The Theory of Evolution

[Vangelovski]

You creationists are so funny when you use scientific terminology.

Vangelovski doesn't even know what light is yet he is fishing from here and there.

If you want answers to all that, then you are simply asking for a lot of information. It's like asking me to explain everything about light in the universe.
I'd be glad to do, but it would take sheets of posting, and I'm not sure if the database allows it.

You are gasping for air. Let me not choke you down to your arguments.

I'm sure you could explain a lot, but did you read the article on light speed from the University of California?

That's interesting Spitfire (I'm nodding my head).

Here's an article on the speed of light from the University of California:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html

Can you count how many assumptions have been made?

What about the other one relating to your theory that if something traveled as fast as light, matter would collapse?

[Philosopher]

You are out of order not me.

Hawkings especially talked about the black hole, not the other way around!

You are masturbating all over the thread Philosopher. Blatant lies!!!

I don't have time for people who are liers! Now apologise liar and let's move on.

Does anyone want to weigh in on this?

[spitfire]

What about the other one relating to your theory that if something traveled as fast as light, matter would collapse?

Do you know what matter is? It's not "something", it's defined.

Again twisting meanings. Are you following Philosopher on this?

[spitfire]

Does anyone want to weigh in on this?

Me, me!

You are also having wet dreams and you are a liar.

There's saliva all over the place.

[Vangelovski]

Where exactly did I say that...?

You may be right, I may have misread your post. Were you saying that it is not assumed that the speed of light is constant or that the speed of light itself is not an assumption?

Again, why are you getting so upset?

[Vangelovski]

Does anyone want to weigh in on this?

I would but I'm scared I'll break him...

[Vangelovski]

Do you know what matter is? It's not "something", it's defined.

Again twisting meanings. Are you following Philosopher on this?

I'm sure you know all about matter. Do you have any comments on that article and how it lines up with your theory that if something goes faster than the speed of light matter would collapse?

Did you read the article on the speed of light from the University of California?

[spitfire]

Again, why are you getting so upset?

What makes you think anyone is upset? You 'd hope for it but you won't get it.

Was Jesus gay by the way?

[Vangelovski]

What makes you think anyone is upset? You 'd hope for it but you won't get it.

Was Jesus gay by the way?

Is this an explanation of how matter collapses if it travels faster than the speed of light?

[spitfire]

I'm sure you know all about matter. Do you have any comments on that article and how it lines up with your theory that if something goes faster than the speed of light matter would collapse?

Did you read the article on the speed of light from the University of California?

Something? What something? What kind of particle?

You asked me to number the assumptions on the article. Why don't you go straight to your point rather than asking me to do all the hard work?
You know there are answers to everything so why don't you save us time and say what you have already prepared?

[spitfire]

Is this an explanation of how matter collapses if it travels faster than the speed of light?

No, it's about Jesus having sex with the apostoles.

[spitfire]

Macroevolution

Macroevolution, in the world of science, is the result of microevolution which takes place between two groups within a species. Although distinct from microevolution, the two concepts are inextricably linked, and it is impossible to have the concept of one without the other in a complete theoretical framework.

Macroevolution is what results when microevolution occurs in two or more populations within a species. Or the net sum of all the microevolution that occurs within a species. Either way, it's impossible for microevolution not to imply the possibility of macroevolution.
Suppose there was a large population of Species A (let's just suppose, for fun, that they're salamanders) that lives in a hilly terrain. Everything's fine and dandy until some event (like an ice age) comes along and isolates different groups on the mountaintops. Hopefully, that makes sense so far.
It shouldn't be much of a jump to assume that those different populations, no matter how similar, still have slightly different mutations and develop under slightly different conditions. Given enough time (or enough of a difference in conditions) these two groups will develop into very different populations, and when they come back together, they may not be able to inter-breed. Et voila! New species.
So there we have it: "microevolution" is what happened to each individual group. "Macroevolution" is the result when the two groups develop under different conditions. And it may sound like an esoteric example, but guess what?! It's actually happened!!!! The "theoretical" situation accounts for the diversity of salamanders in Appalachia.
Is it possible to have microevolution without macroevolution occurring? Sure...if there's no reproductive isolation, the species will keep micro-evolving quite merrily, no matter how long it has. But as soon as something isolates two or more groups, it sows the seeds for new species via macroevolution. And is it possible to have macro without the micro? Absolutely, and there are documented cases!

A Gray Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor).

A Cope's Gray Tree Frog (Hyla chrysocelis)
Although the vast majority of speciation occurs via microevolution resulting in macroevolution, it is possible to skip the micro and create new species out of the blue. Although seemingly outlandish and admittedly rare, this has happened before.
In North America, there are two species of gray tree frog. For all intents and purposes they are identical, and they differ in only two features: their call (necessary to isolate the groups) and their genetic make-up; the species simply referred to as the Gray Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor), pictured in the top right image, has four copies of each chromosome, whereas the Cope's Gray Tree Frog (Hyla chrysoscelis), pictured in the bottom right image, has two (like humans). At some point in their history, a single group of larvae was born with four sets of chromosomes...these cannot breed with "normal" tree frogs, and within a two or three generations, there were two species where before there was one. No gradual change in response to the environment, just a sudden reproductive isolation leading (very quickly) to new species.
Still think macroevolution doesn't occur? Tell that to the tree frogs. (Don't worry; these particular species don't bite and aren't poisonous.)


Macroevolution is a word beloved of anti-evolutionists but is little used in scientific circles. Anti-evolutionists consider it to mean evolution above the species level or the evolution of one species from another, something that science considers to be merely one aspect of evolution. Many creationists, and like-minded anti-evolutionists, will admit that microevolution, or adaptation, occurs, indeed they require it to be accelerated to extremes undreamt of by science in order to salvage their global flood/kinds theology, but will state emphatically that macroevolution is impossible, by giving straw man arguments like "A monkey can't give birth to a human".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[Vangelovski]

No, it's about Jesus having sex with the apostoles.

Is that what the Greek Orthodox Church teaches? Is this practiced in the Greek church?

[spitfire]

Is that what the Greek Orthodox Church teaches? Is this practiced in the Greek church?

No but just as you started throwing everything in this thread, I thought I 'd give this also a go to see who gets upset. Why not, after all you are trying everything to prove science wrong, as if this is possible.

What is more ironic is that you have a protestant approach to what you think faith is, meaning that you don't even know what your faith is like, therefore being ultimately confused about everything.

[Vangelovski]

No but just as you started throwing everything in this thread, I thought I 'd give this also a go to see who gets upset. Why not, after all you are trying everything to prove science wrong, as if this is possible.

What is more ironic is that you have a protestant approach to what you think faith is, meaning that you don't even know what your faith is like, therefore being ultimately confused about everything.

I wasn't trying to prove science wrong - certainly not operational/observational science. I was making the observation that science is not omnipotent and that it cannot even validate itself let alone prove some of the things that some people claim it can/has.

So are you believer in the Orthodox faith?