Macro Evolution isn't a fact it's fiction
Debate Rounds (5)
The distinction between Macro and Micro evolution is used very sparingly in detailed scientific papers, in fact it is a term used quite frequently in Creationist circles, what they intend to mean is the idea of variation to such a wide degree that an animal becomes unable to re-produce with it's previous species, its diversification results in a new species.
Firstly, there is not debate anyway regarding Darwinian Natural Selection, those whom own dogs or cats are fully aware of the inter-genetic adaptations brought about as a result of breeding. Multiple dog species were the first examples given in Darwin's very revolutionary book, "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured races". I'd argue very clearly that this is what Darwin meant and intended, no one would necessarily find good reason to disagree with this position.
From this diversification we have a reasonable, observed and falsifiable example of Natural Selection. So, as far, I have given excellent and reasoned evidence from Charles Darwin himself for the diverse and multiple species on Earth, I also warn anyone who believes I have only shown 'micro-evolution' to give me credible and reliable sources as to why this distinction is even in common usage. My belief is simple, this term is coined as a result of creationism literature attempting to present Darwin's works as two deep separate issues, one involving minor alteration of the individual and one involving massive, almost leaped examples. Those who believe that, must give a good argument, as I have pointed out, this is not a commonly used term in Biology.
So, I have given good evidence for my side, I have challenged the arbitary and often unnecessary terminology of this debate and I have presented a better explanation of the diversity of life through a scientific method.
Macro evolution definition: the evolutionary change from one kind of animal to another
P1- where in nature have you seen one animal turn into another throughout nature no matter what animal they produce the same kind of animal for example cat's produce cat's dogs produce dogs there are no exceptions you may have a few changes for example long hair dog's , short hair dogs some can be tall some are short some even have different colour hair but a dog will always produce dogs, cats produce cat's birds produce bird's there are no exceptions.
"you can get long hair dogs, short hair dogs tall dogs short dogs ect but the rest are just religious"
This makes very little sense. For example, on Darwinian Natural Selection, the idea you have accepted is the modification of an animals genotype and phenotype. Since you accept that diversification occurs through breeding, it seems absurd that you deny diversification through nature over a long period of time. It is clearly the case that through the fossil record, through the diversification of life and through the principle we both accept of Natural Selection we have a justifiable theory of the multiplicity of life.
Nowhere in Nature do we see evidence to the contrary even though the possibility of such a thing would be very easily uncovered. For example, if you could point to a very highly evolved animal in strata 100,000 million years prior to the natural evolution of animals then you would have an observable and definite proof against Darwinian Natural Selection.
Again, since Pro accepts Darwinian Natural Selection whose explanation was for the diversification of all life on Earth, what are we actually debating? Pro has yet to explain why it is the case that Natural Selection cannot continue beyond hair changes and hair colour in dogs. I've yet to hear a good reason for 'Macro-Evolution' and if you claim it is irrelevant if scientists use it, then just what kind of sources are you using in the first place?
This seems trivially stated but, it is obvious that Natural Selection is true, and if that is the case, we have accounted for the diversity of life. Also, fiction means it has no place in reality, yet you concede a huge portion even by admitting mirco-evolution.
P2 again sorry about that point that I said that made no sense I meant to say micro evolution happens all of the other evolutions for example organic evolution, stellar evolution, macro evolution ect are just religious.
P3 When you find a bone in the dirt the only thing it proves is that it died you can't prove if it was a male or female or if it had any children let alone do anything different from what an animal today is produce it's own kind for example dog's produce dogs cat's produce cat's monkeys produce monkey's ect, there are no exceptions ever!!
P4 again just in case you missed it micro evolution happens but all the other evolutions eg MACRO EVOLUTION, stellar evolution organic evolution ect doesn't happen and is just a fairy tale there is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Points 2. You can re-modified your point, but I still feel your language is unjustified. The idea of 'Stellar Evolution' and 'Organic Evolution' are ideas never used in contemporary scientific literature, no credible scientist applied the theory of Natural Selection to chemicals or stars. The theory of Darwinian Natural Selection specifically targets animals that are able to re-produce and can have genetic mutations. I don't think it is reasonable to defend 'Stellar Evolution' because I don't think anyone believes that evolutionary biologists accept this.
Darwinian models of the origin of species are specifically related to the origin of species and not stars or planets.
My objections. Why are we using these terms? I see no good reason to divide evolutionary theory into macro and micro so why would I be willing to accept Stellar evolution? I wouldn't, nor would all those experts, because what you think the experts do and what they actually do is so different that I think you are surrounding yourself with too much creationist jargon.
The creationist jargon and not their actual scientific research makes this debate so difficult, you intend to establish barriers in the evolutionary theory, with words like 'micro and macro', yet these are just not sufficient on their own and I have challenged you on this.
Point 3. Of course you can tell a lot from fossils.
In my source, the Scientific American, it breaks down the bone structure of male and female animals. Clearly Pelvis bones are different due to different functions in the animal. A Pelvis bone structure with an "angled bony arch" is a females due to birth canals and their female genitals. Again, you're using Kent Hovind level science to dismiss what could have been shown with one simple click of the button or class in evolutionary biology. Yet, I have a strange feeling you'd also dismiss colleges classes dedicated to educating people on the Darwinian Theory.
Point 4. We still see contentious terminology.
Evidence. I would add to the above, that the 'certain genotype characteristics' are the result of mutations on the genetic level which occur during reproduction. My analogy is usually the following. We have 4 rabbits, two couples and they both have 1 bunny rabbit each. I pick rabbits because they are cute, but my point can be anything organism. Now one rabbit has a genetic mutation which causes a 1cm ear growth on both sides. This almost unnoticeable adaptation, allows the rabbit to hear just slightly better than his counterpart who has no obvious or beneficial mutations which we can see. In the process of looking for food, the longer eared rabbit hears a fox approaching towards the area that both rabbits inhabit. It naturally darts away and avoids harm, while his unfortunate shorter eared rabbit is eaten instead. The longer eared rabbit progresses and spreads its genes as it survives and has a higher probability of survival. It spreads throughout the population till small eared rabbits are non existent. This is natural selection as simply as I can put it. It is all hypothetical of course and I would not expect you to accept this as evidence. My evidence for this process is the Richard Lenski experiment in which we observe-
. Beneficial mutations
. Adaption to the environment and progressive efficiency due to mutations.
. A struggle and passing on of these mutations to others.
. Struggle for survival among the organisms.
. Natural selection being the driving force of adaptation and progression.
. Accumulated evolutionary traits being preserved.
The beneficial mutations as seen in the Dr. Richard Lenski experiments.
Dr. Richard Lenski, is a Distinguished Professor from Michigan University, who has conducted a 25 year experiment on E. Coli. The LTEE experiments as I believe they are called. For me these experiments are a beautiful example of the power of natural selection and evolution in action. While men and women like Lenski spend their lives producing evidence for evolution as I shall show, creationists ignore their work and tend to attempt to refute their evidence in broad sweeping claims, which do not stand up to empirical criticism especially when most of these refutations are ad hoc remarks. The experiment of Dr. Lenski is an example of mutations which proved beneficial to the E. Coli. 2013 is the anniversary of the experiments marking 25 years of research.
With the life span and amount of bacteria, as Lenski states ' There is a lot of opportunity for evolution'. Dr. Lenski conducted an experiment in which he got 12 flasks of E. Coli all identical and infected each one with a glucose-rich broth. As expected the E. Coli would feed off the broth and then skyrocket in populations and then level off. Each day Lenski and his highly trained team would take a small sample from each flask and then infect a brand new flask with a small portion of the previous E. Coli. Basically moving the 12 tribes from 12 old flasks to 12 new flasks, with care not to infect any of them by an outside source. He would then repeat the process and give them the glucose rich-broth. As you can see the generations of E. Coli would live and die, a lot faster than humans or other animals, making them perfect for observing whether beneficial mutations are kept and preserved over time. As natural selection would predict.
As predicted over 20 years of experimenting, 7,000 flasks and 45,000 generations had passed. For human equivalent it would roughly be a million years to the time of Homo rectus. Obviously Dr. Lenski could check if any of the flasks had contaminated any other flask, by use of ARA- and ARA+, but that is not important right now. Now as Darwinian evolution would predict, if a single mutation arose which would exploit the broth and perhaps take more nutrients in, then natural selection would obviously select the individual mutation and spread it throughout the population. Word for word natural selection in process if observed. What did the scientists observe? Exactly that, in fact each tribe had harnessed a mutation and were able to better live off the broth but in separate ways. By Freezing 'fossil' forms of the earlier generations Lenski was literally able to preserve remnants of the older E. Coli. By unfreezing and mixing the E. Coli from past and present they could calculate and observe the effectiveness of the two lineages. As predicted the modern E. Coli had been able to take in far more broth than the older one.
In looking at their 12 tribes they noticed something amazing, all tribes had been able to produce and preserve mutations which helped them in taking in the broth. Not to mention each tribe in a hyperbola expression on a mathematical graph increased in size and productivity. Now as any scientist could tell you, there are many different mutations to make the body of the E. Coli bigger. More impressively the odds of two separate flasks following the exact path of each other to increase in size is far more improbable. In ARA+1 and ARA-1 each in 20,000 generations had followed the exact same evolutionary path and 59 genes had changed their expression. Now if this was by change then it would be so improbable, but as natural selection is not chance but specific picking of mutations then this is just an improbable event not an event so improbable it could never happen. On the creationist view this cannot happen. This is gradual culmination natural selection.
I have deemed every evolutionary scientists automatically wrong because what they believe in a theory that has Never been proven and the whole mindset of it is that there is no God, everything everything we see and know just came out of nowhere which makes No sense whatsoever.
P2 there are 6 different meanings to the word evolution I'm just trying to be specific about what I'm talking about.
P3 in your source scientific America they haven't given a specific animal so I don't believe the claim and it still hasn't shown that it had any children let alone any different to it's kind, if I am using kent hovind level science it's because I'm trying to explain in a way everyone would understand and if I am getting my sources from the Internet it is no different from you getting sources from a magazine.
P4 you're basically agreeing with me that micro evolution happens small changes in the animal occur but they don't change to a different species/kind of animal which is macro evolution and people do prove micro evolution which also is genetics from the parents can be passed down to the child which creates small changes.
P5 you say some things which I don't even know what you're talking about not being rude but next time just leave a link to a video.
From Dr. Richard Lenskito the end I don't know what you're talking about.
Pro has not explained his 6 'types' of evolution.
I gave evidence, I gave example and I explained my side. Pro hasn't even bothered to engage with my points in anyway, and it is now frustrating to go back and forth with no engagement with my arguments or explanation of his.
I have admitted to them being wrong because there theories in evolutionism has never been proven or has any hint of it happening.
The bible is really correct about people like you.
You really don't want to believe in God because he says you can't do some things you want to do for example promiscuity
2 peter 3:3
P3 I don't need to explain the 6 type's of the debate is about Macro evolution which is part of the debate title you're the one who invited the different types of evolution for example micro evolutionwhich does happen and macro evolution which doesn't and if you don't like the jargon don't accept the debate leave it for someone who can understand the words.
You said you gave your evidence you should have gave evidence for "MACRO EVOLUTION not micro evolution you tried to give evidence for micro evolution when the debate should have been about you giving evidence for macro evolution which is impossible.
P5 I have answered your points don't be frustrated because you're wrong please if you are wrong accept it and move on.
Pro has clearly lost this debate, and it making claims about my own personal attitude which is irrelevant.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.