So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

That's a very good idea. As I mentioned, it looks more like a scaling problem, but researching the literature is the right way to go about it.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

That's a very good idea. As I mentioned, it looks more like a scaling problem, but researching the literature is the right way to go about it.

Really, using science to justify a scientific position.
Who'd of thought

But
No doubt, there will be a plethora of people calling me a retard, a moron, a cretin and scientifically illiterate
It's so much fun isn't it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

We would be more impressed if you submitted your "research" for professional peer review and publication like those journals we shared with you here. Posting your scathing opinions on a conspiracy forum doesn't really prove anything

a reply to: TzarChasm

No doubt, no doubt indeed

I would be impressed if you just worked on the op, never mind offering up anything for peer review
I have given you an easy out and you failed miserably

Come on Tzar, you have nothing and you want everything
9 pages of nothing

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.

Because it's a red herring, a misrepresentation of evolution by implying that somewhere, a dog must be giving birth to a cat, or a monkey to a human. The technical term is NOT macroevolution, but speciation - one species producing another species. But the examples I mentioned are wholly ignorant of how evolution works. Perhaps you could provide specific examples of speciation and how they developed? Being that I'm on a mobile device I can't really do the proper assembling of research and exposition.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

No doubt, no doubt indeed

I would be impressed if you just worked on the op, never mind offering up anything for peer review
I have given you an easy out and you failed miserably

Come on Tzar, you have nothing and you want everything
9 pages of nothing

You haven't successfully refuted or discredited anything in this thread. You just bluster and condescend. 9 pages of it, in between the useful links and articles you ignore religiously. Refute something, demonstrate any of the research we have shared to be in error. If you can't do that in explicit terms without playing word games or waffling, then the conclusion here is obvious.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Please feel free to show me something to refute

So any chance Tzar, something posted on this forum for me to refute
Pretty please...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

That's a very good idea. As I mentioned, it looks more like a scaling problem, but researching the literature is the right way to go about it.

Really, using science to justify a scientific position.
Who'd of thought

But
No doubt, there will be a plethora of people calling me a retard, a moron, a cretin and scientifically illiterate
It's so much fun isn't it

If you're doing a thorough search of the literature and come up with an explanation, there's nothing to criticize.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.

Because it's a red herring, a misrepresentation of evolution by implying that somewhere, a dog must be giving birth to a cat, or a monkey to a human. The technical term is NOT macroevolution, but speciation - one species producing another species. But the examples I mentioned are wholly ignorant of how evolution works. Perhaps you could provide specific examples of speciation and how they developed? Being that I'm on a mobile device I can't really do the proper assembling of research and exposition.

If that's the case, then it isn't a problem to refute it. The problem is the language and definitions. Micro vs macro can imply many different things. If macro is speciation, then that's what the literature will show. Again, my opinion (without doing a lot of research) is that it's a scaling issue. You could refer to micro evolution as speciation as well if the mechanism is similar. Let's see what his literature research shows. We'll take it from there.

originally posted by: chr0naut
It's Raggedy's thread! He asked a direct and clear question and no-one has provided a specific clear answer to it.

Actually, he didn't. He made an imperative statement:

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

A question would have been

Could someone simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution

Please don't. I don't think you know what science is or how to investigate a claim, let alone define the diffs between micro and macro evolution.

Any and all of this thread is easily Googleable - every single point made about evolution and the plethora of evidence to back it up. The fact that you couldn't be asked to do even that and instead created a thread JUST to troll people suggests any further threads on the subject will only be another attempt to annoy and wind up the ATS community.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact
Thank you

You won't find such evidence in a peer reviewed article (or ten) because from one 'kind' to another it took million of years. And it took millions of little changes (what you refer to as micro-evolution) and it would be impossible to show you every little change that transformed one species into another.

Microevolution can be observed now and we could also show you every 'missing link' between us and our hominids ancestors... but I know you don't want that.

If you are looking for a peer reviewed article that shows a dinosaur becoming a chicken, or a cow giving birth to a zebra then you won't find it and expecting such thing shows a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

Have a look at this picture which has been around for years now and it explains clearly how small changes over time cannot be observed and pinpointed, but allows us to see the 'original' and what that original becomes with time... it explains macroevolution in a simple way:





Edit: added link so you can see the picture in a bigger format.

Link to pic.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So any chance Tzar, something posted on this forum for me to refute
Pretty please...

Macroevolution is a thoroughly observed and recorded phenomenon that has withstood the test of the scientific method and rigorous professional peer review, and has more evidence to support it than theology does.

Refute that statement.

a reply to: Agartha

Well that's just pretty, great for school children, but it's not science
But please have another go

Words are not organic evolution, it's dumb

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So any chance Tzar, something posted on this forum for me to refute
Pretty please...

Macroevolution is a thoroughly observed and recorded phenomenon that has withstood the test of the scientific method and rigorous professional peer review, and has more evidence to support it than theology does.

Refute that statement.

Maybe you should find another thread, make one up yourself
I have a thread about something else

You know, I thought the thread title might help the subject be understood clearly

Evidently not

a reply to: Raggedyman

How many of the papers which have been supplied have you read? No seriously. How many?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

One other point. I'm not sure why the difference between micro and macro evolution is such a big deal. It seems to me that it's just a function of scaling. If it happens on a small scale, chances are it happens on a large scale. The laws of nature happen on small and large scales. Someone would have to explain to me why it's such a problem in evolution.

I would disagree that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is one of scale.

The biggest issue I have is around speciation and if a biologically incompatible genome (the new species) could ever breed successfully (in the case of sexually reproducing life).

We know that as few as 12 genes can differentiate between very similar species, so biological incompatabilities (like histology) can happen in a single mutation and there is no allowance for gradual change because the genetic mutations/traits passed in every case, are a minimum quanta. I.e: you cannot assume subdivided 'partial gene changes', because they would be eliminated by the error corrective nature of genetics. Each gene must reflect self integrity to be passed on.

We have also observed similar species where one population overcomes the other through natural selection and where gradualism and partitioned populations have not occurred.

How many disproofs of vital process steps are required to shake the 'evolution only' paradigm for macroevolution?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So any chance Tzar, something posted on this forum for me to refute
Pretty please...

Macroevolution is a thoroughly observed and recorded phenomenon that has withstood the test of the scientific method and rigorous professional peer review, and has more evidence to support it than theology does.

Refute that statement.

The fact that no-one seems to be able to tender such direct and complete observational evidence in a peer reviewed paper or even a series therof, might be taken as proof of the specific process being nonexistent in actuality.