Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

In <jason-0301062131180001@pm4-broad-40.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

<snip>

His Ph D is in engineering. What qualifies him to talk about the history
of life on earth?

According to the last page of a book that he co-wrote related to the
volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens--John Morris has a Ph.D. in
Geological Engineering. One of the books he wrote is related to the Big
Bang theory.

Huh. So the next time you need a doctor, you'll go to a mechanic eh?

I believe (I have Faith, you see...) that it is time to bring this forth, once again.
There's an inifinitesimal chance that Jason will "get it", but here goes anyway:

<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>

According to the last page of a book that he co-wrote related to the
volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens--John Morris has a Ph.D. in
Geological Engineering. One of the books he wrote is related to the Big
Bang theory.

In article <4bkmr1hcvblg64fue6s7uvhebfbe2ucjmm@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:24:32 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0301061924330001@pm4-broad-9.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <M4Cdne0RY8FMsSbeRVn-qw@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In <jason-0301061736400001@pm4-broad-9.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

I define the term the same way that Dr. John Morris defines the

term. Upon

request, I'll post the article that he wrote related to this subject or
tell you where you can find it on the web.

Who cares how Morris defines the terms? Who is he?

Dr. John Morris is the new president of the Institute for Creation
Research. He's the son of Dr. Henry Morris--the founder and first
president of ICR.

His Ph D is in engineering. What qualifies him to talk about the history
of life on earth?

According to the last page of a book that he co-wrote related to the
volcanic eruption at Mount St. Helens--John Morris has a Ph.D. in
Geological Engineering. One of the books he wrote is related to the Big
Bang theory.

In article <fi5mr15058l795mja14g4iodmrrhmgak14@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:59:04 -0800,

In article <jason-0301060908450001@pm4-broad-35.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,

In article <dpe77k$lip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

"Jason" <

In article <v4sgr1dd17fnshja199vgd26nai37vkjnh@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

[big snip]

Then why do you use concepts that are invented by religious

folks like

an undefined 'macro-evolution'?

visit this site:
http://www.talkorigins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Note that the definition of "macroevolution" given there doesn't at
all agree with your use of the term:

"Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The
kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes,
such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some
biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from
those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction
between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative
microevolution."

see also
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Basically, "macroevolution" includes new species formation and the
evolution of the groups of related species descended from a common
ancestral species. Microevolution on the other hand is evolutionary
change within a single species. Speciation is thus the only new
essential macroevolutionary process needed in addition to the
microevolution changes. The evolution of the deer family or the
ape/human family or of all Mammalia from their common ancestors
will be macroevolution, and like all macroevolution can be reduced
to the cumulative effects of microevolution, plus speciations, plus
extinctions. Nothing more seems needed.

cheers

Thanks for the above post. I once would have agreed with the above
definition. After I saw the results of research related to bacteria and
viruses. I read about one new species of mosquito that probably evolved
from another species of mosquito. Some of the hummingbird species are
almost identical to other hummingbird species. I would change one of the
sentences mentioned above to

Basically, "macroevolution includes new species formation WHEN THE NEW
SPECIES IS A MEMBER OF A DIFFERENT FAMILY OR A UNIQUE FAMILY. IF THE NEW
SPECIES CONTINUES TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SAME FAMILY THAT IT EVOLVED
FROM--THAT'S MICROEVOLUTION.

Jason, you don't know diddly squat about the subject. What makes you
think you get to define the terms?

I define the term the same way that Dr. John Morris defines the term.

Upon request, I'll post the article that he wrote related to this subject
or tell you where you can find it on the web.

In article <jason-0301060908450001@pm4-broad-35.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

In article <dpe77k$lip$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0101061835510001@pm4-broad-5.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <v4sgr1dd17fnshja199vgd26nai37vkjnh@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

[big snip]

Then why do you use concepts that are invented by religious folks like
an undefined 'macro-evolution'?

visit this site:
http://www.talkorigins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Note that the definition of "macroevolution" given there doesn't at
all agree with your use of the term:

"Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The
kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes,
such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution. Some
biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from
those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction
between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative
microevolution."

see also
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Basically, "macroevolution" includes new species formation and the
evolution of the groups of related species descended from a common
ancestral species. Microevolution on the other hand is evolutionary
change within a single species. Speciation is thus the only new
essential macroevolutionary process needed in addition to the
microevolution changes. The evolution of the deer family or the
ape/human family or of all Mammalia from their common ancestors
will be macroevolution, and like all macroevolution can be reduced
to the cumulative effects of microevolution, plus speciations, plus
extinctions. Nothing more seems needed.

cheers

Thanks for the above post. I once would have agreed with the above
definition. After I saw the results of research related to bacteria and
viruses. I read about one new species of mosquito that probably evolved
from another species of mosquito. Some of the hummingbird species are
almost identical to other hummingbird species. I would change one of the
sentences mentioned above to

Basically, "macroevolution includes new species formation WHEN THE NEW
SPECIES IS A MEMBER OF A DIFFERENT FAMILY OR A UNIQUE FAMILY. IF THE NEW
SPECIES CONTINUES TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SAME FAMILY THAT IT EVOLVED
FROM--THAT'S MICROEVOLUTION.

In article <v4sgr1dd17fnshja199vgd26nai37vkjnh@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:59:35 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061259360001@pm4-broad-25.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <mcWtf.65004$8d.1524@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0101061013180001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <BHStf.950$bd.257@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3112051713030001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <39Etf.71283$6e.66404@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

It's my opinion...

The worthless opinion of a layperson with no formal training in
biology,
but
apart from that...

...that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution.

Your expectations are unrealistic and entirely artificial.
Once again I'll ask you, how would you quantify* the difference
between
micro and macro-evolution?

* Quantify means numbers

A herd of animals antelopes are placed on a island that does not have
any
deer and are allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If those
antelopes evolved into a unique type of animal that could not produce
offspring with normal antelopes or other deer that would be an

example

of
macro-evolution.

It's my guess that at the end of the 10 million years--they

would still

be
antelopes and would be able to produce offspring when bred with
antelopes
that had never been on the island.

You don't even understand my question, do you?
Once again, in even simpler words:
If you are a geneticist faced with varying levels of genetic change, how
would you quantify the difference between micro and macro?

Here's a hint - part of your difficulty in answering my simple question
results from the fact that you are looking at a difference in degree and
calling it a difference in kind.

Provide an example--

I did more than that - I gave you the answer.
But here we go - ONCE MORE for the layperson with the strong opinions:
How do you quantify the difference in allele frequencies to distinguish
between micro and macro-evolution?
This has nothing to do with animals, numbers of years or anything

else like

that. How do you quantify the change in allele frequencies to distinguish
between micro and macro evolution? How much is enough, how do you

know, and

why that amount?

The very fact that you haven't even come close to answering this tells
everyone you've got no clue what you're talking about - yet you

continue to

have a strong opinion. See the advantage I have over you by actually

being

a biologist when it comes to discussing evolution? I have taken the
discussion a mile over your head and you aren't even aware of it. I'm a
landscape ecologist specializing in wetlands - a proper evolutionary
biologist could take the subject nearly as far over my head, and you don't
even understand what I'm writing about. Doesn't that tell you anything at
all? Like maybe you're utterly clueless and maybe you should defer to
people who actually understand this *****?

I once learned about one of the science professors that talked so far over
the heads of students that not very many students could even figure out
what he was talking about. The students in my derm. that took his class
warned all of the new students to NOT take his class. I made sure that I
did NOT take his class. I had an excellent professor that was easy to
understand. I don't like being around people that try to impress me by
using words and terms that I don't understand. I like people to use
regular words and terms that are easy to
understand.

Then why do you use concepts that are invented by religious folks like
an undefined 'macro-evolution'?

visit this site:
http://www.talkorigins/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

It's my guess

Your expectations are unrealistic and entirely
artificial. Once again I'll ask you, how would
you quantify* the difference between micro and
macro-evolution?

* Quantify means numbers

A herd of animals antelopes are placed on a
island that does not have any deer and are
allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If
those antelopes evolved into a unique type of
animal that could not produce offspring with
normal antelopes or other deer that would be an
example of macro-evolution.

It's my guess that at the end of the 10 million
years--they would still be antelopes and would
be able to produce offspring when bred with
antelopes that had never been on the island.

In article <39Etf.71283$6e.66404@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

It's my opinion...

The worthless opinion of a layperson with no formal training in biology, but
apart from that...

...that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution.

Your expectations are unrealistic and entirely artificial.
Once again I'll ask you, how would you quantify* the difference between
micro and macro-evolution?

* Quantify means numbers

A herd of animals antelopes are placed on a island that does not have any
deer and are allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If those
antelopes evolved into a unique type of animal that could not produce
offspring with normal antelopes or other deer that would be an example of
macro-evolution.

It's my guess that at the end of the 10 million years--they would still be
antelopes and would be able to produce offspring when bred with antelopes
that had never been on the island.