Lol @ this thread.

typical conservatard state

StarOcean said: I made a post on an article saying how stupid western society is, and I thought: "Maybe I was being too harsh." but I feel as though this justifies my point. As a Texas native (no longer live there) I apologize for the stupidity seen in this article v.v XD

Lmao. It really sucks to be an American sometimes. I can't even imagine how much it would suck to be a Texan reading this. It's hard trying to justify "But we're not all like that!"

IFireflyl said: StarOcean said: I made a post on an article saying how stupid western society is, and I thought: "Maybe I was being too harsh." but I feel as though this justifies my point. As a Texas native (no longer live there) I apologize for the stupidity seen in this article v.v XD Lmao. It really sucks to be an American sometimes. I can't even imagine how much it would suck to be a Texan reading this. It's hard trying to justify "But we're not all like that!"

It's a hard life being a Texan when we're easily the most hated type in the country :p I remember I had a teacher back in 11th grade in Oregon (the state I currently live) and he was bashing Texas saying everyone there is stupid, getting the class to agree and stuff. I felt like shit XD little did the class know I was from there every state Ive lived in has been the same. You're lucky you aren't one v.v

IFireflyl said: generic-user-1 said: IFireflyl said: generic-user-1 said: sure, evolution is a theorie, but its so well proven that we can take it as fact, sames goes for the theorie behind the birth of the earth... i will now fly away because gravity is just a theorie too, and i dont trust those sciene people... How is evolution "so well proven"? It isn't. Evolution between kinds is proven. Evolution between species (macroevolution) has never been observed, and has never been proven. there is no such thing as macroevolution... its all evolution between kind for a looong time. we can observe it now, go to the zoo and look at a polar bear and a grizzly bear, those are maybe one species, but maybe not. its all about how to define species. Lololololol! If you don't think that polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species then you don't believe in science anyway. Lmfao. Same for not believing in macroevolution. Here you go: Berkeley Evolution Berkeley Macroevolution You've already proven that you don't know any more about evolution than they teach in high school.

you used macroevolution like a creationist and you link somthing that says completly different things. again, there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, its all the same mechanism, so if you prove "micro" evolution you automaticly prove "macro" evolution. uc berkley isnt doing a great ob if they use those 2 words because they make it very easy to say uhh that isnt proved(like you tried). the only difference between macro and micro evolution is the scale of observing, not inter and intraspecies evolution. grizzly bears are ursus arctos and polar bears ursus maritimus, but there are hybrids between those two, so one school of biologie wants to count them as one species(because they have fertile offspring in the wild) and another as two(because they look and behave different).

generic-user-1 said: IFireflyl said: Lololololol! If you don't think that polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species then you don't believe in science anyway. Lmfao. Same for not believing in macroevolution. Here you go: Berkeley Evolution Berkeley Macroevolution You've already proven that you don't know any more about evolution than they teach in high school. you used macroevolution like a creationist and you link somthing that says completly different things. again, there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, its all the same mechanism, so if you prove "micro" evolution you automaticly prove "macro" evolution. uc berkley isnt doing a great ob if they use those 2 words because they make it very easy to say uhh that isnt proved(like you tried). the only difference between macro and micro evolution is the scale of observing, not inter and intraspecies evolution. grizzly bears are ursus arctos and polar bears ursus maritimus, but there are hybrids between those two, so one school of biologie wants to count them as one species(because they have fertile offspring in the wild) and another as two(because they look and behave different).

You don't know what you're talking about. I linked the same article twice, but the second link is further into the article. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out. You don't like Berkeley? Here:

Nature.com

Nhm.ac.uk

Wikipedia.com

Bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca

Discovery.org

Anthro.palomar.edu

Micro-evolution does not, and scientifically cannot, prove macro-evolution.

IFireflyl said: generic-user-1 said: IFireflyl said: Lololololol! If you don't think that polar bears and grizzly bears are the same species then you don't believe in science anyway. Lmfao. Same for not believing in macroevolution. Here you go: Berkeley Evolution Berkeley Macroevolution You've already proven that you don't know any more about evolution than they teach in high school. you used macroevolution like a creationist and you link somthing that says completly different things. again, there is no such thing as macro or micro evolution, its all the same mechanism, so if you prove "micro" evolution you automaticly prove "macro" evolution. uc berkley isnt doing a great ob if they use those 2 words because they make it very easy to say uhh that isnt proved(like you tried). the only difference between macro and micro evolution is the scale of observing, not inter and intraspecies evolution. grizzly bears are ursus arctos and polar bears ursus maritimus, but there are hybrids between those two, so one school of biologie wants to count them as one species(because they have fertile offspring in the wild) and another as two(because they look and behave different). You don't know what you're talking about. I linked the same article twice, but the second link is further into the article. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out. You don't like Berkeley? Here: Nature.com Nhm.ac.uk Wikipedia.com Bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca Discovery.org Anthro.palomar.edu Micro-evolution does not, and scientifically cannot, prove macro-evolution.

realy? read the nature article you just linked... 1. it clearly says that there is no clear difference between micro and macro evolution. 2. it uses a different "macro"evolution than your last link 3. YES YOU CAN prove macro evolution with microevolution, because its the same just from another point of view. and the wiki link is just so funny... "Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales" hm i think thats what i told you all the time...

generic-user-1 said: IFireflyl said: You don't know what you're talking about. I linked the same article twice, but the second link is further into the article. I thought you'd have been able to figure that out. You don't like Berkeley? Here: Nature.com Nhm.ac.uk Wikipedia.com Bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca Discovery.org Anthro.palomar.edu Micro-evolution does not, and scientifically cannot, prove macro-evolution. realy? read the nature article you just linked... 1. it clearly says that there is no clear difference between micro and macro evolution. 2. it uses a different "macro"evolution than your last link 3. YES YOU CAN prove macro evolution with microevolution, because its the same just from another point of view. and the wiki link is just so funny... "Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales" hm i think thats what i told you all the time...

Nature.com

Thus, many scientists propose that evolution can be divided into two distinct hierarchical processes -- microevolution and macroevolution -- although the distinction between them is somewhat artificial.

 

In contrast, macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale (Figure 1), including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct. In contrast, microevolutionary changes are not frequently observed in the fossil record because the processes that govern evolutionary change within species are thought to occur over much shorter time scales. Thus, macroevolution is centered on explaining evolutionary patterns above the species level (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009), and those who study it are searching for the ‘organizing principles' that explain these patterns.

I don't see how that's different from what I was saying. You said macroevolution doesn't exist. Scientifically, it exists as a theory. It's a branch of the theory of evolution. You cannot prove macroevolution because you cannot observe it. There is no proof of it. You say "I have prove of A, and I know that because of this I have proof of B even though A and B are not the same thing." That doesn't make sense. Just because 1+1=2 that does not mean that 1+a=2. Is it possible that 1+a=2? Yes. But you can't prove it, because you don't know what a is.

IFireflyl said: generic-user-1 said:   In contrast, macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale (Figure 1), including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct. In contrast, microevolutionary changes are not frequently observed in the fossil record because the processes that govern evolutionary change within species are thought to occur over much shorter time scales. Thus, macroevolution is centered on explaining evolutionary patterns above the species level (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009), and those who study it are searching for the ‘organizing principles' that explain these patterns. I don't see how that's different from what I was saying. You said macroevolution doesn't exist. Scientifically, it exists as a theory. It's a branch of the theory of evolution. You cannot prove macroevolution because you cannot observe it. There is no proof of it. You say "I have prove of A, and I know that because of this I have proof of B even though A and B are not the same thing." That doesn't make sense. Just because 1+1=2 that does not mean that 1+a=2. Is it possible that 1+a=2? Yes. But you can't prove it, because you don't know what a is. the first link you gave was about evolution on a bigger scale, the 2nd about patterns of evolution. the patterns of evolution arent a mechanic, its just a bunch of theorie to get observations in order, the mechanic behind that is "micro"evolution. and you just need to prove the mechanic to prove all of it.

Your post broke the page. Good jorb.