Kinds vs. Species. Microevolution vs Macroevolution. Historical Science vs. Observable Science. Bullshit?

Kinds vs. Species. Microevolution vs Macroevolution. Historical Science vs. Observable Science. Bullshit? Topic: Case statement in word macro
June 16, 2019 / By Garth
Question: I have never seen terms like this being used in real, empirical, unbiased science (aside from species). Is this some pathetic attempt by creationists to convince us that their dogmatic faith has scientific basis? I know macroevolution and microevolution are sometimes used, but I'm talking about creationists saying that one is true and one is false (when both are true) @A B E L "no transitional fossils have ever been found, and properly identified as such" have you been living under a rock for all these years? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_tra... http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-... @NDMA What propaganda? What fraud, what errors? What are you talking about?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Kinds vs. Species. Microevolution vs Macroevolution. Historical Science vs. Observable Science. Bullshit?

Devil Devil | 10 days ago
It's an attempt to convince us that the debate between Evolution and creationism is a battle between worldviews, whereby the creationists have the same evidence and interpret differently. It's an attempt to reduce evolution to a dogma underlying the religion of materialism, and thus demonstrate the same dogmatic bias toward evolution that fundamentalists have toward creationism. Doing so renders both ideas equally valid, though unfortunately for them, equally invalid as well. Rather than actually science-ing some things, they can only say they disagree with the science-ing done by actual scientists. It's like they don't get that by claiming equal bias, they tacitly admit that they could be wrong, whilst steadfastly insisting that they can't be wrong. @A B el (I'm not putting all those spaces in there...Even if typing this takes more time and space than doing so would have) Let's be clear, your understanding of evolution (as made clear by your statements, not taken out of context) is that evolution involves an animal changing from one member of a classification higher than the species level, to a completely different one. According to you, evolution can only be said to have happened if something changes from say, one Family, to another ( I use family because Ken Ham identifies this as being what the term "Kind" means). Notice that Family is higher than Species. Evolution is seen as speciation, not famil...iation...I guess. Speciation is the level at which family changes occur as well as all higher than species-level classifications, and thus is the level at which evolution is most clearly noted. It's like if I showed you a dog that DID turn into say, a cat, and you saying that's not evolution, because they're both still mammals, or if a dog turned into a lizard, and you said it's not evolution, because they're both still vertebrate animals, or if a dog turned into an octopus, and you saying it's not evolution because they're both still animals. Or, to be completely crazy, and hopefully obvious, if a dog turned into a multicellular bacteria, and you saying it's not evolution because they're both still eukariotic (multicellular) organisms. Hell, lets go all the way: If a Dog turned into an amoeba, a single celled organism, or vice versa (in all cases), and you denied that it was evolution because they are both still technically alive. Yes, your argument is every bit as absurd. You assign arbitrary and ignorant rules to a process that has very defined and *observed* rules, as though there are not people who understand these things, and can tell you otherwise. You redefine the word Species to mean something broader and more inclusive (ie. family, class, order, kingdom-- any of the other higher than species level changes that require many individual instances of speciation to achieve) and insist that actual speciation is not such. You then go on to insist that no transitional forms have been found and documented, although literally any fossil one finds IS a transitional form, no exceptions, in quite the same way that if I saw your skeleton in between the skeletons of your father and son, YOU would represent the transition between the other two. Not to mention that that statement, however you interpret it, requires a .02 second google search to debunk. Furthermore, as has been stated, the difference between micro and macro evolution is negligible to science, not to mention that micro evolution would be equally as impossible as you think macro evolution to be, if in fact macro evolution weren't possible. Finally, speciation HAS been observed, and even many creationists won't deny that anymore.
👍 128 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Kinds vs. Species. Microevolution vs Macroevolution. Historical Science vs. Observable Science. Bullshit? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Case statement in word macro

Devil Originally Answered: Will majoring in Environmental Science and minoring in Political Science lead me to decent employment?
In today's economic and environmental climate shifts government at all levels is engaged in the field. Municipalities are seeking cost effective and efficient means of dealing with garbage and rising energy costs, with dwindling tax resource due to the housing bubble. Other governments outside the U.S. are creating incentives and benefits as well as penalties on corporations who do not institute sustainable business practices. The Kyoto protocol and the G20 Summit are both focused on this subject. Particularly with carbon emissions, carbon taxation, incentives, best practices. In fact a good is the Dsire web site (see below in source) for reviewing how active the political at local, State and Federal really participate. Seeking employment where States are pro environmental technologies is a smart area of research. Review the safe haven in Nevada for instance. Also, with lower housing cost and favorable taxation laws, this is attracting more companies every year. Literally, every company and every government will require environmental advisers, engineers and technologies. Tens of millions of jobs have already been created by this transformation. For example the renewable energy sector now employs close to 5 million workers, more than doubling the number of jobs from 2006-2010. Energy efficiency is another important source of green jobs, particularly in the construction industry, the sector hardest hit by the economic crisis. In the U.S. there are 3 million people are employed in the segment. Which is the about the size of NYC, so there is plenty of need and room. Dependent on your specialty quite lucrative as well.

Berry Berry
With creationists, it's pretty funny. They go into all of these crazy rants about how macroevolution/the big bang aren't true because we haven't observed either of the two, although. We HAVE observed everything in the universe is moving away from us - thus it is expanding outward. Rewind the clock and it must have started a a single point. We HAVE observed micro evolution --> which LEADS to MACRO evolution, we have loads and loads of evidence of macro evolution being true it's sad people don't believe in it. They say there are "flaws" in the theory of evolution, and that there is no enough evidence to support it - they get very very precise about evidence when trying to disprove scientific theories. But when we ask them for evidence of god, they say "just have faith"
👍 40 | 👎 4

Abishai Abishai
These are terms invented by Evolutionist Scientists. Christian teachers and leaders do not teach evolution. Christians use those terms that evolutionists invented, to put forward opposing views. As we do not believe in evolution or the accidental bang. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...
👍 31 | 👎 -2

Sive Sive
I have never seen macroevolution and microevolution used in modern scientific literature. "Kind" is not a taxonomic unit. Nothing creationists say is truthful and honest There is no "debate" between evolution and creationism (there is only evolution), just as there is no "debate" between those who claim immunisation protects against viruses and those who think it causes autism.
👍 22 | 👎 -8

Phyliss Phyliss
@NDMA - Please provide us with these supposed frauds and propaganda. @A B E L - Actually, there are currently thousands of different types of transitional fossils, evolution is a scientific fact.
👍 13 | 👎 -14

Marylou Marylou
They needed some technical words to show that creation science actually has some technical words. It's hard to convince people that you are a science when you have no research. This is what they came up with :D
👍 4 | 👎 -20

Laney Laney
Science sinks or swims on evidence.. Evolution is more buried in propaganda, fraud and known errors than any empirical evidence. The real sad part of it is known errors and frauds that remain in school text books decades and even centuries after they have been revealed as errors or frauds.. for this reason the notion that evolution is science or scientific is laughable.
👍 -5 | 👎 -26

Jeri Jeri
First, define the word evolution - I believe it means that one species becomes (evolves) into a completely NEW species. (This is MACRO-evolution) To selectively breed a Chihuahua, or a Irish Wolf Hound from a wild wolf is NOT evolution it is a variation within a species, that some call MICRO-evolution. They are still all the same KIND are they not? – therefore they did NOT evolve, they are merely a new variety. Maybe a Dalmatian, Jack Russell terrier or a Great Dane in the dog example above. MICRO-evolution (variation) has been observed many times, but MACRO-evolution has NEVER been observed, No transitional fossils have ever been found, and properly identified as such. No, evolution is an unproven belief. ____________________________________
👍 -14 | 👎 -32

Floella Floella
when someone uses these terns they show they have learned "science" from their religious leaders.
👍 -23 | 👎 -38

Floella Originally Answered: I need help with my science homework. it is 7th grade science?
An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it, and with a free connection to the open sea.[1] Estuaries are often associated with high rates of biological productivity. An estuary is typically the tidal mouth of a river (aestus is Latin for tide), and estuaries are often characterized by sedimentation or silt carried in from terrestrial runoff and, frequently, from offshore. They are made up of brackish water. Estuaries are more likely to occur on submerged coasts, where the sea level has risen in relation to the land; this process floods valleys to form rias and fjords. These can become estuaries if there is a stream or river flowing into them. Large estuaries, like Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound often have many streams flowing into them and can have complex shapes. Estuaries are often given names like bay, sound, fjord, etc. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Where an enormous volume of river water enters the sea (as, for example, from the Amazon into the South Atlantic) its estuary could be considered to extend well beyond the coast. Estuarine circulation is common in estuaries; this occurs when fresh or brackish water flows out near the surface, while denser saline water flows inward near the bottom. Anti-estuarine flow is its opposite, in which dense water flows out near the bottom and less dense water circulates inward at the surface. These two terms, however, have a broader oceanographic application that extends beyond estuaries proper, such as in describing the circulation of nearly-closed ocean basins. Estuaries are marine environments, whose pH, salinity, and water level are constantly changing, depending on the river that feeds the estuary and the ocean that it gets most of its salinity from (oceans and seas have different salinity levels).

If you have your own answer to the question case statement in word macro, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.