So called macroevolution is just many instance of microevolution over a long period of time. It is logically impossible to accept microevolution and not macroevolution, should you also accept that time passes
There is no inherent logical conflict with believing in microevolution and not macroevolution - being the ultimate formation of new forms and body plans from previous life. If limits exist on the change that can occur on the genetic code and on anatomical structures, then it is irrelevant how much time one has, evolution will only go so far when operating on functionally coherent systems. Maybe you disagree with the so-called limits to change that can happen on a functionally coherent system, but the point is, it is certainly not a logical impossibility to hold that view :)
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist It is an entirely illogical position to take and only seems to be taken by apologists working with an incorrect understanding of evolution. If you accept that small changes can happen, then you should also accept that a large number of small changes over time will ultimately result in what appears to be a big overall change in a population
Hey friend, thanks for your comment. Simply put, small evolutionary changes that happen over time will never amount to the large change resulting in whole new body plans, which would need to arise rapidly and precisely in order to be viable and functional for the survival of the organism and its ability to pass on its genes. -Your Friendly Neighborhood Apologist Ash
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist Simply put, small evolutionary changes over time are exactly what amounts to large change resulting in all new species, genus and on up the line, and for which there is no need for anything to arise rapidly. To quote "The Unchained Melody" by the Righteous Brothers, "Time can do so much." It simply is very hard for us humans to grasp the enormously long periods of time required to make it happen. If one is a creationist, one simply rejects the idea that anything ever took place longer ago than 6000 years. If one lives in the real world, one sees that for many of the earth's conditions and processes, it takes a long time. Even here in Nebraska, a rabidly fundamentalist red state, there is no conflict with the findings at Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park, where a volcanic eruption further west about 12,000,000 years ago covered and preserved several small flocks of animals at a watering area. These animals are all extinct today, but are clearly identified ancestors of somewhat different animals alive today.
@@stevepierce6467 the point I’m trying to get across is that survival requires functionality of a body plan, and functionality requires functional coherence: functional protein folds arranged properly into tissues, new genetic information which contains functional information which will improve life and not degrade it, and new epigenetic information making new body features functional within the whole. All this must arise together, otherwise before the new function is present, only loss of previous function occurs. The topic of evolution is not that of evolution vs God. Many, including renowned evolutionary scientists such as Francis Collins (the head of the human genome project) actually subscribe to this view of the succession of life on this planet. Nonetheless, there is always discussion of these processes as if they are guided towards an end, and it is specific coordinated changes to organisms which make higher function even possible, not to mention plausible. Small changes will not bring the large changes needed because until new function is obtained only loss of previous function is occurring. Thus, the changes that occur and don’t result in a loss of fitness are minor, never achieving significant alterations - moths might change color but are still moths, and finches might get different shapes and sizes beaks but are still birds - but these minor changes will never bring about major changes, giving new body parts, digestive systems, or body plans. Minor changes are cyclical, existing within boundaries, depending on tools already in the box, so to speak. And if this did occur and if there is reason to think so, it would only reinforce reason to believe in an intelligent designer, because only intelligence can have purposes and guide a process towards such an end, going through such coordinated steps and changes.
@@AkanoWire He can't get his head around any concept that requires actual study to comprehend. Reading creationist talking points booklets is not the same. Any presently living organism has most all of its parts operating at the level of "irreducible complexity." If you remove just one ventricle from the heart, you die, just the lens from the eye, you go blind, just one tendon from a leg and you go lame. But each of us is at our present level of evolution. Even sunflowers have "eyes" of sorts, just simple light-sensitive cells. And hawks and eagles have eyes that are far better than our human eyes. All of us got that way after millions and billions of years of evolution.
Apologists fed you lies about evolution and you don’t understand it at all. Watch Professor Dave’s recent part 3, or just read the evolution Wikipedia page…
This one’s a bit funny because when you point out the large changes, like the dog that turned into a whale, people ask what the proof is. When you provide the proof for the smaller changes, they say it’s not macro evolution.
So called macroevolution is just many instance of microevolution over a long period of time. It is logically impossible to accept microevolution and not macroevolution, should you also accept that time passes
There is no inherent logical conflict with believing in microevolution and not macroevolution - being the ultimate formation of new forms and body plans from previous life. If limits exist on the change that can occur on the genetic code and on anatomical structures, then it is irrelevant how much time one has, evolution will only go so far when operating on functionally coherent systems. Maybe you disagree with the so-called limits to change that can happen on a functionally coherent system, but the point is, it is certainly not a logical impossibility to hold that view :)
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist It is an entirely illogical position to take and only seems to be taken by apologists working with an incorrect understanding of evolution. If you accept that small changes can happen, then you should also accept that a large number of small changes over time will ultimately result in what appears to be a big overall change in a population
Our body and knowledge can change depending on our environment but our human nature naver changes
Human nature is brain anatomy + socialisation. Both known to change.
@@us3rG How do you come to know that "our human nature never changes?"
Just evolution, plain and simple, over shorter or longer periods of time.
Hey friend, thanks for your comment.
Simply put, small evolutionary changes that happen over time will never amount to the large change resulting in whole new body plans, which would need to arise rapidly and precisely in order to be viable and functional for the survival of the organism and its ability to pass on its genes.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Apologist
Ash
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist Simply put, small evolutionary changes over time are exactly what amounts to large change resulting in all new species, genus and on up the line, and for which there is no need for anything to arise rapidly. To quote "The Unchained Melody" by the Righteous Brothers, "Time can do so much." It simply is very hard for us humans to grasp the enormously long periods of time required to make it happen. If one is a creationist, one simply rejects the idea that anything ever took place longer ago than 6000 years. If one lives in the real world, one sees that for many of the earth's conditions and processes, it takes a long time. Even here in Nebraska, a rabidly fundamentalist red state, there is no conflict with the findings at Ashfall Fossil Beds State Historical Park, where a volcanic eruption further west about 12,000,000 years ago covered and preserved several small flocks of animals at a watering area. These animals are all extinct today, but are clearly identified ancestors of somewhat different animals alive today.
@@stevepierce6467 the point I’m trying to get across is that survival requires functionality of a body plan, and functionality requires functional coherence: functional protein folds arranged properly into tissues, new genetic information which contains functional information which will improve life and not degrade it, and new epigenetic information making new body features functional within the whole. All this must arise together, otherwise before the new function is present, only loss of previous function occurs.
The topic of evolution is not that of evolution vs God. Many, including renowned evolutionary scientists such as Francis Collins (the head of the human genome project) actually subscribe to this view of the succession of life on this planet. Nonetheless, there is always discussion of these processes as if they are guided towards an end, and it is specific coordinated changes to organisms which make higher function even possible, not to mention plausible. Small changes will not bring the large changes needed because until new function is obtained only loss of previous function is occurring. Thus, the changes that occur and don’t result in a loss of fitness are minor, never achieving significant alterations - moths might change color but are still moths, and finches might get different shapes and sizes beaks but are still birds - but these minor changes will never bring about major changes, giving new body parts, digestive systems, or body plans. Minor changes are cyclical, existing within boundaries, depending on tools already in the box, so to speak. And if this did occur and if there is reason to think so, it would only reinforce reason to believe in an intelligent designer, because only intelligence can have purposes and guide a process towards such an end, going through such coordinated steps and changes.
@@AkanoWire He can't get his head around any concept that requires actual study to comprehend. Reading creationist talking points booklets is not the same. Any presently living organism has most all of its parts operating at the level of "irreducible complexity." If you remove just one ventricle from the heart, you die, just the lens from the eye, you go blind, just one tendon from a leg and you go lame. But each of us is at our present level of evolution. Even sunflowers have "eyes" of sorts, just simple light-sensitive cells. And hawks and eagles have eyes that are far better than our human eyes. All of us got that way after millions and billions of years of evolution.
Apologists fed you lies about evolution and you don’t understand it at all. Watch Professor Dave’s recent part 3, or just read the evolution Wikipedia page…
This one’s a bit funny because when you point out the large changes, like the dog that turned into a whale, people ask what the proof is. When you provide the proof for the smaller changes, they say it’s not macro evolution.
It’s the exact same goalpost shifting used by flat-Earth creationists and their “show me the curve”…
Thank you! Super helpful!
Thanks for the video ❤