So microevolution over time can't become macroevolution?

Question

Any Creationists dare to watch this and then answer the question?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iRhD_hv5Y1k

Wow... some of you COMPLETELY missed the point of the video! And it *is* true that no one has witnessed a seed becoming a large tree because that takes hundreds of years to occur, and last I checked, no human is that many years old.

Answer 1

ROFLMAO

THANK YOU!!!
thankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyou.....

********************
Edit:

If you'll allow me, I'd like to elaborate about the "but those are the same trees in the moving-pictures thing" comments.

I know it's long and don't have pictures, but try to hang on 'till the end.

Basically, it means that there are changes within a same species. That those changes take so much time, that it's very hard to pinpoint the moment when we call it a new species.

Sticking with plants:
You have 4 seeds falling from a tree. 2 land next to the tree, let's call it Group A. The other 2 fall in the river and are carried away, let's call it Group B.

A is in the similar ground then the mother-tree. B is taken miles away, where the ground is more acid and has less nutrients.

A and B manage to grow. B will be smaller, because they are not adapted to an acid soil, but they manage to stay alive.

B manages to reproduce. They don't make a lot of seeds, but a few make it and grow. Those trees are scrawnier-looking than A, because of the soil quality. Most of the new generation dies, but the right combination of genes allow some to live. Now, a part of the "weaker" genes dissappear, because the trees who have them die. Eventually, the trees all "become sick in their genes" because of the acid soil, but genes aren't fixated in time, they can change over time, as the chain is modified by disease, genetic purge, lack of nutrients, radiation, etc. Eventually, after thousands of tree generations, the trees become healthier. They have smaller leaves and their barks are more fragile.

Okay. Now, being miles away from their species, they have no natural predators in the new soil. But some of the bugs like how their leaves taste. Since meals are hard to come by in the insect world, the bugs don't mind that it's different. Chances are, the trees will be eaten alive, right? Right.

But, given a little luck, some of the trees manage to keep a few leaves, because the water in their lower leaves is more acid than those at the top. This makes the leaves, smaller, swollen and thicker.

Of the surviving trees, all their top-leaves are eaten, making the higher branches a burden. Still, the smaller trees in the surviving group proportionnally keep more leaves, taking more energy from the sun. Now we repeat what happened when B first made it there.

Now we have very short trees with swollen leaves that live in an acid environment. Meanwhile, A remains a group of tall trees with soft leaves.

Are they still the same species?

********************
Edit #2
"---even though about 90% of the families of all animals are represented in the fossil record"

WTF? It's more like 90% are NOT represented. Do you know the odds of a dead animal making it to fossilization? And 90%? What are you basing that on? We don't even know how many species -currently- exist on Earth.

Check your sources friends...

Answer 2

There are so many outright lies and misrepresentations in that 'presentation' as to be laughable.

To claim, as the video does, that one has never seen a seedling grow into large tree is a simple and outright lie designed to deceive and obfuscate the discussion.

A visit to any Weyerheuser factory tree farm dispels the entire premise of the piece.

Try again, my friend...but next time, try and find something that has, at the very least, some element of truth to it, and leave out the rap music.

Answer 3

I want my three and a half minutes back. All that shows is things can grow. They do not change. Most importantly they are still trees. It is a poor analogy and a piece of vicious propaganda, particularly with the choice of music in the background. All this shows is the life patterns of a tree, which is completely verifiable and can be documented and so is a very poor analogy and does not prove anything.

Answer 4

Dare to watch? lol Theists can be into science too!

Interesting video but analogies to not equate into facts. Microevolution or adaptation uses the genetic variety already in the system of the living organism. This is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution or adaptation uses the genetic variety already in the system of the living organism. With macroevolution, since there would be no outside intelligent source for this information, mutation is the only viable method. However, there is no solid body of evidence which indicates that anything of the sort has ever happened --or could happen (with any reasonable probability) using all the time and matter in the present universe. -- This situation is mainly true, because the more time is involved, the more mistakes are made in the passing down of genetic information, resulting in more genetic diseases and problems, rather than improvements.

Since we can't see 'macroevolution', it is at this point that the appeal to the fossil record is then routinely made, --with supposedly impressive lineups of bones which are said to provide evidence of macro-evolutionary progressions down through the millennia. But fossil evidence of the large transitions between major classes of life required to demonstrate macro-evolution is basically totally absent, which is even admitted by some evolutionists, such as the late Stephen J. Gould, who admitted this lack of empirical support for his view, as he stated:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Gould, S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?")

Most importantly: The fossil record does not supply any uninterrupted series of transitional forms between phyla or classes or even families of animals or plants ---even though about 90% of the families of all animals are represented in the fossil record! On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design."


Now there is refrencing to DNA ... There is claim that humans and apes share 95 percent of their genetic information and that this is proof of evolution. It is also shown for example, the genetic analyses published in New Scientist have revealed a 75% similarity between the DNA of nematode worms and man. This definitely does not mean that there is only a 25% difference between man and these worms! It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings being that we are on the same planet. This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan.

The theory of evolution is supported neither by the fossil record nor by genetic or biochemical data. On the contrary, evidence shows that different life forms on Earth appeared quite abruptly without any evolutionary ancestors and that their incredibly complex systems prove the existence of an "intelligent design."

Edit: What would be the odds of no transisitional species ever showing up in all the number of fossils ... Unless of course one comes to the conclusion they never existed!