Total Posts:243|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?

Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:14:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)

DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com...

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com...

DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which is an example of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:31:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Depends on the context, specifically on the time-scales involved in the conversation said scientists are having.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:26:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:31:15 AM, WriterDave wrote:
1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Depends on the context, specifically on the time-scales involved in the conversation said scientists are having.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as. When evolutionists in the scientific speak of "species transition," that's a trick phrase for micro-evolution or VARIATION of the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into anything other than what it started off as. It simply developed small adaptive body changes based on environmental pressures.

If you go back to my opening post, you will see the difference between the definitions of micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:00:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:26:04 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 3:31:15 AM, WriterDave wrote:
1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Depends on the context, specifically on the time-scales involved in the conversation said scientists are having.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as. When evolutionists in the scientific speak of "species transition," that's a trick phrase for micro-evolution or VARIATION of the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into anything other than what it started off as. It simply developed small adaptive body changes based on environmental pressures.

Really? All right, then, let's start with this one:

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Please explain why the fossil sequence described therein does not qualify as transitional fossils.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:51:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:26:04 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 3:31:15 AM, WriterDave wrote:
1) Yes.

2) Yes.

3) Depends on the context, specifically on the time-scales involved in the conversation said scientists are having.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as. When evolutionists in the scientific speak of "species transition," that's a trick phrase for micro-evolution or VARIATION of the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into anything other than what it started off as. It simply developed small adaptive body changes based on environmental pressures.

If you go back to my opening post, you will see the difference between the definitions of micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Your word choice reveals an underlying lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts here. For example "There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as."

Individuals don't evolve or transition, populations of individuals do. And the fossil record most certainly does support macroevolution, but this brings me to my next point: the fossil record and the theory of evolution are independent scientific fields which happen to agree with each other - not something you'd expect if either was wrong.

In any event:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:38:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Transitional fossils don't "prove" macroevolution, they are a classification that results from evolution.

If you don't believe the scientific old earth, then you cannot believe in transitional fossils because of their inherent traits.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 10:54:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:14:05 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com...


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com...



DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which is an example of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

1) Common descent can be tested independently of mechanistic theories. Fossils and DNA all paint the same picture. It would be pretty odd for someone to look at all the evidence and still not believe in macro-evolution. So I would say the answer is yes.

2) Yes.

"Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows"

http://www.talkorigins.org...

3) This really all depends on what the specifics are.
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:00:54 AM, WriterDave wrote:
ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as. When evolutionists in the scientific speak of "species transition," that's a trick phrase for micro-evolution or VARIATION of the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into anything other than what it started off as. It simply developed small adaptive body changes based on environmental pressures.


Really? All right, then, let's start with this one:

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Please explain why the fossil sequence described therein does not qualify as transitional fossils.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

You haven't quoted anything. I hope you're not expecting me to read Barnard's writings to see what you say is there.

Also, I believe I already explained to you that when evolutionists in the scientific community speak of "species transition," they're referring to small changes in the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into a different type of animal (such as a squirrel evolving into a bat). It simply made small adaptive body changes due to environmental pressures and may have grown larger or smaller, depending on the circumstances.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:29:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:51:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
Your word choice reveals an underlying lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts here. For example "There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as."

Individuals don't evolve or transition, populations of individuals do. And the fossil record most certainly does support macroevolution, but this brings me to my next point: the fossil record and the theory of evolution are independent scientific fields which happen to agree with each other - not something you'd expect if either was wrong.

In any event:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Regardless of whether individuals or groups are involved, the fact remains that the fossils don't show evidence of any animals transitioning to entirely different species such as a whale evolving into a bear or a dinosaur evolving into a bird. All of the paleontologists have been forced to admit for the past 30 years that no evidence has been found showing macro-evolution (one type of animal evolving into something entirely different from what it started out as.) Below are a few quotations to that effect. Keep in mind that many of the paleontologists who made this admission are pro-evolution. So they really were hoping to see evidence of macro-evolution.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

4. "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 12:35:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 11:29:10 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:51:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
Your word choice reveals an underlying lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts here. For example "There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as."

Individuals don't evolve or transition, populations of individuals do. And the fossil record most certainly does support macroevolution, but this brings me to my next point: the fossil record and the theory of evolution are independent scientific fields which happen to agree with each other - not something you'd expect if either was wrong.

In any event:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Regardless of whether individuals or groups are involved, the fact remains that the fossils don't show evidence of any animals transitioning to entirely different species such as a whale evolving into a bear or a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Sorry, but I do not accept the placement of your goal posts. "animals transitioning to entirely different species" only requires changes at the species level, which happens all the time.

All of the paleontologists have been forced to admit for the past 30 years that no evidence has been found showing macro-evolution (one type of animal evolving into something entirely different from what it started out as.)

Evolution doesn't say that "one type of animal" will evolve "into something entirely different from what it started out as." You invented that criteria, not scientists.

Below are a few quotations to that effect. Keep in mind that many of the paleontologists who made this admission are pro-evolution. So they really were hoping to see evidence of macro-evolution.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

4. "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

In other words, you COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that evolution does not depend on paleontology?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 1:57:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:14:05 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com...


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com...



DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which is an example of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Speciation occurs when a population becomes genetically isolated from each other, usually due to geographic or niche separation.

Micro+micro+speciation+ micro+micro= macroevolution

Macroevolution= species 1 -> species 2 where the difference in species is extreme and visible (i.e. therapod to bird)

If you accept microevolution leads to minute trait changes and speciation creates genetic isolation under different selection pressures, you've alll but conceded macroevolution happens over many iterations of trait evolving and speciation.

Evolutionary Theory predicts that we will only witness "microevolution" (it's really not a very good term) and speciation unless we have access to hundreds if not thousands of generations.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's no such thing as macroevolution or microevolution, only a fundamentally flawed understanding of what evolution is. These are invented terms of creationists who cannot deny the massive and impressive changes in canine populations because of articial selection, but want to repudiate that nature could produce the same thing albeit at a slower rate.

Instead they say something stupid like, "you can have many variations of dogs within their own KIND, but a dog can never be a cat!," as if any evolutionist has actually asserted that dogs could inexplicably become cats.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 2:07:08 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's no such thing as macroevolution or microevolution, only a fundamentally flawed understanding of what evolution is. These are invented terms of creationists who cannot deny the massive and impressive changes in canine populations because of articial selection, but want to repudiate that nature could produce the same thing albeit at a slower rate.

Instead they say something stupid like, "you can have many variations of dogs within their own KIND, but a dog can never be a cat!," as if any evolutionist has actually asserted that dogs could inexplicably become cats.

I was wavering between attacking the claim itself and addressing the terms themselves.

You are right, micro/macro are used by Creationists and have no real scientific worth when it comes to demarcations.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The very fact you try to make a distinction between micro and macro evolution shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Evolution is evolution and it happens.

Also, even if the fossil record was totally barren (of course, it's quite extensive, but even if it wasn't...), the evidence would still be overwhelming. Have you ever studied biology at all? Ever heard of viruses? What about Chromosome 2, Flavobacterium Sp. K172, vestigial organs/DNA, ring species?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 2:24:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Discriminating between micro and macro evolution is like discrimination between mathematical operations between small numbers and mathematical operations between big numbers.
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:07:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 11:20:21 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:00:54 AM, WriterDave wrote:
ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as. When evolutionists in the scientific speak of "species transition," that's a trick phrase for micro-evolution or VARIATION of the exact same animal. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into anything other than what it started off as. It simply developed small adaptive body changes based on environmental pressures.


Really? All right, then, let's start with this one:

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Please explain why the fossil sequence described therein does not qualify as transitional fossils.

ALTER2EGO -to- WRITER DAVE:

You haven't quoted anything. I hope you're not expecting me to read Barnard's writings to see what you say is there.


I assume you've already read it. Claiming, as you do, that there are no transitional forms requires a complete knowledge of the fossil sequence. If you don't have that, then you have no basis to make your claim.

You made the claim. You have the burden of proof.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 3:16:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 11:29:10 AM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:51:46 AM, drafterman wrote:
Your word choice reveals an underlying lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts here. For example "There are no fossils showing animals transitioning into completely different types of animals from what they started off as."

Individuals don't evolve or transition, populations of individuals do. And the fossil record most certainly does support macroevolution, but this brings me to my next point: the fossil record and the theory of evolution are independent scientific fields which happen to agree with each other - not something you'd expect if either was wrong.

In any event:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Regardless of whether individuals or groups are involved, the fact remains that the fossils don't show evidence of any animals transitioning to entirely different species such as a whale evolving into a bear or a dinosaur evolving into a bird. All of the paleontologists have been forced to admit for the past 30 years that no evidence has been found showing macro-evolution (one type of animal evolving into something entirely different from what it started out as.) Below are a few quotations to that effect. Keep in mind that many of the paleontologists who made this admission are pro-evolution. So they really were hoping to see evidence of macro-evolution.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

4. "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

You are aware that quote mining is a form of bearing false witness, right?

Gaps in the fossil record are inevitable due to the fact that not every organism that has ever lived has fossilized -- it takes a very specific set of conditions for that to happen. Plus, it doesn't matter how complete the fossil record is; creationists will always claim there are gaps. For example, if you claim that there is a gap between A and C, and we tell you of an intermediate form B, you will simply claim that there are now TWO gaps -- between A and B, and between B and C.

The evidence of evolution is entirely secure without fossils; that we have them around to confirm evolution is something of a bonus.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the sequence described in the Bernard paper does not constitute a sequence descriptive of macro-evolution.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:52:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 1:57:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Speciation occurs when a population becomes genetically isolated from each other, usually due to geographic or niche separation.

Micro+micro+speciation+ micro+micro= macroevolution

Macroevolution= species 1 -> species 2 where the difference in species is extreme and visible (i.e. therapod to bird)

If you accept microevolution leads to minute trait changes and speciation creates genetic isolation under different selection pressures, you've alll but conceded macroevolution happens over many iterations of trait evolving and speciation.

Evolutionary Theory predicts that we will only witness "microevolution" (it's really not a very good term) and speciation unless we have access to hundreds if not thousands of generations.

Since all of the paleontologists are agreed that there is no fossil evidence of macro-evolution, you're simply in denial. Without evidence, macro-evolution remains a myth. That's why it's referred to as THEORY.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 4:59:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 10:54:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

1) Common descent can be tested independently of mechanistic theories. Fossils and DNA all paint the same picture. It would be pretty odd for someone to look at all the evidence and still not believe in macro-evolution. So I would say the answer is yes.

2) Yes.

"Transitional forms
Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows"

http://www.talkorigins.org...

3) This really all depends on what the specifics are.

ALTER2EGO to Rational_Thinker9119:

What fossils are you referring to? The ones that all of the paleontologists have admitted don't exist? Even pro-evolution paleontologists have had to come right out and admit there is no evidence in the fossils showing animals changing into anything other than what they started out as (macro-evolution).

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:06:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 2:07:08 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
There's no such thing as macroevolution or microevolution, only a fundamentally flawed understanding of what evolution is. These are invented terms of creationists who cannot deny the massive and impressive changes in canine populations because of articial selection, but want to repudiate that nature could produce the same thing albeit at a slower rate.

Instead they say something stupid like, "you can have many variations of dogs within their own KIND, but a dog can never be a cat!," as if any evolutionist has actually asserted that dogs could inexplicably become cats.

ALTER2EGO -to- PARADIGM_L0ST:

Feel free to go back and read my Opening Post and look at the definition from Charles Darwin and from 2012 Evolutionists. They still believe--in this day and age--that all creatures in existence came from a single organism. In other words, the macro-evolution theory is that dogs, cats, horses, humans, etc. all evolved from a single ancestor.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that such an idea is stupid.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:14:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think that OP should be subjected to a test by the audience prior to having her argument taken seriously. Her ignorance borders on GodSands-level.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:21:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 12:35:27 PM, drafterman wrote:

Sorry, but I do not accept the placement of your goal posts. "animals transitioning to entirely different species" only requires changes at the species level, which happens all the time.

Evolution doesn't say that "one type of animal" will evolve "into something entirely different from what it started out as." You invented that criteria, not scientists.

In other words, you COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that evolution does not depend on paleontology?

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAFTERMAN:

Changes at the species level is "micro-evolution," a trick phrase used by scientists in the pro-evolution community to give laymen the impression that the animal evolved into something other than its original self. In reality, the animal merely adapted to environmental pressures and became a "variation" of its original self.

In other words, it is still the same type of animal that it started out as. For example, it started out as a full-sized Doberman and ended up, through cross-breeding, as a miniature Doberman. That's an example of micro-evolution. The animal is still a dog aka still the same type of animal.

Macro-evolution is when one species evolves into an entirely different species or "type of animal" (e.g. a whale evolves into a bear). The fossils DO NOT SHOW evidence of macro-evolution. There is no proof that an animal evolved into anything other than what it started out as. That's why I gave you the quotations from four respectable paleontologists--which you ignored.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:29:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Religious people learn best through parables, so I'll tell you a story through a parable.

There once was a village in which there is a tall, tall building with a roof. It is a typical roof which slopes on two sides. On top of the roof are three chickens which love to roost there. The first chicken is on the east slanted side of the roof. The second chicken is on the west slanted side of the roof. The third chicken is at the very top, roosting at the point.

Jack and Jill, the occupants of the house, notice that every week, eggs pile up in the grass on either the east or west side of the house.

Jack claims that since there are eggs only on the east and west sides of the house, and none resting exactly at the top, then the chicken at the top produces no eggs.

Could there be another explanation?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:33:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:21:16 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 12:35:27 PM, drafterman wrote:

Sorry, but I do not accept the placement of your goal posts. "animals transitioning to entirely different species" only requires changes at the species level, which happens all the time.

Evolution doesn't say that "one type of animal" will evolve "into something entirely different from what it started out as." You invented that criteria, not scientists.

In other words, you COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that evolution does not depend on paleontology?

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAFTERMAN:

Changes at the species level is "micro-evolution," a trick phrase used by scientists in the pro-evolution community to give laymen the impression that the animal evolved into something other than its original self. In reality, the animal merely adapted to environmental pressures and became a "variation" of its original self.

In other words, it is still the same type of animal that it started out as. For example, it started out as a full-sized Doberman and ended up, through cross-breeding, as a miniature Doberman. That's an example of micro-evolution. The animal is still a dog aka still the same type of animal.

Macro-evolution is when one species evolves into an entirely different species or "type of animal" (e.g. a whale evolves into a bear). The fossils DO NOT SHOW evidence of macro-evolution. There is no proof that an animal evolved into anything other than what it started out as. That's why I gave you the quotations from four respectable paleontologists--which you ignored.

You keep saying "different species" but the demands you provide "whale to bear" aren't just different species, but different genus, and even family.

Changing into different species happens all the time.

Again, I REJECT YOUR CRITERIA.
Alter2Ego
Posts: 235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 5:34:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 3:16:33 PM, WriterDave wrote:

You are aware that quote mining is a form of bearing false witness, right?

Gaps in the fossil record are inevitable due to the fact that not every organism that has ever lived has fossilized -- it takes a very specific set of conditions for that to happen. Plus, it doesn't matter how complete the fossil record is; creationists will always claim there are gaps. For example, if you claim that there is a gap between A and C, and we tell you of an intermediate form B, you will simply claim that there are now TWO gaps -- between A and B, and between B and C.

The evidence of evolution is entirely secure without fossils; that we have them around to confirm evolution is something of a bonus.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the sequence described in the Bernard paper does not constitute a sequence descriptive of macro-evolution.

ALTER2EGO to WRITER DAVE:

Gaps in the fossil record is equivalent to no link between one species/type of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat) from another species/type of animal. None whatsoever. And this is the case with every single animal that has ever existed. As pro-evolutionist Ernst Mayr admitted: "all species are separated by BRIDGELESS GAPS".

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

Quoting credentialed sources within the context of what they said is perfectly honest. The fact that none of the pro-evolutionists in this thread are able to overcome the quotations speaks volumes.
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:28:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 5:34:21 PM, Alter2Ego wrote:
At 3/10/2012 3:16:33 PM, WriterDave wrote:

You are aware that quote mining is a form of bearing false witness, right?

Gaps in the fossil record are inevitable due to the fact that not every organism that has ever lived has fossilized -- it takes a very specific set of conditions for that to happen. Plus, it doesn't matter how complete the fossil record is; creationists will always claim there are gaps. For example, if you claim that there is a gap between A and C, and we tell you of an intermediate form B, you will simply claim that there are now TWO gaps -- between A and B, and between B and C.

The evidence of evolution is entirely secure without fossils; that we have them around to confirm evolution is something of a bonus.

Having said that, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the sequence described in the Bernard paper does not constitute a sequence descriptive of macro-evolution.

ALTER2EGO to WRITER DAVE:

Gaps in the fossil record is equivalent to no link between one species/type of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat) from another species/type of animal. None whatsoever.

Correction. Gaps in the fossil record is equivalent to no link between one species and another having fossilized. Do you see the difference?

And this is the case with every single animal that has ever existed.

Again, if you have the basis to make this claim, you must show why the Bernard paper (to begin with) does not show a transitional sequence.

As pro-evolutionist Ernst Mayr admitted: "all species are separated by BRIDGELESS GAPS".

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

Quoting credentialed sources within the context of what they said is perfectly honest. The fact that none of the pro-evolutionists in this thread are able to overcome the quotations speaks volumes.

If you are taking that quote in the context of what Mayr said, then tell me: what is the sixth paragraph after that quote?

Incidentally, as I've stated before, the proof positive evidence of evolution would be entirely secure even if we did not have a single fossil.
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:03:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So far i haven't seen on person in support of evolution post an sources or proof of there position.

Just criticism, and bvllsh!t.

If it's true.. then lets see some proof.

stop talkin sh*t and get a little evidence out there.. no one can seriously refute evidence that is obvious.

e.g. - transitional fossil of any kind. a set of creatures all changing into a different species. something supporting your side..

BOP is on you.

so...bring it on.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:03:26 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
So far i haven't seen on person in support of evolution post an sources or proof of there position.

Just criticism, and bvllsh!t.

If it's true.. then lets see some proof.

stop talkin sh*t and get a little evidence out there.. no one can seriously refute evidence that is obvious.

e.g. - transitional fossil of any kind. a set of creatures all changing into a different species. something supporting your side..

BOP is on you.

so...bring it on.

I wonder why you refuse to support the creationist theory but rather ask us for evidence and set more and more standards for its validity...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:09:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:03:26 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
So far i haven't seen on person in support of evolution post an sources or proof of there position.

Just criticism, and bvllsh!t.

If it's true.. then lets see some proof.

stop talkin sh*t and get a little evidence out there.. no one can seriously refute evidence that is obvious.

e.g. - transitional fossil of any kind. a set of creatures all changing into a different species. something supporting your side..

BOP is on you.

so...bring it on.

See, that's the thing. You're looking for a wrong answer to a wrong question in as simple a way as possible. It's not that we don't want to offer you an answer, it's just that the simple answer you think you need to be given, doesn't make any logical sense and the legitimate answer that demonstrates how wrong you are requires you to understand so many other things from the ground up that it makes us sound suspicious and manipulative.

The problem is that most theists who have to ask these questions can't handle the answers because they haven't spent enough time conceptually learning what evolution is from the ground up. They want everything fast and easy, like religion is.

Not how it works.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you want, start with the story I told up there about the chickens on the roof. Then we can talk.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.