVERAL courses in genetics, hmm. Why don't I believe that? Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

If you're gonna ask a question like this don't you think you need to prove it happened ?

You're are asking a question about a mechnism above the species level that you can't prove happened and biologist can't agree on. I don't know where you teach genetics but i think you would have come up with a better question.

48 and 46 24 pairs 23 pairs. if you're trying to insinuate we evolved from the chimp prove it because that is a big difference not to mention other differences like chromosome inversions.

Why does the layout the alleles on our 2nd chromosome match exactly the end to end layout of the alleles on two adjecent chimapnzee chromosomes. If chromosome 2 isnt the result of the fusion of two chromsomes why does it have a vestigial centromere and a sequence of telomeres at its center?

can you explain that?

Once again you rely on speculation. You see what supports your theory now ?

You're are attempting to say they were fused.

 

[cbirch2]

Wow later trader seems to only ask questions not answer them.

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people."

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hey,there are debates going on on how to define a species but conveniently that is your only so called evidence for speciation. They can't even agree on this.

Im sure berkley puts controversial evidence on its website without a disclaimer....lol

Obviously in the eyes of berkley evolution (including speciation) is fact.

Berkley is filled with people like you.

they are so biased and everyone that goes there knows it.

Their Ideology is the same as yours you nitwit.

Comparing CB to Berkeley scientists, that's a very nice compliment I'm sure he wasn't expecting.

You have no idea if the scientists who wrote that are christians and/or creationists, they may be, just not the crazy science denying types you wish they were.