Makro Evolution works!

Another re-upload from cdk007's great vids. Subscribe to him here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cdk007

Here I show how creationists are wrong when it ... (more)
Added: January 04, 2007
Here I show how creationists are wrong when it comes to MacroEvolution (MaE). MaE is defined as evolution at or above the species level. This means MaE includes speciation. Despite what creationists say there are examples of new species occurring in nature, and scientists have produced new species in the lab. Many creationists claim that MaE means there must be a huge change in appearance. This is false. Many sister species, existing in the same genus and the cases we have of new species occurring in nature, share many characteristics. A new species of mosquito will still resemble a mosquito, and a new species of worm will still resemble a worm. Only after many speciation events will large changes begin to accumulate. This may take tens to hundreds of millions of years.

Many ID/creationists do accept MicroEvolution (MiE), but claim MiE is different from MaE. Here I show how a MiE step can lead to a MaE event through the evolution of the sperm egg receptor ligand complex. A species is best defined as a group of organism that can successfully produce fertile offspring. Once the sperm of one population can no longer fertilize the eggs of another population and vice versa, we have two species.

Finally, many creationists claim that there is not enough variation within a species to allow for the large changes in phenotype (appearance). Anyone who claims this has obviously never seen the myriad of dog breeds, all of which were derived from the same species, wolf.

My point here is, MacroEvolution includes speciation, and speciation has been observed in nature and in the lab. Also, MicroEvolutionary steps can result in speciation. Scientists do not doubt MacroEvolution, but they do debate how and under what circumstances it occurs.

For a good read on MacroEvolution go to:




http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macro...

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bdhcltj0ffm

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Macro
• Evolution
• Creation
• Creationism
• Creationists
• Atheism
• Theism
• Science

[BarryLeder]

Nice video.

I went to a creation-ish private high school (could have been worse, my Mom could have taught me biology), where Darwin's finch observations were held up for ridicule as mere variation as any generation would show. But were these finches reproductively isolated based on geography and beak shape?

[ILYIAB]

Thanks for your comment and question Barry.

And thak you kurtlein3 (whom I consider a pillar of a things good here on YT) for your excellent answer, and for "tipping" me off about re-uploading cdk007's excellent vids.

I'll re-upload a few more of his vids. Meanwhile, I recommend you, Barry, to watch cdk007's other videos. I have a ton of similar vids in my playlists "Skeptic" and "Interesting"

Enjoy! And thanks again guys.

[shinesthrudarain]

Your video is fallacious. Most of those mutations involve a LOSS of information not a gain as needed in macro evolution. The "new species" you mentioned are not new anything, one is a mosquito and the other a flower. This is exactly what the bible said, they will produce after their "kind". Get your science facts straight before presenting false claims.

[ILYIAB]

Please provide a ref to a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a reputable science journal that supports your claim and is widely accepted by relevant scientists. Just one ref. Just a single one.

If you can't I hope you'll post an apology.

[shinesthrudarain]

If you want all the scientific papers, fine. i noticed your wording.."reputable science journal" you meant a God hating, evolutionists papers...then u said "widely accepted by relevant scientists" which in evolutionary terms..one that agrees we came from a rocky soup 14 billion years ago. you dont want a paper, you want to do what any animal does, do whatever they want with no laws. If you really wanted a paper i can get you one, but u dont

[ILYIAB]

Your comment is so inane it's difficult to take it serious.

You don't have a paper to provide. Again, who's the one with false claims?

This is what you say : "Your dentist is wrong! My car mechanic says that toothache is cured by trowing a stone at my big toe. He's a smart mechanic and he knows that toothaches comes from your toes! And his idea doesn't violate my faith. So he's right!" - I don't expect you to understand the metaphor.

Time to apologize?

[SaiyaMel]

Yeah,, whatever you say... *rolleyes*

[shinesthrudarain]

that tells me right there that you are not a biblical christian. Genesis is the word of God, if you dont believe it, youre a heretic. Macro evolution has been proven wrong. Its a fairytale for grownups.

[SaiyaMel]

Yes I am. I believe much of the Bible (Genesis included) is meant to taken as metaphor, and not literal.

[shinesthrudarain]

really? so r u a christian?

[shinesthrudarain]

if u knew how to spell, id take u seriously

[SaiyaMel]

I am a "creationist" but of the day-age/old earth variety... yet I don't reject evolution - micro nor macro. :D

Great vid.