"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition
from weak minds."

Albert Einstein.

One of these days you're going to shock us all by actually giving an exampe of I.D. being disproven - so we have a clue as to what you're talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The video is a bit long, but try actually watching it. Also, I am not the first person to post this video. So, the proof has been displayed before.

It has nothing to do with ID being disproven.

ID, disguised as creationism, is nothing other then a faith-religious-bible-inerrant negative argumentation of the fact-scientifically supported scientific theory of evolution.

You can't 'disprove' ID, it is crationism in disguise, and creationism is faith based. Nothing presented by the creationist camp, other than dogma, nothing to observe or verify, nothing to disprove.

What has been repeatedly established, from the judicial and scientific perspectives, is that ID is nothing other than a religious,faith-based, negative argument against the theory of evolution, and has been found unsconstitutional, on the legal front, and anything but science simply because nothing scientifically verifiable (scientific papers, research, verifiable findings, peer reviews, etc.) has ever been submitted.

Disprove ID?!?!?!?

Totally impertinent.

I.D., like its ancestors, bible inerrancy and creationism, are matter of FAITH, not FACT.

Like all matters of FAITH, it is totally incompatible with the natural arena.

It belongs entirely to the supernatural, where it could never be used to prove or disprove anything in the natural arena, anymore than it could ever be proven itself.

PROOF does not apply to FAITH,

... just as BELIEF doesn't apply to SCIENCE

And bats are not birds, so there!.

In keeping with the topic of the post,

... LOOKS LIKE EVOLUTION IS BEING MADE AS CLEAR AS CAN BE,

... WHILE CREATIONISM IS BEING MADE AS MUDDY AS THAT ORIGINAL MATTER CREATIONISTS FEAR MORE THAN DEATH ITSELF!!!


Ironic!!!

However - there is a 99 per cent accuracy with the bible of today and the manuscripts found in the 1st century.

All those changes.

What makes Micro Evolution and Macro evolution mutually exclusive?

Perhaps you are unaware that micro evolution does not give evidence that a single species has evolved into another. Only change within "kind".

Okey. Let's bring this down to basiscs.

Give me the evidence for the theory of Evolution mutating into fact.

We're not discussing the Biblical theory mutating into fact - that is a topic you wish to refute - I have nothing to add to it, as there is no emperical evidence for the "Fact" of creation. Just as there is no emperical evidence for the "fact" of Macro evolution. It is a "FAITH" based theory.

So - if we share 92-99 per cent DNA (pick a number) with an Ape - due to a common ancester -

Why so many disimilarities?

However - if you own a cat and drop dead in your kitchen, you are eventually going to be that cat's meal if someone doesn't find you.

So Eijay what you are saying is that we didn't evolve from a chimpanzee, monkey type animal at all.

That there is no chance that we came from anykind of monkey type or other animal at all.

That perhaps you agree we were humans all along, but maybe just didn't stand up straight, or had more hair.

What is your conclusion and belief on how we as a human evolved millions of years ago?

Well - I don't know about MS, but the information, is merely the presumption of those with a world view of Macro Evolution. Nothing new there.

Dat - what data?

There isn't a single "fact" for Macro evolution on this entire thread. Please - reiterate what you think is a "fact".

As to the list you have - tell me how the 1st two on the list of Evolution are NOT also on the list for the bible.

As for the third. What has this got to do with fact or evidence for evolution? While I don't disagree with you on the fact that the technology of today is more advanced than that of biblical times, We still know less about what happened back then than the people who were alive at that time who recorded. That fact should be pretty obvious - wouldn't you think?

But what is your criteria for discerning that what you are reading represents the truth?

How do you measure your "objectivity" if not according to your world view?

One can certainly consider all the possibilities - but that doesn't mean a good number of them just won't be simply rejected. How many people do you think are on these threads who reject the bible without ever reading it? Think on that and we'll revisit "objectivity" and "open mindedness".

'eljay',

The theory of evolution doesn't have to MUTATE into fact, it already is nothing other than an overwhelming mountain of facts, and nothing other than facts.

I.D., the mutated form of creationism, has no fact, and all faith.

Theory of Evolution's mountain of facts need not wait for your approval before drawing factual conclusions about its moutain of 'evolution' proof.

You and your creationist friends have ludicrously attempted to pass 'evolution' as faith!!!

That is plain and simple desperation. And it has failed miserably where it matters: review the Dover case, and nearly a hundred othe such cases, including one Supreme Court judgement.

'Macro' evolution is a disingeneous fabrication of the creationist camp. It has long been demonstrated that there is only evolution, regardless of size or stage.

How can you STILL sit there and keep claiming that one, when your own camp has given up on it.

The simple REAL question to the creationist camp that killed this disingeneous deceitful claim, was simple enough:

'... CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY WHERE IN THE GENOME, MICRO EVOLUTION OCCURS, AND THE SPECIFIC STAGE WHERE IT BECOMES 'MACRO', AND STOPS OCCURING??? ...'

The creationists would need to finally start making sense, enter a lab, start testing scientifically, in order to come back with tangible testable findings.

How can you keep saying the other guys factual demonstration is wrong, without ever explaining and demonstrating your claim???

No answer. No counter argument. No comeback.

Nothing to substantiate your claim.

That what becomes a deceitful pursuit!!!

The 'Micro' and 'micro' noise, is nothing other than a negative argument, and a most deceitful pursuit.

It stands on nothing.

It cannot be argued scientifically, and it has the pretention of attacking real evidence, facts, and proof in science, without ever justifying its attacks.


YOU AGREE WITH YOUR MICRO-EVOLUTION FABRICATION,

YOU AGREE WITH EVOLUTION PERIOD.

Sorry that you keep insisting that the Human part must agree with the verbatim of your Adam and Eve book, but neither FICTION nor FAITH will ever be compatible with facts.

To remain objective one must be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

I would beg the differ that we actually know more today then we did back then and even why such writings where written at the time in the begin with.

These writings you read everyday or often in the bible is in my opinion a set of laws to control the masses using superstitious belief system to attain the order. With the help of some remarkable ancient mediterrenean stories, some history of the people to make it believable, and a wide range of imagination it remains a storybook at its best.

Concerning evolution, I was merely showing you the different technics evolutionists use to find out more about the past of our ancestory. These are just a few compared to other instruments they use. They use writings yes, but also cross exam with the treasures they find such as fossils. They use DNA, carbon, and so forth that I am sure Paul or John didn't use to see how life started back millions upon millions of years ago.

I mean be my guest if you want to believe in the stories of the bible such as walking on water, healing the blind, or destroying complete civilizations with a wave of the hand.

It is your choice, but many of us will not buy it and want to truly know where our ancestory comes from. What happened millions of years ago and how we came to evolve today.

Now concerning this ongoing macroevolution and microevolution debate that goes on in various threads is something we can discuss.

I believe that macroevolution (evolution on the grand scale of millions of years) is simply what you get when microevolution (evolution on the scale of individual lifetimes) is allowed to go on for millions of years.

The contrary view is that macroevolution is something qualitatively different from microevolution.

Neither view is self evidently silly if you think about it.

Nor are thy necessarily contradictory either.

As so often, it depends on what you mean.

We could use the parallel growth of a child.

Imagine an argument about an alleged distinction between macrogrowth and microgrowth. The study macrogrowth, we weigh the child every few months.

Every birthday we stand her up against a white doorpost and draw a pencil line to record her height.

More scientifically, we could measure various parts of the body, for example the diameter of her head, the width of the shoulders, the length of the major limb bones, and plot them against each other.

We also see significant events in the development such as the first appearance of public hair, or the first sign of breasts and menstruation in girls, and of facial hair in boys.

These are changes that constitutes macrogrowth, and we measure them on a timsesale of years or months.


So what I am saying is macrogrowth is the sum of lots of small episodes of microgrowth.

In any case it doesn't matter which to use as long as the information is accurate.

Now what I have a problem is those who think Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains microevolution, but is in principle important to explain macroevolution, which consequently needs an extra ingredient.

Unfortunately, this hankering after skyhooks has been given aid and comfort by real scientists whose intentions are innocent of any such thing.

I have discussed the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" before with friends in Germany in my language who have a much broader and better understanding then I will ever have on the subject.

I have never seen any good reason to doubt that macroevolution is lots of little bits of microevolution joined end to end over geological time, and detected by fossils instead by genetic sampling.

Nevertheless, there could be - and I believe there are - major events in evolutionary history after which the very nature of evolution itself changes.

Evolution itself might be said to evolve. So far progress has meant individual organisms becoming better over evolutionary time at doing what individuals do, which is to survive and reproduce.

But we can also countenance changes in the phenomeneon of evolution itself.

Here are some questions you should ask yourself Eijay and see if really the Bible can answer these questions?

Might evolution itself become better at doing something - what evolution does - as history goes by?

Is late evolution some kind of improvement of early evolution?

Do creatures evolve to improve not just their capacity to survive and reproduce, but the lineage's capactiy to evolve?

Is there an evolution of evolvabilty?

I am certain that macroevolution as of microevolution will find these answers much quicker then the Bible will ever tell us. That is if you truly want to rewind time to see.

Tangible proof of macroevolution

Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains.

Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language.

The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.


The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws.

And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said.

But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods.

Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.”

University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.”

“The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.”

Details of the study
In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract.

Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications.

Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed.

But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle.

In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull.

When did this genetic split occur?

Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures.

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution.

In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is.

Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.