I don’t think so. The philosophy of life makes discrete categories based on functions. Vegetative, animal and human beings are different in functionality. The clarity of the classic divisions does not have the fogginess of the present tree of life presentation of species. Have you encountered a walking plant? Or an animal that can read and write?
I have encountered many moving plants: sunflowers, mimosas and flowering plants that close their petals at night. Some unicellular plants can propel themselves through the water, though they do not walk. I know an animal that can read digits: Chimp vs Human. I have seen reports of chimps (and a Gorilla?) learning sign language.
Sure,Hume:
No, it wouldn’t, but, that you keep coming back is an indication that you’re looking for something, proof maybe? Otherwise, your coming back makes no logical sense. So, again, wonderful!
You have conceded a new and less powerful definition of macro.
Which is all that is required to refute your citation as evidencing a consensus of scientists in the field are in agreement.
As what you provided does not show scientific consensus of an alleged macroevolution evidence, do you have another source that alleges scientific consensus on an observation of a macroevolution event?
Walking is locomotion and not the same as moving. Only animals and humans have this function.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
In nature? No. After interacting with humans, possibly by mimicing. But the ability to read and write, no. The use of symbols to communicate ideas is the ability to abstract and is uniquely human function.
How are the functional differences among plants, animals and humans not reality? What other exceptions do you claim?
You have conceded that macroevolution occurs.
Really? Scientists agree on the main point and disagree on details. Therefore the main point is wrong. No I don’t think so.
So fish are not animals because they swim rather than walk? Whales are not animals because they swim rather than walk? You really need to think through this stuff before you post it. Jellyfish and sponges are animals; have you ever seen either walking?
How is a sponge (an animal) functionally different from a plant?
Yes, if we want to define it as being very limited to lineage splitting and by breaking genes which lead to less fitness and ultimate extinction . I am ok with it under this definition. It is very far from what was being pitched.
Do you have exactly the same characteristics as your great grandparents? No. So there are changes in characteristics which occur in lineages over time.rossum:
Let’s look at the first study which @Freddy proposed as supporting the truth of macroevolution, cladistics.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_05
Your purported observations of macroevolution are irrational and not supported by a consensus in the scientific community.
Are you saying you don’t know what an alternative theory might be? Or do you have one…?Freddy:
As it relates to macroevolution, apparently not common enough.
We’re still waiting for your explanation of why it is that not being able to mate with chimps is a loss.rossum:
Rewrite - Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.
Indeed. We have lost the ability to mate with chimps, but have gained the ability to mate with other humans. Overall buffalo rates that as a loss. Colour me puzzled.
We never could to begin with, so it is an irrelevant question.