Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Acceptance of microevolution

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 6:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.

The problem is micro-evolution simply cannot be denied. Even theists who adopt a completely literal interpretation of the Bible must accept micro-evolution, else risk being known as ignorant on the subject by anyone outside of their homeschool.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, must be denied in order to maintain belief in that literal interpretation.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.

That's why the definition is so important. If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2013 11:42:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

Not really. Macroevolution needs a long time frame to occur which creationists can simply deny.

Unless you're talking about the potential for macroevolution to occur.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:00:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.

If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

If you accept that species can change into different species, you explicitly accept macroevolution, not just implicitly accepting it by accepting microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.

I memed you: http://qkme.me... <3 WSA
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:16:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I always facepalm when I watch non-biologists argue these kinds of threads. Just to save everyone a lot of trouble: you do realize that there are no 'types', or 'kinds', right? We make this stuff up, for ease of categorization, but it's a simplification of a very messy and complicated reality which involves things like ring species, and horrible messes like Dendrobium subclausum, which is pretty much in the process of speciation and is therefor sometimes classified as up to 12 separate species.

Seriously, if you've somehow come up with some miraculous, cogent and universal system for classifying living things into types, ring up the Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. You'll be saving them a lot of trouble. Or giving them a good laugh. Probably the latter.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:24:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's worth noting that, especially with plants, speciation can occur within a single generation [1].

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:29:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was under the impression that two different species could not breed with each other.

Canis lupus, for example, is a species. There are subspecies (the dog, the wolf, the coyote, the dingo). Subspecies can interbreed, though they have distinct characteristics. Hybridisation of subspecies can lead to new subspecies (the red wolf is likely a hybrid of the wolf and the coyote at some point in history).

On the other hand, No subspecies of panthera (lions, tigers, leopards) cannot breed with any subspecies of canis lupus.

Could be a simplistic way of looking at it.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:31:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 1:29:23 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I was under the impression that two different species could not breed with each other.

Canis lupus, for example, is a species. There are subspecies (the dog, the wolf, the coyote, the dingo). Subspecies can interbreed, though they have distinct characteristics. Hybridisation of subspecies can lead to new subspecies (the red wolf is likely a hybrid of the wolf and the coyote at some point in history).

On the other hand, No subspecies of panthera (lions, tigers, leopards) cannot breed with any subspecies of canis lupus.

So the subspecies of pathera can breed with the subspecies of canis lupus?


Could be a simplistic way of looking at it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:36:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 1:31:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/10/2013 1:29:23 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I was under the impression that two different species could not breed with each other.

Canis lupus, for example, is a species. There are subspecies (the dog, the wolf, the coyote, the dingo). Subspecies can interbreed, though they have distinct characteristics. Hybridisation of subspecies can lead to new subspecies (the red wolf is likely a hybrid of the wolf and the coyote at some point in history).

On the other hand, No subspecies of panthera (lions, tigers, leopards) cannot breed with any subspecies of canis lupus.

So the subspecies of pathera can breed with the subspecies of canis lupus?

-_-
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 2:18:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
While we know micro-evolution to be possible, we do not know macro-evolution to be possible. Scientist also do not know how it can be possible, what with genetic noise preventing natural selection from occurring in the first place.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Joey_G
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 6:57:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.

Could you please define what mean by micro evolution
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 1:47:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:00:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.


If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

If you accept that species can change into different species, you explicitly accept macroevolution, not just implicitly accepting it by accepting microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.

I memed you: http://qkme.me... <3 WSA

Ha, here's one for you...

http://www.quickmeme.com...

I'd say that you guys need some new terminology then, unless you're purposely trying to blur lines and cause confusion. As it stands with your current definition, I both accept and reject macro-evolution. That's a perfectly logical position when you try to define more than one concept using only one word.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 7:49:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 1:29:23 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I was under the impression that two different species could not breed with each other.

Canis lupus, for example, is a species. There are subspecies (the dog, the wolf, the coyote, the dingo). Subspecies can interbreed, though they have distinct characteristics. Hybridisation of subspecies can lead to new subspecies (the red wolf is likely a hybrid of the wolf and the coyote at some point in history).

On the other hand, No subspecies of panthera (lions, tigers, leopards) cannot breed with any subspecies of canis lupus.

Coyotes, wolves, dingos, and domestic dogs are all separate species. Same goes for horses and mules, as well as lions and tigers. There are generally three ways to define species. Morphological, biological, and phylogenetic. Morphological is the old go-to, it has to do with observable traits. Biological has to do with populations, and is the one which you reference, but is difficult due to the familiarity with the species's behavior in the wild which it demands, and because of fuzzy areas like hybridization. Phylogenetic is based entirely on evolutionary history, and is helping to rewrite the books, so to speak, especially in the botanical field. They're all imperfect, because biology does weird things all of the time.

Could be a simplistic way of looking at it.

One of three simplistic ways. All taxonomy is simplistic, as the point is to simplify the mess which actually exists into a coherent system
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 3:10:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 1:47:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:00:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.


If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

If you accept that species can change into different species, you explicitly accept macroevolution, not just implicitly accepting it by accepting microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.

I memed you: http://qkme.me... <3 WSA

Ha, here's one for you...

http://www.quickmeme.com...

I'd say that you guys need some new terminology then, unless you're purposely trying to blur lines and cause confusion. As it stands with your current definition, I both accept and reject macro-evolution. That's a perfectly logical position when you try to define more than one concept using only one word.

You make no sense. Speciation = Common decent. You cannot logically accept speciation (which you have to, because it's been proven), but deny common decent because that's what it is. Also, speciation has been observed in labs with organisms above the microscopic scale (plants, flies ect), and they all shared a common ancestor, which was observed as well. Yes, the evolution of a new species, at the macroscale, has been observed in labs. Where can you really go from here?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 7:54:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 3:10:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/10/2013 1:47:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:00:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.


If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

If you accept that species can change into different species, you explicitly accept macroevolution, not just implicitly accepting it by accepting microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.

I memed you: http://qkme.me... <3 WSA

Ha, here's one for you...

http://www.quickmeme.com...

I'd say that you guys need some new terminology then, unless you're purposely trying to blur lines and cause confusion. As it stands with your current definition, I both accept and reject macro-evolution. That's a perfectly logical position when you try to define more than one concept using only one word.

You make no sense. Speciation = Common decent. You cannot logically accept speciation (which you have to, because it's been proven), but deny common decent because that's what it is. Also, speciation has been observed in labs with organisms above the microscopic scale (plants, flies ect), and they all shared a common ancestor, which was observed as well. Yes, the evolution of a new species, at the macroscale, has been observed in labs. Where can you really go from here?

Like I said, blurring the lines. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that speciation happens. The difference is that it always results in the same kind of animal. Yes, you can call it a different species using whatever criteria you choose, but it's still the same kind. Microbes produce species of microbes, birds yield different species of birds, cows result in different species of cows. Yes, they all shared a common ancestor. That is all that has been seen regarding speciation.

To say that the same process that continues to yield the same kind of organism, is responsible for microbes evolving into humans is absurd. Essentially what you're arguing is that because a microbe can yield a different species of microbe, that means it can eventually turn into a fish.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:27:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:54:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 3:10:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/10/2013 1:47:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:00:51 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/6/2013 9:54:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

That depends on how you're defining macro-evolution.

Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth.


If you say that macro includes a virus changing into a virus that is resistant to antibiotics, or a bird to what is labeled a different species of bird, then we have no problem with the fact that it happens, but it's seen as micro-evolution, or more appropriately, adaptation and variation within kinds.

If you accept that species can change into different species, you explicitly accept macroevolution, not just implicitly accepting it by accepting microevolution. Speciation is macroevolution.

Macro has always meant the kind of changes necessary for common descent to be true, but I now see a trend of people using it to include small changes such as speciation. Regardless of how the words are defined, it is the common descent part that creationists argue against.

I memed you: http://qkme.me... <3 WSA

Ha, here's one for you...

http://www.quickmeme.com...

I'd say that you guys need some new terminology then, unless you're purposely trying to blur lines and cause confusion. As it stands with your current definition, I both accept and reject macro-evolution. That's a perfectly logical position when you try to define more than one concept using only one word.

You make no sense. Speciation = Common decent. You cannot logically accept speciation (which you have to, because it's been proven), but deny common decent because that's what it is. Also, speciation has been observed in labs with organisms above the microscopic scale (plants, flies ect), and they all shared a common ancestor, which was observed as well. Yes, the evolution of a new species, at the macroscale, has been observed in labs. Where can you really go from here?

Like I said, blurring the lines. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that speciation happens. The difference is that it always results in the same kind of animal.

This all boils down what you mean by "kind". When speciation occurs, a new species evolves that did not exist previously. So, if by "kind", you mean "species", then your stance is false. Humans (homo-sapiens) are just one species under the ape category for example, and we didn't exist roughly two hundred thousand years ago. This is analogous to the O. gigas species of plant, which is a new species that evolved a few decades ago, and they didn't exist before then. If by "kind", you are talking about an even bigger set above the species level, then this evolution of a different "kind" is bound to occur once new species keep changing over time regardless. The fossil record shows many transitional forms such the Archaeopterex which is a half-reptile, half-bird. This was actually predicted once study was done on the DNA of birds and reptiles, showing that they should have a common ancestor. The problem, is drastic changes like a land animal to a dolphin for example, would take intense amounts of time, so we cannot view that change in a lab. However, the claim that only changes within species, and never the evolution of a new species has been observed in labs, has now has been proven false.

Yes, you can call it a different species using whatever criteria you choose, but it's still the same kind.

Aren't you just calling it a different kind based on your criteria? With all due respects, I'll accept sciences criteria as it has been shown to be sound.

Microbes produce species of microbes, birds yield different species of birds, cows result in different species of cows. Yes, they all shared a common ancestor. That is all that has been seen regarding speciation.

like I said, if you are expecting to see drastic changes like that in a lab, you are going to need more lifetimes that can be reasonably provided for the job. It just seems that you are trying to redefine macroevolution. By definition, it has been observed in labs.


To say that the same process that continues to yield the same kind of organism, is responsible for microbes evolving into humans is absurd.

It doesn't yield the same type of organism, speciation occurs, meaning new types of organisms that never existed evolve. If you are talking about drastic change, then no we cannot observe that in a lab. That doesn't mean, there isn't scientific evidence to tell us that's what happened. For example, I don't have to actually witness a vase smashing, to conclude a vase smashed. If I am hearing the smash from the event that occurred, and I see a broken vase upon examination, I can conclude a vase smashed, even if I did not directly observe it. What is absurd, is to claim that there is this magical mechanism stopping large types of change to different "kinds", when the evidence shows this couldn't be further from the truth. In reality, if you have enough time, we should expect that after large amounts of species evolution, you are going to get an organism completely different than what you started with. Also, by "kinds", you haven't defined what you mean. As far as all scientific testing tells us, microevolution is true, and so is macroevolution.

Essentially what you're arguing is that because a microbe can yield a different species of microbe, that means it can eventually turn into a fish.

I'm arguing that macroevolution (the evolution of a brand new species from another) is proven. You haven't defined what you mean by kinds as well. Also, chromosomal fusion of two primitive ape chromosomes (chromosome #2) and transitional fossils in the record prove that large change happens like the ones you are describing (also, the genome sequencing shows this as well). To claim that because we cannot observe event 'x' directly, that there cannot not be scientific evidence that 'x' happened is silly. We can only observe certain stages of evolution directly, given more time, drastic changes happen. The evidence supports this, it's not just conjecture. The theory of evolution is one of the most respected theories in science.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 8:31:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Also, debate on common descent now in the voting period: http://www.debate.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 9:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/6/2013 6:03:24 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Acceptance of microevolution entails automatic acceptance of macroevolution.

I am putting this is the religion forum because there is no significant scientific distinction between micro and macro evolution. Yet this is a common distinction put forth by creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution."

The process is the same. "Macro-evolution" is basically "micro-evolution" observed over a large time scale.

Stephen Jay Gould once said; "Variation within a species doesn't tell you how to treat interactions between species; the phenomena are disparate and exist at different scales....Causal continuity does not unite all levels; the small does not always aggregate smoothly into the large." ("Natural History," May, 1995, p. 22) http://books.google.com... I think the same applies here as well.

See also:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
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...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 10:57:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol

I don't think the Archaeopterex link has been confirmed yet. This field (as well as many others) is full of hoaxes such as the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Even things that have accepted, turn out to be false.

See:
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.earthmagazine.org...
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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2013 11:02:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 10:57:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol


I don't think the Archaeopterex link has been confirmed yet.

Yes it has, look into it.

This field (as well as many others) is full of hoaxes such as the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Even things that have accepted, turn out to be false.

Some things turn out to be false, but they always get sniffed out eventually. If you take a look at the amount of fossils that are not in dispute, with the ones that have been discovered as frauds, you'll find that the number of frauds is extremely low in comparison. For the most part, the fossil record is very reliable. Some people make fake Gucci bags, that doesn't mean we should conclude that designer bags don't exist because so much evidence tells us they do, along with real Gucci bags.


See:
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.earthmagazine.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 9:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/11/2013 11:02:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:57:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol


I don't think the Archaeopterex link has been confirmed yet.

Yes it has, look into it.

Where?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...: "A particularly important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica... Some years ago, the British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle and colleagues proposed that Archaeopteryx was a clever forgery. Check out Archaeopteryx -- Is This Bird A Fraud?, an excellent essay that not only reviews the evidence for and against fraud, but assesses various theories of how this creature lived." http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This field (as well as many others) is full of hoaxes such as the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Even things that have accepted, turn out to be false.

Some things turn out to be false, but they always get sniffed out eventually.
How can you say that they always get sniffed out eventually?
Obviously we only find out about the ones that get sniffed out. The ones that don't get sniffed out we don't know about.
Even those that are eventually found, they can fool the scientific community for decades before they are caught, like Piltdown Man. & even then, hoaxes like The Peppered Moth hoax (for evolution), remain in the system even after they're discovered to be fraudulent.

If you take a look at the amount of fossils that are not in dispute, with the ones that have been discovered as frauds, you'll find that the number of frauds is extremely low in comparison. For the most part, the fossil record is very reliable. Some people make fake Gucci bags, that doesn't mean we should conclude that designer bags don't exist because so much evidence tells us they do, along with real Gucci bags.


Obviously that is what the Science Academia would like us to believe, but I don't know how true it is. Sure, with small discoveries, they're probably true, there isn't as much incentive to lie. But When I hear significant discoveries, I'm much more skeptical.

See:
"Faulty Geology - Frauds Hoaxes and Delusions" By Alexander R. McBirney Ph.D Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences http://www.amazon.com...

http://www.strangescience.net...
http://paleontologyfraudhoaxes.wikia.com...
http://tumblehomelearning.com...
http://doubtfulnews.com...
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

See:
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.earthmagazine.org...
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...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 9:19:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 9:07:05 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:

Obviously that is what the Science Academia would like us to believe, but I don't know how true it is. Sure, with small discoveries, they're probably true, there isn't as much incentive to lie. But When I hear significant discoveries, I'm much more skeptical.

Being a scientist is being sceptical. If a scientist can show another discovery to be false they will. That doesn't mean all scientific beliefs are true, though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 9:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 9:07:05 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 11:02:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:57:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol


I don't think the Archaeopterex link has been confirmed yet.

Yes it has, look into it.

Where?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...: "A particularly important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica... Some years ago, the British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle and colleagues proposed that Archaeopteryx was a clever forgery. Check out Archaeopteryx -- Is This Bird A Fraud?, an excellent essay that not only reviews the evidence for and against fraud, but assesses various theories of how this creature lived." http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, a few people proposed that it was a forgery. However if you keep reading the Wikipedia article, it says that all the claims of forgery have been undermined, and it is genuine. This fossil is definitely accepted as genuine.


This field (as well as many others) is full of hoaxes such as the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Even things that have accepted, turn out to be false.

Some things turn out to be false, but they always get sniffed out eventually.
How can you say that they always get sniffed out eventually?
Obviously we only find out about the ones that get sniffed out. The ones that don't get sniffed out we don't know about.
Even those that are eventually found, they can fool the scientific community for decades before they are caught, like Piltdown Man. & even then, hoaxes like The Peppered Moth hoax (for evolution), remain in the system even after they're discovered to be fraudulent.

If you take a look at the amount of fossils that are not in dispute, with the ones that have been discovered as frauds, you'll find that the number of frauds is extremely low in comparison. For the most part, the fossil record is very reliable. Some people make fake Gucci bags, that doesn't mean we should conclude that designer bags don't exist because so much evidence tells us they do, along with real Gucci bags.


Obviously that is what the Science Academia would like us to believe, but I don't know how true it is.

Why would they like to believe it? No scientist ever got rich or famous by confirming what is already generally accepted lol There is more to gain by pointing out a forgery, than keeping it hidden.

Anyway, there are huge noticeable differences between a fraud, and an authentic fossil. It would be very hard for a fraud to get by nowadays, with the current knowledge.

Sure, with small discoveries, they're probably true, there isn't as much incentive to lie. But When I hear significant discoveries, I'm much more skeptical.

I understand, but like I said, there are ways to detect forgeries easier nowadays. Regardless, I'd say the fossil record is pretty reliable

Is the fossil record adequate?

http://www.nature.com...

New study affirms reliability of fossil record

http://www-news.uchicago.edu...


See:
"Faulty Geology - Frauds Hoaxes and Delusions" By Alexander R. McBirney Ph.D Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences http://www.amazon.com...

http://www.strangescience.net...
http://paleontologyfraudhoaxes.wikia.com...
http://tumblehomelearning.com...
http://doubtfulnews.com...
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

See:
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.earthmagazine.org...
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:43:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 9:44:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 9:07:05 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 11:02:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:57:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/11/2013 10:11:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 9:57:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/11/2013 7:59:38 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, define kind. Why are all of microbial life considered one kind and just one species of cow considered one kind all by itself? Where is the demarcation?

All cows are the same kind.

The difficulty with Biblical kinds is that there were the original created kinds. The definition for them would be animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring. Due to adaptation and variation though, those original kinds are now more varied, so we don't know exactly where the lines are.

Are the whales and sharks the same kind?

Whales and dolphins are the same kind so I would guess sharks are in that group too.

Birds and reptiles aren't the same kind as far as The Bible is concerned, yet DNA sequencing shows they have a common ancestor, which would be a bird like, reptile like creature. This is even further more confirmed by the discovery of the Archaeopterex, which is a transitional fossil of a creature which is reptile and bird. If the Archaeopterex was dated at the same time of the dinosaurs or something, evolution would have been in trouble. However, it was dated in accordance to exactly how it should be, if the it was the ancestor to both reptiles and birds. What are the odds? The evidence we have directly observed show that brand new species can evolve that didn't exist before (you have admitted this), and the fossil record along with DNA predictions, and testing, all passing with flying colors, shows that the drastic change you speak of, is no big deal for evolution. There are tons of transitional fossils, and they are all dated exactly as they should be. If evolution was false, we should expect to see these transitional fossils popping up in random dates. There would be no good reason why they all fall into accordance to the evolutionary tree, if evolution wasn't true. Either evolution is true, or God is really trying to make it look like it is, when it isn't lol


I don't think the Archaeopterex link has been confirmed yet.

Yes it has, look into it.

Where?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...: "A particularly important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica... Some years ago, the British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle and colleagues proposed that Archaeopteryx was a clever forgery. Check out Archaeopteryx -- Is This Bird A Fraud?, an excellent essay that not only reviews the evidence for and against fraud, but assesses various theories of how this creature lived." http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, a few people proposed that it was a forgery. However if you keep reading the Wikipedia article, it says that all the claims of forgery have been undermined, and it is genuine. This fossil is definitely accepted as genuine.


This field (as well as many others) is full of hoaxes such as the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Even things that have accepted, turn out to be false.

Some things turn out to be false, but they always get sniffed out eventually.
How can you say that they always get sniffed out eventually?
Obviously we only find out about the ones that get sniffed out. The ones that don't get sniffed out we don't know about.
Even those that are eventually found, they can fool the scientific community for decades before they are caught, like Piltdown Man. & even then, hoaxes like The Peppered Moth hoax (for evolution), remain in the system even after they're discovered to be fraudulent.

If you take a look at the amount of fossils that are not in dispute, with the ones that have been discovered as frauds, you'll find that the number of frauds is extremely low in comparison. For the most part, the fossil record is very reliable. Some people make fake Gucci bags, that doesn't mean we should conclude that designer bags don't exist because so much evidence tells us they do, along with real Gucci bags.


Obviously that is what the Science Academia would like us to believe, but I don't know how true it is.

Why would they like to believe it? No scientist ever got rich or famous by confirming what is already generally accepted lol There is more to gain by pointing out a forgery, than keeping it hidden.

Funding, Pride, Credibility, Denial-Hard to admit to being duped, etc.
Take the famous Piltdown Man for example. From the beginning there were doubters & dissenters, who were ignored for decades until it could no longer be suppressed & was found to be irreconcilable with newer findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bmartin.cc...
http://www.americanthinker.com...

Anyway, there are huge noticeable differences between a fraud, and an authentic fossil. It would be very hard for a fraud to get by nowadays, with the current knowledge.

Ease of fabrication is easier than we would like to believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sure, with small discoveries, they're probably true, there isn't as much incentive to lie. But When I hear significant discoveries, I'm much more skeptical.

I understand, but like I said, there are ways to detect forgeries easier nowadays. Regardless, I'd say the fossil record is pretty reliable

Is the fossil record adequate?

From there it seems to be a debate.
I found the following interesting:
"Yet it is also evident that strong forces have continuously biased the fossil record, distorting and masking the biological patterns contained within"
http://www.nature.com...

New study affirms reliability of fossil record

http://www-news.uchicago.edu...

This is the work of 1 individuals, hasn't been peer reviewed, & it doesn't discuss missing links.

See:
"Faulty Geology - Frauds Hoaxes and Delusions" By Alexander R. McBirney Ph.D Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences http://www.amazon.com...

http://www.strangescience.net...
http://paleontologyfraudhoaxes.wikia.com...
http://tumblehomelearning.com...
http://doubtfulnews.com...
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com...

See:
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.earthmagazine.org...

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ".We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Go
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...