Your spelling mistakes make you look ignorant. Your insults make you look, well, insulting. Ignorant and insulting are not attractive features -- hard to win an argument that way. So, if you are going to put ANY effort into these posts, why not take the time to do it right?
Indeed, here's your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words. You should eliminate about 80% of those words, then focus focus focus your attention on getting the few words you write just right.
Yes, you'll say a lot less, but you'll make your points a lot better. Just my opinion, of course...
BroJoe, Your ignorance could never be covered up by spell check.
[[Your spelling mistakes make you look ignorant.]]
Too bad- I’m secure enough in my own intelligence to not care one whit-
[[So, if you are going to put ANY effort into these posts, why not take the time to do it right?]]
Because I simply don’t care- comprende? As I explained0- I’m busy, I write fast- and not goign to take hte time to be anal about spelling- My speklling mistakes are NOT from ignorance- they are from neurological problem and sloppy fingers- so insult away with your claims of ignorance- I really don’t care- as I mentioend- I know hwere I stand IQ-wise- and As I mentioend, I’ll compare IQ tests anyday you like
[[Indeed, here’s your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words. You should eliminate about 80% of those words, then focus focus focus your attention on getting the few words you write just right.]]
I left school many many years ago- I don;’t need a lecture on how to conduct my life now- IF you’re goign to obsess over my posts, lemme know now- so we can cut htis conversation short- I am who I am, I type how I type- IF that doesn’t sit well with you- then move on
[[Here, finally, you mention something about “new genes.” Is that it? Are “New genes” all that make the difference between micro and macro?]]
That is what has been stated right along- the fact that you have not been getting htis message just reaffirms my comment that you apparently have a blind spot- or were misunderstanding what was beign said- I tried to make it clear right fro mthe start that the two processes were compeltely different processes biologically, and made it clear that sijmple manipulation of info ALREADY PRESENT could not result in thge necessary NEW non species specific info NEEDED for macroevolution-
[[But, if ever a “new gene” appears, that would be “macro-evolution” and is forbidden by the laws of Intelligent Design Creation Science, right?]]
Forbideen by ID? Nope- Dop we see it happen in nature to the extent that it creates new structures not specific to a species? Nope- Bacteria apparently laterally transfere genetic material between their OWN KIND- and this would be an example of minor ‘New’ infromation being added- however- the problem here for macroevolution is that bacteria are precoded to accept this transfer and utilize the info, AND, they remain bacterai- always have- they are NOT receiving non species specific info-
This transfere however does not happen between dissimilar kinds- but apparently we’re to beleive it did, at ‘sometime in the past’ trillions of itmes (By the way- Macroevolution is dropping hte NS + Mutation + long periods of time, and have moved to lateral gene transference as the supposed process of macroevolution- just htought you shoudl know that- lateral gene transference is their only last hope- but is also wrouight with problems- mainly, once again, species specific info designed tokeep species fit, and to prevent pushing beyond the species specific ceilings- which as we’ve discovered, when breeched, degrade hte species- it does NOT advance hte species forward beyond it’s own kind as claimed by macroevolutionsits).
[[And just how, precisely, do you define the term “new gene”?]]
Non species specific- can’t be more specific than that- MICROEvolution deals with species specific info within species specific parameters- The hypothesised process of macro involves non species specific info that violate species specific parameters/cielings. Macroevos attempt to conflate symbiotic parasitic invasions to ‘new genetic info’ however, this is intellectually dishonest, and IF examiend objectively, one quickly learns it is NOT ‘new’ but nothign more than a parasitic symbiotic relationship to which the species must adapt-
Macroevos have also dissingeniously tried to show that bacteria adapting to nylonase as being ‘new’ info but after close examination, the lie is once again exposed, and it is shown that these bacteria had always had the ability to digest the strucure in nylon- Macroevos tried to make it appear that the bacteria had ‘evolved a unique ability’ to digest nylon- infering that all of hte mylon was being digested- however, the FACT is that only about 13% of the nylon was being digested, and hte structure of nylon that was being digested had hte exact same structure as the bacteria’s previous food sources.
On and on it goes- macroevos tryign to extrapolate simple microevo changes to mean macroevo- but hte fact reamins, macroevo involves generation of new non species specific info.
You keep askign for hte ‘precise line at which micro and macro are seperated- however, as mentioend several times, there is no ‘precise breaking point between the two because hte two are two wholly different biological processes.
I see also that you are askign for a ‘precise’ definition for new info- While Creationism gives far more precise definitions that macroevo EVER does, I find it odd that folkks like yourself dismiss the broad generalizations for macroevo, while demanding ‘precise’ definitions from creationism as though what? If not ‘precisely’ defined enough, then it’s not ‘real science’? But to answer your question- the precision comes in intellectual honesty, investigating the claims, and udnerstadning that simple manipulation of info already present does NOT extrapolate to new non species specific info that lie outside species specific paramters and result in major new non species specific structures. In every claim of ‘new genes’ that macroevos make- when examined, it is foudn that they are ifnact not new, but altered, and fall into species specific parameter allowances, once again, all controlled by preexisting metainfo already present.
IF macroevo were a reality, we shouldn’t be quibbling about moot insignificant examples of simple change, there should be myriad examples of new non species specific info observable- dont’hca-think?
[[Indeed, here’s your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words.]]
Well too bad- when I run into posters liek yourself, who demand demand demand precision- (While ignoring hte glaring gaps and generalizations of macroevolution), then I find that time and time again, unless everythign is spe4lled out to the enth degree, then it’s all hand-waved away as though it’s all meaningless- For hte sake of htose interested, those who are objective, and hwo value precision, and who can recognize the differences when the precise differences are shown, I will continue posting and explaining the diffeences as completely as possible- because it quickly becoems apparent just who takes the tiem to be precise and who simply waves away info with brief sidetrack posts.
Yes, you’ve been consistent in asking your one question- however, I’ve been consistent and thorough in answering it several times- Now however, I see we’re goign down the rabbit-trail of ‘precision’ for the term ‘new info’, when at hte end of hte day, it shoudl be VERY apparent to anyone even remotely objective, that IF Macroevo were a iological reality, that macroevo suffers from a compelte lack of evidence showing new non species specific info, and hterefore MUST quibble about moot irrelevent arguments about microevolutionary change, trying to extrapolate that to mean macroevolution when hte fact is there should be an overabundance of actual indisputable macroevolutionary exambples of new non species specific info creation all through the millions of species- but nope- instead we must quibble about a few scant ‘examples’ that in the end of hte day, are nothign but exampels of microevolution OR symbiotic relationships which species adapt to in order to maintain species fitness- all which is precoded in the species own specific metainfo which science can’t expalin where this metainfo came from, as simpel chemical configurations could not possibly have created this absolutely necessary metainfo BEFORE (or even after for that matter) the chemicals self assembled themselves intelligently