Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Macroevolution

Kenmrry
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution? I've been told that Macroevolution is faith based because evidence has not been found.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:26:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
On a semi-related note, I am constantly amused at objections to evolution that are basically like, if we can't get a frog to fvck a bird and then give birth to a tree in a lab environment, then evolution is false.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:26:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
On a semi-related note, I am constantly amused at objections to evolution that are basically like, if we can't get a frog to fvck a bird and then give birth to a tree in a lab environment, then evolution is false.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 11:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

I think you know what he means.

If not:

http://lmgtfy.com...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:52:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM, Kenmrry wrote:
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution? I've been told that Macroevolution is faith based because evidence has not been found.

i have yet to see evidence for it.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:41:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM, Kenmrry wrote:
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution?

I did, then I didn't, now I do again but don't really care.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 5:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 2:52:17 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM, Kenmrry wrote:
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution? I've been told that Macroevolution is faith based because evidence has not been found.

i have yet to see evidence for it.

What do you mean you haven"t see evidence for it? Of course you can"t observe it because macro evolution occurs on geological time scales, as opposed to micro evolution, which can occur on the time scales of human lifetimes.

If you mean you"ve looked at the scientific evidence and didn"t see it, then I don"t think you looked very hard, it"s by far the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of biodiversity,

If you"re actually interested in seeing the evidence for it, I"d suggest a review of the developmental sequence of the fossil record, along with a look at developmental biology, comparative genomics, adaptive radiation and convergent evolution in the context of macro evolution patterns and processes.

If you do that, you certainly won't be able to say you haven't seen evidence for it anymore.

If you mean you don"t want to see the evidence and so you haven"t looked, that"s fine, but then I"d have to say your post is misleading, perhaps it would be more accurate to just say "I have yet to look at the evidence for it".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:54:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM, Kenmrry wrote:
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution? I've been told that Macroevolution is faith based because evidence has not been found.

You've been told something wrong on two counts.

Firstly, there is no "Theory of Macro-Evolution". There is only "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis." This is just evolution.

Micro-evolution, the very well evidenced process that causes gradual changes in a population over time is the same thing as Macro-evolution just over short period of time. In the same way that Macro-continental drift is simply Micro-continental drift over long time periods.

Anti-Evolutionists generally use the term Macro-Evolution as if it somehow uses different processes, or requires a different method of validation.

In reality, variations and adaptations in a species over time, and divergence of species (Speciation) are the only processes involved in macro-evolution other than time; as one of them changes a group of individuals over time, and the second prevents them from "coming back together". Both of which are very well evidenced both in the lab and in nature.

With these two items, unless there is some magic and overarching process that creates an Evolution "End Stop", that prevents mutations or adaptation progressing above a given point, macro-evolution is inevitable: A Group will adapt and change and will continue doing so; if the two parts of the group gets isolated from each other they will adapt and change differently to the point where they can no longer reproduce together. Over time these groups get further and further and further away from each other. Repeat this process of evolve, split, evolve, split, you can form a tree of ever increasing species.

You can look at Dogs as a good example, you have domesticated Dogs, wolves and dingos that all look pretty similar. Then you have foxes, racoon dogs, and other slightly further away (although arguably, the difference between some forms of dogs/wolves, and some foxs are smaller than between a chihuahua and great dane!), then even further you have racoons, badgers.

Our knowledge of Genetics and biochemistry seems to preclude any such end-stop, almost all observed genetic processes have no mechanism of prevention, and no species experimented with so far has hit such an end stop; to invoke such an overarching process is illogical and is akin to invoking "Magic".

You will regularly see people say "Evolution is false, because X always gives birth to X." This is highly misleading, and wrong on three counts.

1.) Evolution says X gives birth to pretty much the same thing as X; the implication that Evolution says that X should give birth to Y is wholly innacurate and completely against the science involved.
2.) X is defined arbitrarily by the person, normally to mean any random taxanomic rank that we have not yet seen evolution occur at.
3.) Big changes require lots of time, we have been experimenting and observing biology to a high level of scrutiny for a few hundred years; in perspective the evolution of the horse from a creature about the size of a fox to the modern equus took 52 million years. The implication that such process should be observable in a minute fraction of the time strains credulity.

Incidently, the people who make such arguments that allegedly "Falsify Evolution", normally then go onto say that Evolution is not Falsifiable. This gives you an incite into their "thinking" process.

The second reason you were told wrong is to do with Evidence.

Anyone who says "There is no evolution for Macro Evolution", is either stupid (in that they do not know what evidence is), Ignorant (they have not googled for the evidence), or telling a flat out and bald faced lie.

There is simply staggering amounts of evidence. A very, very, very brief summary of which can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Both of these show the non-direct observations to demonstate the macro-changes in life over time.

Most of the large and most compelling evidence surrounds the genetics, and unweighted fossile morphology (what properties it has) . When you order all life and fossiles base on genetics, or via this morphology, you get pretty much the same tree (not identical, but very close; remember that fossile classification and genetics both have margins for error). There are no violations to this tree, in that you never see bats with bird wings, or any mixing and matching of different parts of the tree. Moreover, slicing the tree by the time the fossile lived, there is no violation (you never see modern animals in older fossile strata), and slicing it by geography there is no violation (you never see marsuipials in the UK). The chance of that happening by simple accident would be staggering (probably akin to winning the lottery every day for your entire life).

Some people dispute the tree, saying placement is arbitrary. While it is true that the relative position of a particular fossile does depend on some interpretation; you cannot simply place a fossile wherever you want; you cannot put a fossile whale as a descendant of fish, for example; to do so would violate the "unweighted morphology" that the tree uses. More importantly, almost every single genetic study (that compares specific genes, protein codings, retro-viral code insertions) matches the expected positions with the tree.

The existance of the tree of life itself is probably the most compelling, not only is it a key prediction of common descent (that everything will continue to fit in the tree), but more importantly there are very few if ANY classes of things in nature, or the human world that can be categorised by property in the same way and yeild a tree without weighting arbitrary properties and without significant violation. Cars do not form a nested set, Buildings do not form a nested set, Book categories do not form a nested set.

The only things that really cry out that can be categorised in such a nested set without significant violations are: human language, religion (arguably), and some aspects of culture (again arguably). What do these things all have in common?

They are all example of descent with modification.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 4:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

What stops adaptations from accumulating?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 5:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

Evolutionary Theory involves kinds? Do tell.

Also, when you mention a "microbe kind" do you refer to all prokaryotes, all bacteria, or all single-celled organisms (includes protists). The difference is extremely important (since you may be claiming that a "kind" can span ACROSS kingdoms).

I figure, since you have the knowledge needed to give a coherent account of what constitutes a "kind," you should know the answer to that rather simply.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 6:58:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:27:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:26:29 PM, drafterman wrote:
On a semi-related note, I am constantly amused at objections to evolution that are basically like, if we can't get a frog to fvck a bird and then give birth to a tree in a lab environment, then evolution is false.



lmbo...Sounds like me teaching biology class.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

This. ^^^

The essence of every such thread as this.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:03:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 3:41:04 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:18:28 PM, Kenmrry wrote:
Hey, I don't post often. I think I would like to. The first topic I would like to hear opinions on is, Do you believe in the theory of Macroevolution?

I did, then I didn't, now I do again but don't really care.

read evolution impossible, it will stump your faith.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:47:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

Alright.

Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with information.

The claim is as intellectually coherent as saying "Climatologists hail rainfall as though it were a creative goddess, but the reality is that rainfall on its own will not produce information."

Natural selection occurs whenever the following three conditions hold:

1. Population x reproduces itself with variation
2. Population x reproduces so that variation can transfer to the new generation.
3. Population x has access to limited resources, survival or sexual-based.

The "x" can be plants, robots, viruses (physical and computer), even planets in some cases (if you consider the disintegration of one planet and gravity creating a new star as a "reproductive" act). In all cases they are undergoing natural selection.

But no scientist claims natural selection generates information anymore than scientists claim rainfall generates information.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:59:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

Your actual complaint refers to the "variation" side of Evolution. Natural selection acts on variation.

Asking how beneficial can be generated through variation and inheritance is a reasonable question. Asking how information can be generated through natural selection is not.

There's several ways I can answer your question as to where beneficial genes come from. Since you're new, I'm going to stick to a "high school" level, meaning I'm going to have leave out some important nuances.

There are quite a few cases of beneficial mutations arising in genes . These include the evolution of new metabolic pathways and even observing single-celled organisms evolve into 8-celled colonies (a precursor to multi-celled organisms). (http://www.gate.net...)

There are also the results of gene and in some cases chromosome duplication leading to new functions. For instance, partial or full gene duplication and mutation lead to a species gaining the ability to survive sub-artic temperatures (http://pandasthumb.org...).
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:38:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

I really want to know on what grounds you make that statement? Have you actually looked for evidence?

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

This link provides references to a number of ways mutations can add information.

It staggers me that people can be so convinced about such things that a five second Google search shows to be flat out false.

Now that you know your statement is wrong, please do not repeat the argument.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:31:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:38:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

I really want to know on what grounds you make that statement? Have you actually looked for evidence?

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

This link provides references to a number of ways mutations can add information.

It staggers me that people can be so convinced about such things that a five second Google search shows to be flat out false.

Now that you know your statement is wrong, please do not repeat the argument.

To quote your source

"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)"

Aren't they both the same, just one better?

It's added information, but not what I would consider evolution.

It's a better apple: It's better, but it's still an apple.

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm seeing mutations, but not evolution.

"Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution" (Ironically from your source.)

I'm not seeing it.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:42:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:31:20 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

I really want to know on what grounds you make that statement? Have you actually looked for evidence?

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

This link provides references to a number of ways mutations can add information.

It staggers me that people can be so convinced about such things that a five second Google search shows to be flat out false.

Now that you know your statement is wrong, please do not repeat the argument.

To quote your source

"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)"

Aren't they both the same, just one better?

It's added information, but not what I would consider evolution.

It's a better apple: It's better, but it's still an apple.

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm seeing mutations, but not evolution.

"Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution" (Ironically from your source.)

I'm not seeing it.

It's adding information to the genome. Something you said there was no evidence for.

Are you coneeding this point? And will not use this particular argument again before i proceed?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 10:57:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 4:52:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

What stops adaptations from accumulating?

We've been arguing so long that you don't even realize when I'm joking...lol

Since you mentioned it though, this is where alot of creationists go wrong in argumentation. Seemingly innocuous questions like this one allow the evolutionist to shift the burden of proof to us, like we're suppose to show that it can't happen, instead of you having to show that it does. That's tantamount to me claiming that God exists and saying that it's up to you to prove that He doesn't. That might be what I believe but in argumentation I'll lose every time, simply because I shifted the BoP, and didn't support my claim with factual evidence. That said, here's what we know...

Creatures bring forth creatures that are like the parent/s, I'll refrain from using the word "kind" or "species". We see this every day of the year, and is what is known as a fact (although you're obviously going to try and erase that from the reader's mind). Although there are occassional genetic changes that allow creatures to adapt to their environments, or random mistakes made by the genome to existing information, creatures are a genetic copy of the parent/s. This is an important thing to remember.

So exactly how is it that the dna of a creature can change into the dna of a different creature over time (I know you don't like that wording but that is the nature of what you're proposing), through reproduction and heritable traits?? Reproduction requires the chromosomes of both the mother and father, and also requires that the offspring must be so genetically similar to the parent organism that he will have someone with which to breed and continue the survival of the group?? I know you like to talk in terms of populations and avoid what must happen at the individual level, but I stick to my guns about this. If you can't show that it can change at an individual level, through heredity, then you can't just magically claim that an entire population came by that same change, or group of changes, that makes it different than the original ancestor.

Artificial selection has failed to produce evidence for major change, though admittedly humans haven't been around for the magical "million of years". Millions of years of evolution has been simulated in the lab with the Drosophilia, and not surprisingly, we still get fruitflies when two fruitflies breed, although scientists say that there are different "species".

Ultimately, even if we grant that speciation occurs, which allows the evolutionist to say that there is proof of macro-evolution, that still doesn't change the ultimate problem that they have. That problem is showing evidence that major change, as required by common descent, can or has occurred. Showing "speciation" and claiming victory may work on the gullible, but it still leaves you with birds producing birds, microbes producing microbes, etc., which has never been an issue of contention.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 11:53:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 5:23:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

Evolutionary Theory involves kinds? Do tell.

Did I mention anything about kinds in that paragraph??

Also, when you mention a "microbe kind" do you refer to all prokaryotes, all bacteria, or all single-celled organisms (includes protists). The difference is extremely important (since you may be claiming that a "kind" can span ACROSS kingdoms).

I figure, since you have the knowledge needed to give a coherent account of what constitutes a "kind," you should know the answer to that rather simply.

This may shock you so make sure you're sitting down before reading this, ok?? I'm about to commit the equivalent of a biological heresy here, but it isn't really "life", at all, and the same goes with plants. "The life is in the blood", but since similarity equals kinship for evolutionists, it's going to be part of the argument so we might as well treat is as such. Not only are we just another animal, but we're also parasitic to other life forms.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:42:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:31:20 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

I really want to know on what grounds you make that statement? Have you actually looked for evidence?

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

This link provides references to a number of ways mutations can add information.

It staggers me that people can be so convinced about such things that a five second Google search shows to be flat out false.

Now that you know your statement is wrong, please do not repeat the argument.

To quote your source

"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)"

Aren't they both the same, just one better?

It's added information, but not what I would consider evolution.

It's a better apple: It's better, but it's still an apple.

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm seeing mutations, but not evolution.

"Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution" (Ironically from your source.)

I'm not seeing it.

It's adding information to the genome. Something you said there was no evidence for.

lol...This is kinda like arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

Then when you figure that one out, you get to decipher what they mean by "information", then "new". Ultimately you have to decide whether an offspring can have genetic material that it's parents didn't have (new), or choose to believe that duplicating or mutating something that existed previously counts as "new". Iow, does an organisms ability to adapt to their environment, or withstand minor mistakes in the genome, provide a mechanism for changing a molecule into a human being??

Are you coneeding this point? And will not use this particular argument again before i proceed?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:33:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:42:36 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 9:31:20 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:38:55 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:13:33 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 1/30/2013 10:53:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/30/2013 9:56:33 PM, errya wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:17:51 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution given a lot of time.

No, it isn't. you might want to read this article.

http://creation.com...

"Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

It's pieces of retardation such as this that makes me stop reading an article.

you forgot to say why. Scientist never have found a biological mechanism that allows the creation of new beneficial genes, only gene loss. I'm not the most informed person on this subject so I like to see both sides of this story, when you come along and dismiss it haphazardly it firstly looks really bad for you in the eyes of someone walking by, and it makes little sense.

Could you explain your position as you would to a 15 year old school boy?

I really want to know on what grounds you make that statement? Have you actually looked for evidence?

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

This link provides references to a number of ways mutations can add information.

It staggers me that people can be so convinced about such things that a five second Google search shows to be flat out false.

Now that you know your statement is wrong, please do not repeat the argument.

To quote your source

"RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)"

Aren't they both the same, just one better?

It's added information, but not what I would consider evolution.

It's a better apple: It's better, but it's still an apple.

Unless there's something I'm missing, I'm seeing mutations, but not evolution.

"Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution" (Ironically from your source.)

I'm not seeing it.

It's adding information to the genome. Something you said there was no evidence for.

lol...This is kinda like arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

Then when you figure that one out, you get to decipher what they mean by "information", then "new". Ultimately you have to decide whether an offspring can have genetic material that it's parents didn't have (new), or choose to believe that duplicating or mutating something that existed previously counts as "new". Iow, does an organisms ability to adapt to their environment, or withstand minor mistakes in the genome, provide a mechanism for changing a molecule into a human being??

If new genetic material or new functions on account of new genetic material aren't considered an increase in information, then what is?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 10:57:46 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:52:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/30/2013 4:44:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:25:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/29/2013 8:20:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
What's the "Theory of Macroevolution?"

Obviously, it's the theory that ducks give birth to fish, who give birth to dogs, who give birth to monkeys, who give birth to humans. The gestation takes a few million years, though.

No dummy, that's common descent.

The theory of macro-evolution is the theory that birds can bring forth other birds, microbes bring forth microbes. etc., and evolutionists can name the new ones "species", and sooner or later most people will get so bored of hearing about variation and adaptation, passed off as something major, that they'll just start believing that man could evolve from a microbe so the evolutionists will shut up. How's that for a run-on sentence??

What stops adaptations from accumulating?

We've been arguing so long that you don't even realize when I'm joking...lol

I'm assuming that by "Joking" you mean restating the same sort of thing that you normally post? :)


Since you mentioned it though, this is where alot of creationists go wrong in argumentation. Seemingly innocuous questions like this one allow the evolutionist to shift the burden of proof to us, like we're suppose to show that it can't happen, instead of you having to show that it does. That's tantamount to me claiming that God exists and saying that it's up to you to prove that He doesn't.

I like the way you stole my argument....

Considering that you have no objective, scientific evidence to show God exists, whereas I have large amounts of objective, scientific evidence to show that my position is true; including our understanding of modern genetics; demonstrates how your analogy fails.

To rephrase your analogy, if all the beleivers were raptured, the four horseman rode the earth, and Jesus and the anti-christ began the final battle right in front of me, and then said you have no evidence of God because I have never seen him. That would be EXACTLY what you are doing right here.

The evidence for Evolution, Common descent and everything we know of Genetics provides the burden of proof.

You are implying that our combined wealth of understanding of modern genetics is wrong; therefore the burden of proof is yours.

So please, as you are implying that all of modern genetics is somehow incorrect; please provide evidence to support this.

What you are describing is almost exactly what those like you in every single post. Ignoring all the evidence, and requiring proof of some facet of evolution (in most cases a face that is not even a required event in evolution), expecting that those with all the evidence actually have the burden of the proof is ridiculous.

That might be what I believe but in argumentation I'll lose every time, simply because I shifted the BoP, and didn't support my claim with factual evidence. That said, here's what we know...

You lose everytime for many different reasons, poor logic, mis-understanding, common fallacies; I don't remember you ever losing on the burden of physical proof; just burden of logical proof. These are different things.

Creatures bring forth creatures that are like the parent/s, I'll refrain from using the word "kind" or "species". We see this every day of the year, and is what is known as a fact (although you're obviously going to try and erase that from the reader's mind). Although there are occassional genetic changes that allow creatures to adapt to their environments, or random mistakes made by the genome to existing information, creatures are a genetic copy of the parent/s. This is an important thing to remember.

This is a typical and formal fallacy called "Affirming the consequent".

I have explained why this is wrong in the post towards the top of this thread, AND provided supporting evidence. I have also provided evidence of additional information being added into the Genome. I can't see much in your argument addressing this evidence that counters your argument, only a simple "It doesn't happen."

So exactly how is it that the dna of a creature can change into the dna of a different creature over time (I know you don't like that wording but that is the nature of what you're proposing), through reproduction and heritable traits??

I have explained this towards the top of the thread; if you wish me restate this, I can. I have also provided evidence to support my view.

Reproduction requires the chromosomes of both the mother and father, and also requires that the offspring must be so genetically similar to the parent organism that he will have someone with which to breed and continue the survival of the group??

If you recall, in "You cannot falsify evolution", you asked me to provide an exact description of how such speciation can occur without significant genetic differences between parent and children. I have provided it, you ignored it. Please refer back to that. I would be happy to provide a link if you want.

I know you like to talk in terms of populations and avoid what must happen at the individual level, but I stick to my guns about this. If you can't show that it can change at an individual level, through heredity, then you can't just magically claim that an entire population came by that same change, or group of changes, that makes it different than the original ancestor.

See above. As I stated in the other thread, this is YOUR theory, not mine.

As I side note; it is hillarious that in a thread where you claimed evolution was not falsifiable; you certainly did spend a lot of time explaining how it had been falsified!

Artificial selection has failed to produce evidence for major change, though admittedly humans haven't been around for the magical "million of years".

Bingo. Saying that, artificial selection has produced quite a significant number of changes; look at the differences between a Chiuahuah and a Great Dane. Even as you quoted earlier "Birds" being the same type, there is an awful lot of difference between a penguin and an ostrich. I'm sure you draw the line at what is and isn't major change by saying that major change is anything MORE than we have observed.

Millions of years of evolution has been simulated in the lab with the Drosophilia, and not surprisingly, we still get fruitflies when two fruitflies breed, although scientists say that there are different "species".

Millions of years of natural evolution? Really? I stand to be corrected, please cite the reference you have pulled this statement from. Otherwise I will assume that you made it up.

Ultimately, even if we grant that speciation occurs

It has been observed.

which allows the evolutionist to say that there is proof of macro-evolution, that still doesn't change the ultimate problem that they have.

It demonstrates the processes behind evolution.

That problem is showing evidence that major change, as required by common descent, can or has occurred. Showing "speciation" and claiming victory may work on the gullible, but it still leaves you with birds producing birds, microbes producing microbes, etc., which has never been an issue of contention.

The "Evidence" you speak of is alluded to in my earlier post, and summarised quite neatly in the links provided. You appear to have ignored it.

Considering we have provided evidence for our claims, please demonstrate why my argument and my evidence is wrong rather than simply restate your argument.