Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Evidence for Macroevolution

BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.

What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:39:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

It's only "controversial" because they reject it, but they haven't given good reason to do so. And, indeed, the original Creationist position was to reject all evolution. When that became untenable, they accepted it and claimed speciation impossible. Now that that's been demonstrated, they've moved to a vague "kinds" argument.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:44:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:39:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

It's only "controversial" because they reject it, but they haven't given good reason to do so. And, indeed, the original Creationist position was to reject all evolution. When that became untenable, they accepted it and claimed speciation impossible. Now that that's been demonstrated, they've moved to a vague "kinds" argument.

Not true. The Bible says "Kinds". So, that would be the correct YEC argument. I don't know if Creationists used to argue otherwise. But, if they did, that speaks about their own ignorance regarding Genesis and not the validity of Genesis itselt.

And, there are tons of reasons it is controversial. We find DNA that cannot live more than tens of thousands of years in Dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. Radiometric carbon dating gives wacko numbers for old items. All kinds of reasons to be skeptical.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:49:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:44:42 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 12:39:51 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

It's only "controversial" because they reject it, but they haven't given good reason to do so. And, indeed, the original Creationist position was to reject all evolution. When that became untenable, they accepted it and claimed speciation impossible. Now that that's been demonstrated, they've moved to a vague "kinds" argument.

Not true. The Bible says "Kinds". So, that would be the correct YEC argument. I don't know if Creationists used to argue otherwise. But, if they did, that speaks about their own ignorance regarding Genesis and not the validity of Genesis itselt.

The bible doesn't explain what it means by that. Besides that, YEC flies in the face of the available evidence.


And, there are tons of reasons it is controversial. We find DNA that cannot live more than tens of thousands of years in Dinosaur fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. Radiometric carbon dating gives wacko numbers for old items. All kinds of reasons to be skeptical.

Not really. When you look into those, you find as a general rule the facts being misrepresented by those arguing for the "controversy". If you'd like to look at one of them specifically, feel free to post it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:59:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.
Macroevolution is a religious term coined by creationists and therefore has no meaning in science and is unrelated to the ToE which of course has more evidence than any other scientific theory in the world.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 4:11:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

1. Why is this in the religion forum?
2. I have only ever seen 'molecules to man' evolution term used by Ken Ham... Looks like somebody has spent too much time on answersingenesis.com

Just so you know, answersingenesis has some of the worst scholarship, integrity and representation of science I have ever seen, you would do well to expand your sources.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:01:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 4:11:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

1. Why is this in the religion forum?
2. I have only ever seen 'molecules to man' evolution term used by Ken Ham... Looks like somebody has spent too much time on answersingenesis.com

Just so you know, answersingenesis has some of the worst scholarship, integrity and representation of science I have ever seen, you would do well to expand your sources.

You mentioned AIG. Not me. And, nice ad hominem. Do you have any substantive arguments?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 11:10:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 11:01:26 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 4:11:09 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

1. Why is this in the religion forum?
2. I have only ever seen 'molecules to man' evolution term used by Ken Ham... Looks like somebody has spent too much time on answersingenesis.com

Just so you know, answersingenesis has some of the worst scholarship, integrity and representation of science I have ever seen, you would do well to expand your sources.


You mentioned AIG. Not me. And, nice ad hominem. Do you have any substantive arguments?

Am I wrong? You didn't get the term via Ken Ham's channels? Perhaps the statement was too broad on scant evidence. The reason why I roll my eyes at it is because it's a hasty generalization of the processes that would need to be involved.

It's even worse than 'Big Bang Theory', which is a complete misrepresentation of what it is.

Also the point on expanding your sources holds, this remains true for any point of topic, but more especially so for AIG.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:32:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:36:27 AM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:56:58 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:52:51 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 11:46:59 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

What do you mean by "evidence", in this context?

Standard definition of evidence:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Just scientific or factual reasons that people think macroevolution is a sound theory.

Well, the starting position is that there's no reason to suspect there's any vast difference between micro and macro evolution sufficient to warrant differentiating between them in terms of evidentiary needs. We have seen microevolution, even up to the species level, and have no good evidence indicating that there's a limiting factor.

Over and above that, there's the progression of the fossil record and the statistical evidence with DNA, among others.

I'm just curious, and my question was born out of that curiosity, as to what you're really getting at, considering these things are pretty easily available from pretty much the quickest of google searches.


What I am really getting at is what concrete evidence leads so many to make such confident claims about molecules to man evolution.

I've been doing a lot of research on it, and the evidence just doesn't seem to be very strong. But, I am open to being shown evidence here.

I don't think one can extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution. The existence of microevolution is consistent with a number of theories regarding the origin of man. This includes both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists, who accept microevolution to explain much of the variation among species.

It is macroevolution that is controversial.

I had topic about this in the science forum a little while back. In a nutshell I challenged individuals to provide a mechanism or Chinese wall that would disallow many microevolutionary events to eventually significantly change the form/function of an organism to where it would be recognized as something different or new.

The best evidence given of such type of Chinese wall was that mutations tend to result in death of the organism rather than an evolutionary benefit. However, making such claims that 100% of significant mutations are a negative has absolutely no factual reason to be true.

It is reasonable to believe that if one believes in an old earth and accepts micro evolution, not being open to macro evolution is incongruent because there is extremely weak evidence that a chinese wall exists between micro and macro evolution.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 12:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, anyone who is interested in ad hominem arguments, please don't comment.

Second off, nobody is arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are not similar mechanisms. Instead, I am arguing that the existence of microevolution does not necessarily imply macroevolution.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:36:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:44:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
First off, anyone who is interested in ad hominem arguments, please don't comment.

Just so you know, that wasn't an ad hominem. I understand why you didn't appreciate the comment, but it wasn't an ad hominem.

Second off, nobody is arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are not similar mechanisms. Instead, I am arguing that the existence of microevolution does not necessarily imply macroevolution.

Upon what grounds do you argue that?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 8:13:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The DNA record is evidence for macroevolution. All creatures (including humans) which have had their genomes analyzed by scientists share very similar genetic information.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 9:39:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

Response: That is because there is no such evidence, hence the term "theory". They only have evidence for micro and put a theory together that it proves macro, which is absurd. The act of one that is different from another cannot be proof that the other does the same. That's like saying because birds fly, pigs can too. No. One is not evidence for the other because they are different. Similarly, micro-evolution of a certain thing is only proof that the certain thing evolves, not proof of something different evolves.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 12:30:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 12:44:46 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
First off, anyone who is interested in ad hominem arguments, please don't comment.

Second off, nobody is arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are not similar mechanisms. Instead, I am arguing that the existence of microevolution does not necessarily imply macroevolution.

And I'm arguing that you have no evidence that multiple microevolution events over time can not result into macroevolution. They operate on the same principles of changes of dna, rna, gene expression, non coding dna, etc. What is the Chinese wall which blocks successive micro evolution over time from being macro evolution?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 1:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 10:17:24 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I understand the evidence for microevolution. But, what is the evidence for molecules to man macroevolution?

It doesn't seem like there is much.

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