The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[aitm]

My brother used to say, "the 2nd has as much relevance to evolution as spaghetti does to go-carts. The 1st law is a better tangent but they are too stupid, we always get the 2nd Baptists but never the 1st".

[Hydra009]

A hypothesis or guess to the reality we see today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysR-Npggh68

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml

[sasuke]

We haven't found any fossils linking up one species to another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ

[Mr.Obvious]

You cannot test macroevolution repeatedly. Time plays a great role in this, and for you to observe this theory, you actually need evidence. Now, I'm not saying you need to actually watch the animal evolve. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that you need something provable that substantiates the theory. We can make a few guesses here and there, but they aren't much more than that; guesses.

I need to ask you something, to get an understanding of what it is you actually think on the subject. Do you think what you refer to as micro- and macroevolution are two concepts proposed to be explained by different processes?
If yes, what do you suggest is the difference? What principles and processes run macro-evolution that don't appear in micro-evolution and/or the reverse of this question.
If no, which is the right answer in academic terms, then why would testing evolution in bacteria or fruitflies or whatever not count?

[Solomon Zorn]

 

[Qchan]

I need to ask you something, to get an understanding of what it is you actually think on the subject. Do you think what you refer to as micro- and macroevolution are two concepts proposed to be explained by different processes?
If yes, what do you suggest is the difference? What principles and processes run macro-evolution that don't appear in micro-evolution and/or the reverse of this question.
If no, which is the right answer in academic terms, then why would testing evolution in bacteria or fruitflies or whatever not count?

1) I'm speaking specifically about macroevolution. Microevolution refers specifically in relation to the smaller "parts" that make up a complex organism (such as bacteria).

2) I'm not too sure where you're going with this. My assumption is that you aren't understanding the point I'm making. So, I'll explain it again. Speciation and evolution are different. Speciation is factual and we have evidence to prove it. Evolution, in the scale proposed by Charles Darwin; more specifically, the theory of evolution, has flaws. The biggest flaw with the theory is that it violates the scientific method. Anything that violates the scientific method simply is not scientific.

[Icarus]

1) I'm speaking specifically about macroevolution. Microevolution refers specifically in relation to the smaller "parts" that make up a complex organism (such as bacteria).

2) I'm not too sure where you're going with this. My assumption is that you aren't understanding the point I'm making. So, I'll explain it again. Speciation and evolution are different. Speciation is factual and we have evidence to prove it. Evolution, in the scale proposed by Charles Darwin; more specifically, the theory of evolution, has flaws. The biggest flaw with the theory is that it violates the scientific method. Anything that violates the scientific method simply is not scientific.

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is time. The theory of evolution has developed 'a little bit' since ~1837. By stating it violates the scientific method suggests you don't know what the scientific method is.

Nice try at trolling, next time don't make self-contradictory statements.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Law of creationist idiocy: those who say something is "just a theory" have no fucking idea what a theory is.

[Qchan]

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is time. The theory of evolution has developed 'a little bit' since ~1837. By stating it violates the scientific method suggests you don't know what the scientific method is.

Nice try at trolling, next time don't make self-contradictory statements.

Do you honestly think it's related to time? You seem to have a misunderstanding of what microevolution really is.
Also, I've listed the basic steps of the scientific method (complete with numbers for easy understanding). If you believe that what I provided is incorrect, then please correct me. Please tell me *what* the scientific method is, if I am incorrect.

[Icarus]

Do you honestly think it's related to time? You seem to have a misunderstanding of what microevolution really is.
Also, I've listed the basic steps of the scientific method (complete with numbers for easy understanding). If you believe that what I provided is incorrect, then please correct me. Please tell me *what* the scientific method is, if I am incorrect.

The trolling continues, read up on how to be a good troll, come back under a different username and try again.

[Qchan]

The trolling continues, read up on how to be a good troll, come back under a different username and try again.

I've already had a lengthy and unneeded debate in the Introductions Forum about this topic. Now, if you're quite done with the accusations, I'd like to hear what your proposition to my proposal is.

[Icarus]

I've already had a lengthy and unneeded debate in the Introductions Forum about this topic. Now, if you're quite done with the accusations, I'd like to hear what your proposition to my proposal is.

The problem is your entire argument is that I don't understand what I'm talking about, when I have a long education and career in the topic. It is you who needs to go and read some primary literature before claiming to understand anything about this topic; since you know nothing about the topic and claim to understand it completely you are a troll. I'm guessing you've done this before, which is how you got past the initial 'Oh, I'm not a troll, look at how sincere I am".

[Qchan]

The problem is your entire argument is that I don't understand what I'm talking about, when I have a long education and career in the topic. It is you who needs to go and read some primary literature before claiming to understand anything about this topic; since you know nothing about the topic and claim to understand it completely you are a troll. I'm guessing you've done this before, which is how you got past the initial 'Oh, I'm not a troll, look at how sincere I am".

I'm debating the premise of microevolution from a reductionist's standpoint, since it is the easiest to view. Therefore, microevolution makes sense when using the term to discuss individual evolutionary distinctions within a more complex organism (such as developing resistance to changing temperatures or certain chemicals over a short period of time). If I were to come from your angle, then I'd use "speciation" which I've already said was a proven fact.

You're just talking in circles here.

[Desdinova]

Qchan. You are a persistent one aren't you?  Before we go any further, can you tell us what you believe?  One of your posts, and I fail to remember which one because they are numerous and I want to shoot myself every time I read one, states that we can take a clue as to what you believe by you referring to both atheists and theists in the third person.  So what is it you believe?  Are you a Buddhist?  Scientoligist?  Bat-Shit Crazyist?

[Mr.Obvious]

1) I'm speaking specifically about macroevolution. Microevolution refers specifically in relation to the smaller "parts" that make up a complex organism (such as bacteria).

2) I'm not too sure where you're going with this. My assumption is that you aren't understanding the point I'm making. So, I'll explain it again. Speciation and evolution are different. Speciation is factual and we have evidence to prove it. Evolution, in the scale proposed by Charles Darwin; more specifically, the theory of evolution, has flaws. The biggest flaw with the theory is that it violates the scientific method. Anything that violates the scientific method simply is not scientific.

You're right in that i don't understand where you are going with this.  That is why i asked for claryfication rather than a repetition of your views on the matter. What most people coin as micro- and macroevolution is the same concept governed by the same processes. It's simply so that more time allows for more mutations over more generations and thus leads to more and further changes over a longer timeperiod. If you are going to insist that proof of micro-evolution doesnt prove macroevolution then that means you must think they are two different phenomena governed by different processes.
However 'macroevolution' is governed by The same processes. It is simply what 'micro-evolution' leads to over a vastly longer timeperiod. It doesn't rely on anything microevolution doesnt rely on and relies on the same processes that microevolution relies. It does not suggest anything but random mutations and thus very small changes, in a nonrandom environment. So what is the reason you think proof of The same concept, The same theory, the same underlying concepts and processes is correct in one instance and invalid in The next?

Apart from that i'd like to point out that we can, did and do test evolution. Even if you dismiss testing in bacteria for no good, or at least no clear, reason. Through DNA and The fossil record, naming two. On the basis of these we can make solid predictions.