Talk:Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution (Talk.Origins)
Then again, there is also not the slightest reason to believe that small changes can account for large changes. Just because we do not know of any limitations to large changes, does not meant that such limitations do not exist.
Isn't this rather a weak statement of our position? While it is true that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative, when we look at the data, the processes that we actually observe tend to break down order into disorder and reduce complexity. Would it not be fair to say that evolutionists have no positive evidence for macroevolution other than their assertion that evolution has occurred?
Suppose someone trains to do standing jumps: he will certainly improve his performance. The macroevolution idea is analogous to claiming that the jumper can improve sufficiently to be able to jump into orbit.
I recast several sentences substantially to make them read better. I hope I did not change your intended meaning. --Oelphick 02:38, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Thank you for the comments and grammar corrections! Well I am not stating that it's impossible to prove a negative as you'll see that I was demonstrating the evidence against it below.
There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can.
In this response, it seems that T.O is implying that a lack of evidence against changes accumulating to large changes over time is evidence that evolution is possible. They claim that there is every reason to believe that this is so but no reasons are provided. I merely made a cheap comeback by making a small point and turning it into a bigger point by providing evidence which is contrary to their statement.
No, I believe you actually elaborated my points in a better way. It was also pointed out that the genome is degrading so how can that accumulate to beneficial and large changes that evolution requires?
[Edit]: Would you propose that the statement be deleted or re-worded to explain what is being meant? --Gil 02:51, 23 January 2007 (EST)
- Why not reword it? --Oelphick 09:01, 23 January 2007 (EST)
Okay I'll try my best.
There is also no positive reason to believe that small changes can account for large changes. For example, a car that starts to rust in a small area and as time elapses, the rust increases. How is this evolution? A lack of evidence against large changes doesn't exactly demonstrate that it can occur. When we look at the weather, the small local changes in temperature and pressure that occur every day may explain small temperature and pressure changes in the future but they will never be able to explain why summer is hotter than winter (a different explanation is needed; the tilt of the earth’s axis). It is not scientific to assume that small changes can account for large changes.
Would this be better? If not, then I would like to see your suggestion. Thanks again. --Gil 18:34, 23 January 2007 (EST)
