So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Did you check out the journal article explaining the difference between micro and macro evolution

The one I linked? Yes, I did.

I already do accept evolution,

No, you don't. You equivocate by claiming there is an irreconcilable difference between macro and microevolution.

Keep doing so, if the thought pains you so greatly. But both microevolution and macroevolution have been proven to occur even though you refuse to accept it. The definitions, roles, and mechanisms of each are the subject of the theory. That it occurs is fact.

a reply to: Phage

Sorry didn't know you linked an article

So are you saying micro evolution isn't evolution
Strange

Or you don't think their is no difference, like I suppose you decide what is and isn't, and I have to go along with your assumption
There is no equivocation, can't believe I have to tell you this again, I believe in micro not macro evolution, why would you misunderstand that. I set it out in the op, in the very beginning as clear as daylight

So,let's get back to that journal article stating macro evolution is a fact (you keep telling me, prove it) and then we can all go home, you wearing the laurel, me the hardy

So far, lots of talk, mostly off topic...

So tell me, do you think some scientists differentiate micro and macro evolution, simple yes or no?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry didn't know you linked an article

I'm not surprised. Confirmation bias can tend to make one blind to certain facts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry didn't know you linked an article

I'm not surprised. Confirmation bias can tend to make one blind to certain facts.

Yeah, like I remember 19 pages, anyway that's not an answer, not an article, it's a bit like you are dodging my questions, hiding, so while I don't expect an answer, let me ask...

Simple yes or no answer as if that's possible from you, I am thinking disingenuous
Do you think some scientists differentiate macro and micro evolution

See, I do,pretty sure that journal article does as well, the one you say you supplied, another article supplied by Chronaut stated the differences, so makes me wonder
I think there are many irreconcilable differences, listed in this thread as well, evidently you don't?

Just a simple yes or no will suffice, highly unlikely, bit like that journal article I asked for


It's a reef, you just hit it

a reply to: Raggedyman

And here I thought you were not replying? Consistency is not your forte

I've posted articles previously. You refused to read them.

That indicates you are not willing to engage.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Where did I say I believed in flat earth? I do not remember that. I've argued against it.

Theory does not turn into law. That's a complete lie which further demonstrates why this thread is a farce. You can't grasp the idea of how science consists of probabilities based on evidence, rather than absolute proofs and disproofs. Hypotheses can turn into theories, but theories never ever turn into law.

There aren't any peer reviewed research papers that say exactly "Theory X is 100% proved". That ain't how science works. It keeps investigating and investigating and refining the knowledge. The conclusions of research papers, are based on the results of tests. They focus specifically on the research conducted, they don't make overarching generalizations, because they understand that you don't prove things 100%, you just follow the evidence and see what can be learned.

a reply to: Noinden

Yeah of course you did noindy, just like everyone else has done, so good nobody else can remember it

While on this very page your peers have said it can't be done, you did it previously, good on you noindy
Good boy, what your contempories have said was not possible you have made possible, completed, just so proud of you

If you did there would be a few of your peers holding up signs noindy, burning me at a stake, so?
In your own head you are a hero noindy

I have asked a very simple request
Please read the op and reply in kind

a reply to: Barcs

Where did I say I didn't believe in germs
I assumed a probability based on evidence you were a flat earther
Just showing you what it's like to have to deal with immature people, guess because you don't believe in germs, you believing a flat earth as well was logical

So tell me Barcs, seems phage has gone off to bed
Do you acknowledge some scientists differentiate micro and macro evolution

And no, not interested in hypothesis, theories and law, I asked for evidence for macro evolution, if it's a fact then there should be rock solid scientific evidence
Why can't you understand that

So tell me, do some scientists acknowledge that micro and macro evolution is different
Simple?

If evolution is a probability, how can we t also be a fact?

a reply to: Raggedyman

You do not read our replies neighbour. We've posted them. If you are too lazy to read them. That is on you.

You don't read what we say.

You asked for "proof of speciation" we post that.
You ask this and that, and we show it.

Thus statitically, evolution is the most likely answer.

QED.

Raggedy man (11 still says leave his name out of it) goodnight

originally posted by: Barcs


There aren't any peer reviewed research papers that say exactly "Theory X is 100% proved".

How about that, it's cool, noindie has found the relevant article, rest easy,,we,will,see,it soon,me is on it
I didn't ask for theory to be proved 100%

I asked that you prove evolution on a macro scale with repetable observable and testable science

If evolution on a macro scale is a scientific fact, prove it to me with science, not assumption

a reply to: Raggedyman



Macroevolution and microevolution are indeed terms used to differentiate between small changes over short periods of time, and how sometimes, a group of animals gets cut off from the rest of the population, and over a very long time, it can take a nominal, to extremely different evolutionary path and become a completely different kind of animal. When one population can no longer breed with the other, they are generally considered a different species.

Some populations, mostly oceanic, never truly get cut off from one another, so you see animals that have changed very little in the past 50 million years, like sharks. These animals could be said to have exhibited very little macro evolutionary changes.

But if you look at whales and their evolutionary path, you will find an animal that at one point, had four legs. The toes and finger bones are still there to be seen today, as well as the pelvis which is clearly a feature of an animal that used to walk on land. This animal has obviously changed enough to fit even your definition of macroevolution. (You could also look up sea lions, manatees, and horses, which have all gone through drastic body shape changes over the last 50 million years. )


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a PRA from berkeley dealing with the topic of cetacean evolution.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.

Whale evogram
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Nearly a peer reviewed journal article, nearly

Wikipedia, the peer reviewed journals of the google age?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Please tell me Woody, if so many of your peers have said it can't be done...

Why should I Waste anymore of my time

a reply to: Raggedyman


It’s right there Raggedyann


I have two posts there. The first was agreeing with you, that macroevolution is a thing. The second post is a peer reviewed article from Berkley college showing the macroevolution of cetaceans.

You do know what peer reviewed means right?

The opening post can be settled by comprehending the following statement:

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a scientific fact.

Everyone can realise that is an accurate and truthful statement.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here are some more. journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0007062



www.popscicoll.org...

a reply to: dug88

But why?????
Was this intentional??? I think we would all like to know. LOL

I left some bags of garbage sitting for like 2 years and some brownish red fluid had accumulated underneath.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here are some more. journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0007062
www.popscicoll.org...

Well thanks for pointing me in the direction of such a list of journals, I couldn't find anything relevant.
I guess that means they don't exist

What do you think?

a reply to: Incandescent

Really, really, you think we have 19 pages of nothing.
if you were right the argument could end there
Should have ended on page one, if you were right
But surely 19 pages of answers means there must be some hope of a peer reviewed journal article somewhere, surely
Imagine the terror and devastation if old raggedy has the last word