Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Microevolution vs Macroevolution

SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?

Size doesn't matter. It's not that 'big' evolution is a problem and 'small' is ok. I prefer to think of it as the difference between genetics and darwinian evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, while Darwinian evolution requires the creation of new information. So genetics is rolling 2,3, etc up to 12 with a pair of dice, while Darwin is rolling a 13. The point is not that 13 is bigger than 12, because rolling a 1 on a pair of dice is also impossible. The problem is that any number outside of 2 though 12 is not inherent in the dice.

So species being able to adapt within a bell curve of possibilities, that's been observed and is readily explained by DNA. Darwinian evolution, however, has never been observed or demonstrated.
This space for rent.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 5:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 7:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Size doesn't matter. It's not that 'big' evolution is a problem and 'small' is ok. I prefer to think of it as the difference between genetics and darwinian evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, while Darwinian evolution requires the creation of new information.

Why is that a problem, given that creation of new information is something that we have repeatedly observed?

From the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, page 86 of the official results (http://en.wikisource.org...)

"In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas" claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245)."

Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Given that what you are saying cannot be found in any biology textbook, Wikipedia, published scientific article or any credible source, where on earth did you get that information?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Given that what you are saying cannot be found in any biology textbook, Wikipedia, published scientific article or any credible source, where on earth did you get that information?

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then it is basically invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum.

The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.

Darwinian evolution is a historical hypothesis that offers no real plausible, let alone scientific, explanation. Sometimes it is better to just admit that we don't know until there is actual evidence.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 2:44:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Given that what you are saying cannot be found in any biology textbook, Wikipedia, published scientific article or any credible source, where on earth did you get that information?

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then it is basically invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum.


The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.


Darwinian evolution is a historical hypothesis that offers no real plausible, let alone scientific, explanation. Sometimes it is better to just admit that we don't know until there is actual evidence.

Given that everything you have said has revealed a complete lack of understanding of basic biology and evolutionary theory, I recommend if you actually care about the truth of your beliefs, to enroll in a university course about evolution.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:09:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?

Hi. AP Biology graduate here.

You are misinformed about microevolution and macroevolution. People can believe in microevolution because it's real and we've seen it happen with our own eyes. An example would be Darwin's Finches, whose beaks change size due to natural selection. Another example would be the Ensatina Salamanders, who we've seen split into two species as a result of allopatric speciation.

Microevolution deals with things that are already in your gene pool, therefore it is possible and people believe in it. It deals with things like changing the size or modifying your structure. For example, dinosaurs evolving into birds is an example of microevolution because they already had feathers to begin with and all they had to do was change the size of some of their bones and modify them a bit and they're birds.

However, macroevolution deals with things that were not in your gene pool. It deals with things like growing new structures. Instead of dinosaurs, if a worm grew wings, it would be considered macroevolution because instead of changing things in microevolution, your adding completely new things to the DNA sequence. The only explanation for macroevolution is mutations, which are almost always harmful and would kill the organism before it can produce offspring.

That's why people can believe in micro but not macroevolution.

It's because we have solid evidence for microevolution. We've seen it happen and we know how to explain it. But we don't have an adequate explanation for macroevolution.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:48:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:56:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Size doesn't matter. It's not that 'big' evolution is a problem and 'small' is ok. I prefer to think of it as the difference between genetics and darwinian evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, while Darwinian evolution requires the creation of new information. So genetics is rolling 2,3, etc up to 12 with a pair of dice, while Darwin is rolling a 13. The point is not that 13 is bigger than 12, because rolling a 1 on a pair of dice is also impossible. The problem is that any number outside of 2 though 12 is not inherent in the dice.

So species being able to adapt within a bell curve of possibilities, that's been observed and is readily explained by DNA. Darwinian evolution, however, has never been observed or demonstrated.

This is a core problem with creationism: they are so stuck on Darwin that most don't realize that we have long moved past him. Evolution as it currently stands is not just darwinism. What we have now is the modern synthesis which is a synthesis of darwinism and Mendelian genetics. Darwin hypothesized but had no idea about genetics when he wrote Origin of Species. In short, the modern synthesis recognizes that that there are many mechanisms of evolution, Darwin's natural selection is but one, and that evolution is precipitated by random mutation caused by errors in the replication process. If the organism holding these mutations survives to reproduce, its mutations are passed down by the process of heredity.. The mutations held by the lines of organisms that reproduce the most will increase the allele frequency of the population in favor of those mutations aka evolution. Therefore, your dichotomy of genetics vs. darwinism is misguided.

And genetics does not work the way you are describing. Random mutation can add, delete, copy, and transcribe anywhere from a single codon to an entire genome, sometimes resulting in changes to an organisms phenotype (ie. its anatomy). THIS is where many of the mechanisms for evolution, including natural selection. If this phenotype increases fitness, it will be selected for barring neutral drift (ie. the organism dying by happenstance like a meteor strike or a tree falling on it). If it decreases fitness it will be selected against.

Evolution needs no appeal to the ill-defined "information," so this critique is also misguided. The description of evolution in terms of information as creationists use it is entirely a creationist concoction. If you talk about evolution in terms of information as you are in the above post, it will only lead to the creation of strawman arguments.

You will also find that there is no analog to your dice analogy found within the genetics of any organism Evolution holds within it the idea of gradualism, but that is apples and oranges compared to what you are describing. It is also a flat lie that you have been fed by others that evolution has never been observed via natural selection or otherwise.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 5:49:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 5:49:43 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Source? Macroevolution is simply evolution at or above the species level, which even AiG and other creationist organizations reluctantly admit happens.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:07:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated


Wow, I can't even read your post past this opening falsehood that for arbitrary reasons limits random mutation to the formation of "healthy and useful tissues" as that is the only thing that mutations can do. Resistance to antibiotics is pretty useful, but not a tissue.Mutation at its core is about the creation of new proteins or the change in expression of previously produced ones. That aside, your description also ignores that there can be both negative and positive effects of the same mutation(s), such as the mutation that caused sickle cell anemia, which while bad gives the carrier resistance to malaria. Even that aside, most tissues are simply evolved forms of previously held tissues (ie. the eye evolving from what was originally simple photoreceptive cells). Do I need to go on?

With this initial error, the rest of your post becomes invalid because of a faulty premise.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:12:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM, Samreay wrote:
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.

Why don't you learn about evolution first from actual textbooks, scientific articles, or laymen primers by instead of popular publications? Berkeley has an excellent primer called evolution 101. Also, you do realize that those books along with the author contradict your previous post, right?
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:18:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 5:09:44 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?

Hi. AP Biology graduate here.

You are misinformed about microevolution and macroevolution. People can believe in microevolution because it's real and we've seen it happen with our own eyes. An example would be Darwin's Finches, whose beaks change size due to natural selection. Another example would be the Ensatina Salamanders, who we've seen split into two species as a result of allopatric speciation.

Microevolution deals with things that are already in your gene pool, therefore it is possible and people believe in it. It deals with things like changing the size or modifying your structure. For example, dinosaurs evolving into birds is an example of microevolution because they already had feathers to begin with and all they had to do was change the size of some of their bones and modify them a bit and they're birds.

However, macroevolution deals with things that were not in your gene pool. It deals with things like growing new structures. Instead of dinosaurs, if a worm grew wings, it would be considered macroevolution because instead of changing things in microevolution, your adding completely new things to the DNA sequence. The only explanation for macroevolution is mutations, which are almost always harmful and would kill the organism before it can produce offspring.

That's why people can believe in micro but not macroevolution.

It's because we have solid evidence for microevolution. We've seen it happen and we know how to explain it. But we don't have an adequate explanation for macroevolution.

Either you had a poor teacher or you did not properly absorb what he or she was teaching because that is not what micro- or macroevolution is. Microevolution is evolution below the species level (like Darwin's finches as you said), while macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level (ANY speciation which you mistakenly appropriated to microevolution). The evolution processes are exactly the same; evolutionary theory does not separate the many mechanisms of evolution into these two concepts. Natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, neutral drift, etc. all cause evolution which, given enough time, proper selective pressures, and an isolation mechanism, will lead to speciation and evolution at higher taxa.

And there are a myriad of direct and indirect, independent lines of evidence supporting macroevolution even above the species level. Please read 29+ Evidence of Macroevolution.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:45:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 5:09:44 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?

Hi. AP Biology graduate here.

You are misinformed about microevolution and macroevolution. People can believe in microevolution because it's real and we've seen it happen with our own eyes. An example would be Darwin's Finches, whose beaks change size due to natural selection. Another example would be the Ensatina Salamanders, who we've seen split into two species as a result of allopatric speciation.

Microevolution deals with things that are already in your gene pool, therefore it is possible and people believe in it. It deals with things like changing the size or modifying your structure. For example, dinosaurs evolving into birds is an example of microevolution because they already had feathers to begin with and all they had to do was change the size of some of their bones and modify them a bit and they're birds.

However, macroevolution deals with things that were not in your gene pool. It deals with things like growing new structures. Instead of dinosaurs, if a worm grew wings, it would be considered macroevolution because instead of changing things in microevolution, your adding completely new things to the DNA sequence. The only explanation for macroevolution is mutations, which are almost always harmful and would kill the organism before it can produce offspring.

That's why people can believe in micro but not macroevolution.

It's because we have solid evidence for microevolution. We've seen it happen and we know how to explain it. But we don't have an adequate explanation for macroevolution.

This is priceless. You just told creationists that changing "types" via evolution is possible. Macroevolutionist deniers DO NOT believe it is possible for a dinosaur to turn into a chicken.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 6:55:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 5:09:44 AM, Defro wrote:
At 6/16/2014 10:47:14 AM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
I'm interested in hearing from those who accept microevolution but don't accept macroevolution. The only difference between the two is the scale of time. Microevolution is evolution on a small time scale and macroevolution is essentially microevolution happening enough times.

Question: How can you accept one without accepting the other? Do you believe there's some supernatural force stopping the genes of a species, or "kind", from changing so much that speciation occurs?

Hi. AP Biology graduate here.

You are misinformed about microevolution and macroevolution. People can believe in microevolution because it's real and we've seen it happen with our own eyes. An example would be Darwin's Finches, whose beaks change size due to natural selection. Another example would be the Ensatina Salamanders, who we've seen split into two species as a result of allopatric speciation.

Microevolution deals with things that are already in your gene pool, therefore it is possible and people believe in it. It deals with things like changing the size or modifying your structure. For example, dinosaurs evolving into birds is an example of microevolution because they already had feathers to begin with and all they had to do was change the size of some of their bones and modify them a bit and they're birds.

However, macroevolution deals with things that were not in your gene pool. It deals with things like growing new structures. Instead of dinosaurs, if a worm grew wings, it would be considered macroevolution because instead of changing things in microevolution, your adding completely new things to the DNA sequence. The only explanation for macroevolution is mutations, which are almost always harmful and would kill the organism before it can produce offspring.

That's why people can believe in micro but not macroevolution.

It's because we have solid evidence for microevolution. We've seen it happen and we know how to explain it. But we don't have an adequate explanation for macroevolution.

And just in case it wasn't obvious, worms groeing eings would falsify evolution.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:27:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 2:44:40 AM, Samreay wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Incorrect. Macroevolution requires non-occuring miraculous mutations and supernatural selection for it to work as advertised.

Given that what you are saying cannot be found in any biology textbook, Wikipedia, published scientific article or any credible source, where on earth did you get that information?

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated; if it happens then it is basically invisible due to the process happening in immensely tiny steps.
Miraculous because those invisible utilitarian tissues should be placed in the right location, and in just the correct shape and amount. Constantly.

Then natural selection almighty, aka. killing, consuming, and breeding, takes it's course and that organism with the super-tiny advantage must triumph over other organisms lacking that super-tiny advantage and not be consumed by creatures lacking that super-tiny advantage. Then this process repeats ad infinitum.


The conclusion: This is supposed to invent, assemble, and improve organs and biological systems, and account for 100% for the diversity of life. Thus, I call this fantasy story slow creationism.


Darwinian evolution is a historical hypothesis that offers no real plausible, let alone scientific, explanation. Sometimes it is better to just admit that we don't know until there is actual evidence.

Given that everything you have said has revealed a complete lack of understanding of basic biology and evolutionary theory, I recommend if you actually care about the truth of your beliefs, to enroll in a university course about evolution.

Right on schedule! It is almost like a group-think. The cliche and trite cop-out statement: You just don't understand the theory" accompanied by demeaning education. Anything but responding to the argument.

I also find it funny that you try to make evo look complex and mysterious. It's basis can be understood by an elementary school student. Gradual naturally selected genetic changes over time that brought about all of the species and bio-systems of nature.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:39:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also find it funny that you try to make evo look complex and mysterious. It's basis can be understood by an elementary school student. Gradual naturally selected genetic changes over time that brought about all of the species and bio-systems of nature.

And yet the fact it is so far beyond you at the moment doesn't seem to concern you.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:43:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:12:27 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM, Samreay wrote:
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.

Why don't you learn about evolution first from actual textbooks, scientific articles, or laymen primers by instead of popular publications? Berkeley has an excellent primer called evolution 101. Also, you do realize that those books along with the author contradict your previous post, right?

Ignore this post. I mistook who the poster was and mistook the flow of the discussion.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 7:50:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 6:07:59 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated


Wow, I can't even read your post past this opening falsehood that for arbitrary reasons limits random mutation to the formation of "healthy and useful tissues" as that is the only thing that mutations can do. Resistance to antibiotics is pretty useful, but not a tissue.Mutation at its core is about the creation of new proteins or the change in expression of previously produced ones. That aside, your description also ignores that there can be both negative and positive effects of the same mutation(s), such as the mutation that caused sickle cell anemia, which while bad gives the carrier resistance to malaria. Even that aside, most tissues are simply evolved forms of previously held tissues (ie. the eye evolving from what was originally simple photoreceptive cells). Do I need to go on?

With this initial error, the rest of your post becomes invalid because of a faulty premise.

Strawman, I did not limit random mutations as a whole, I limited random mutations that are supposed to prove Darwanian evolution. My point isn't that evolution doesn't exist or that it isn't an important mechanism for species, my point is that evolution isn't within light years powerful or capable enough to be responsible for 100% of the diversity of life and creation and invention of biological system.

Lol, at the eye comment. Please, go on and inform me what use are photoreceptor cells to an organism if they are not connected to nerves for the electrochemical signals to be analyzed in the appropriate brain cortex?

Wait, did I use a deductive argument or something? It is amusing how you used the fallacy fallacy to dismiss all objections to your dogma.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 8:10:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:39:42 AM, Samreay wrote:
I also find it funny that you try to make evo look complex and mysterious. It's basis can be understood by an elementary school student. Gradual naturally selected genetic changes over time that brought about all of the species and bio-systems of nature.

And yet the fact it is so far beyond you at the moment doesn't seem to concern you.

That is a historical hypothesis or context. Individuals who connected the dots in a certain pattern that suited their assumptions by proposing hypothetical scenarios without providing any real scientific explanation.
I want scientific evidence that the foundations to that claim, which is rooted in those hypothetical scenarios, is not a fantasy, or at least a logical argument that these scenarios are plausible.

This is done by demonstrating that natural selection and random mutations are capable to be responsible to almost all,if not all, of the diversity of life starting from a hypothetical proto-cell. This includes biological mechanisms like vertebrate sexual reproduction, and biological organs like the heart, lung, brain, and eyes.
Samreay
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 8:14:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is done by demonstrating that natural selection and random mutations are capable to be responsible to almost all,if not all, of the diversity of life starting from a hypothetical proto-cell. This includes biological mechanisms like vertebrate sexual reproduction, and biological organs like the heart, lung, brain, and eyes.

Then open a biology textbook. Honestly, it's like people think biologists just made up evolution for fun one day.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 9:03:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:50:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 6/17/2014 6:07:59 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 8:30:32 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

Non-occuring because random mutations that forms healthy and useful tissues have never been demonstrated


Wow, I can't even read your post past this opening falsehood that for arbitrary reasons limits random mutation to the formation of "healthy and useful tissues" as that is the only thing that mutations can do. Resistance to antibiotics is pretty useful, but not a tissue.Mutation at its core is about the creation of new proteins or the change in expression of previously produced ones. That aside, your description also ignores that there can be both negative and positive effects of the same mutation(s), such as the mutation that caused sickle cell anemia, which while bad gives the carrier resistance to malaria. Even that aside, most tissues are simply evolved forms of previously held tissues (ie. the eye evolving from what was originally simple photoreceptive cells). Do I need to go on?

With this initial error, the rest of your post becomes invalid because of a faulty premise.

Strawman, I did not limit random mutations as a whole, I limited random mutations that are supposed to prove Darwanian evolution. My point isn't that evolution doesn't exist or that it isn't an important mechanism for species, my point is that evolution isn't within light years powerful or capable enough to be responsible for 100% of the diversity of life and creation and invention of biological system.

Lol, at the eye comment. Please, go on and inform me what use are photoreceptor cells to an organism if they are not connected to nerves for the electrochemical signals to be analyzed in the appropriate brain cortex?


Wait, did I use a deductive argument or something? It is amusing how you used the fallacy fallacy to dismiss all objections to your dogma.

I didn't use the fallacy fallacy actually. I never dismissed your argument based solely on its fallacious nature. But I did dismiss it based on a faulty premise, which is what the quoted portion of your post was. Random mutations do not need to produce "healthy and useful tissues" for evolution to "be responsible for 100% of the diversity of life and creation and invention of biological system.". In fact, it rarely if ever does as the gradualistic nature of evolution would predict AFAIK. To use another poster's example, a worm growing wings would falsify evolution, not support it.

As for eyes, there are extant and extinct examples in nature of an entire range of photoreceptive systems from a photosensitive proteins that are even in unicellular organisms that simply detects whether there is light or isn't, eyespots with pits that can detect directionality of light, all the way to the most "complex" eyes we see today such as the vertebrate eye, compound, eye, and mollusk eye. This is of course is simplifying things as there are many variations within these categories of eyes. These early eyes were simply a few molecules in a membrane.

Your implicit question that "what use are photoreceptor cells to an organism if they are not connected to nerves for the electrochemical signals to be analyzed in the appropriate brain cortex" is simply an argument from incredulity. The fact is such structures exist in nature. Functional pigment cells exist in some organisms without being connected to a nerve. And there exists organisms with simple photosensitive cells or pigment cells directly surrounding the nerve cells, which would already have been present before the mutation of the photosensitive cells. What basis do you have for claiming that such a nerve is in fact necessary for the first photoreceptive proteins and/or cells to be selected for?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:25:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM, Samreay wrote:
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.

But that's the problem - all evolution has is books. It doesn't have experimental verification of evolution. You can debate semantics all day, like "new information", but you can't evolve squat, which is ultimately why it's not science.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:31:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 5:48:42 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:56:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Size doesn't matter. It's not that 'big' evolution is a problem and 'small' is ok. I prefer to think of it as the difference between genetics and darwinian evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, while Darwinian evolution requires the creation of new information. So genetics is rolling 2,3, etc up to 12 with a pair of dice, while Darwin is rolling a 13. The point is not that 13 is bigger than 12, because rolling a 1 on a pair of dice is also impossible. The problem is that any number outside of 2 though 12 is not inherent in the dice.

So species being able to adapt within a bell curve of possibilities, that's been observed and is readily explained by DNA. Darwinian evolution, however, has never been observed or demonstrated.

This is a core problem with creationism: they are so stuck on Darwin that most don't realize that we have long moved past him. Evolution as it currently stands is not just darwinism. What we have now is the modern synthesis which is a synthesis of darwinism and Mendelian genetics.

So, we have Mendel + Darwin, only we've moved beyond Darwin. So Darwin + Mendel - Darwin = ?

Genetics, yes, evolution, no. Time to discard a bit of historical nonsense.
This space for rent.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:34:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:25:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM, Samreay wrote:
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.

But that's the problem - all evolution has is books. It doesn't have experimental verification of evolution. You can debate semantics all day, like "new information", but you can't evolve squat, which is ultimately why it's not science.

Incorrect. A recent, landmark example is Lenski's E. Coli experiment. The only way to discredit it as "experimental verification of evolution" is to use creationist one-liners like "they're still E. Coli" or "the experiment didn't run for millions of years." For the latter especially, if you believe we will ever see experimental evolution of higher taxa than species evolving, then you are asking for something that evolution does not claim to provide, and thus misunderstand evolution. Speciation, however, has been observed.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:38:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:31:31 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/17/2014 5:48:42 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:56:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Size doesn't matter. It's not that 'big' evolution is a problem and 'small' is ok. I prefer to think of it as the difference between genetics and darwinian evolution. Genetics is selecting from existing information, while Darwinian evolution requires the creation of new information. So genetics is rolling 2,3, etc up to 12 with a pair of dice, while Darwin is rolling a 13. The point is not that 13 is bigger than 12, because rolling a 1 on a pair of dice is also impossible. The problem is that any number outside of 2 though 12 is not inherent in the dice.

So species being able to adapt within a bell curve of possibilities, that's been observed and is readily explained by DNA. Darwinian evolution, however, has never been observed or demonstrated.

This is a core problem with creationism: they are so stuck on Darwin that most don't realize that we have long moved past him. Evolution as it currently stands is not just darwinism. What we have now is the modern synthesis which is a synthesis of darwinism and Mendelian genetics.

So, we have Mendel + Darwin, only we've moved beyond Darwin. So Darwin + Mendel - Darwin = ?

Genetics, yes, evolution, no. Time to discard a bit of historical nonsense.

We have moved past Darwin's ideas alone aka Darwinism. I thought this was pretty clear when I typed " Evolution as it currently stands is not just darwinism." And of course that is only the foundation since we have more than 60 years of research since the modern synthesis was created. Restating your position does not change the fact that your dichotomy is shown to be false by the very nature of modern evolutionary science.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:42:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 7:27:48 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
...

Right on schedule! It is almost like a group-think. The cliche and trite cop-out statement: You just don't understand the theory" accompanied by demeaning education. Anything but responding to the argument.


Yeah, I got a kick out of that too. But that's all they've got, that's really the point to note.

I watched some video where one of the pop gurus of evolution spent a good 20 minutes developing the theory that only idiots doubt evolution before he ever said a single word about evolution itself. I mean he had graphs and all. And the audience seemed to eat it up. "Oh boy, I can be smart too! All I have to do is repeat what this guy says!"

I also find it funny that you try to make evo look complex and mysterious. It's basis can be understood by an elementary school student. Gradual naturally selected genetic changes over time that brought about all of the species and bio-systems of nature.

Yup, another great point.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 10:50:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:34:28 AM, HumbleThinker1 wrote:
At 6/17/2014 10:25:50 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/17/2014 3:02:49 AM, Samreay wrote:
As I realise you probably won't be bothered, I will at least recommend the books "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Greatest Show on Earth" and "The Ancestor's Tale".

They are all fantastic books about evolution, they may help you in understanding what evolution is and how it works.

But that's the problem - all evolution has is books. It doesn't have experimental verification of evolution. You can debate semantics all day, like "new information", but you can't evolve squat, which is ultimately why it's not science.

Incorrect. A recent, landmark example is Lenski's E. Coli experiment. The only way to discredit it as "experimental verification of evolution" is to use creationist one-liners like "they're still E. Coli"

That's correct, they're still e. coli. It's the best controlled experimental evidence to date that evolution does NOT occur, not even after 10s of thousands of generations. The citrate digestion is as likely as not a genetic variation. There's nothing there, dude, just be honest with yourself. Life adapts, but it doesn't evolve. DNA is an exquisitely brilliant bit of design that allows variation while preserving the overall form of a species, even after tens of thousands of generations.

And this is the best you've got. Which is to say, you don't have experimental of evolution, nor has evolution ever been observed. It's only been inferred from a sort of forensic evidence that equally well supports the hypothesis of design.
This space for rent.
HumbleThinker1
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2014 12:23:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/17/2014 10:50:13 AM, v3nesl wrote:
That's correct, they're still e. coli. It's the best controlled experimental evidence to date that evolution does NOT occur, not even after 10s of thousands of generations.


Please explain evolution in your own words, as the only way you can justify this not being evolution is to have strawmen understandings like what you just agreed you have.

The citrate digestion is as likely as not a genetic variation.


Evidence and definition of "genetic variation," please.

Life adapts, but it doesn't evolve.


Definition of both in your own words, please.

DNA is an exquisitely brilliant bit of design that allows variation while preserving the overall form of a species, even after tens of thousands of generations.


Which doesn't contradict evolution in the slightest. You've just given a romantic definition of gradualism, except you put an arbitrary barrier on it. Ring species exemplify this perfectly.

And this is the best you've got. Which is to say, you don't have experimental of evolution, nor has evolution ever been observed. It's only been inferred from a sort of forensic evidence that equally well supports the hypothesis of design.


You seem to have a strawman understanding of science as well and how one draws conclusions from evidence. We don't have experimental evidence of how germ theory works either given that we have never conclusively observed a microscopic organism causing disease in another organism, but I never see creationists questioning this. We don't have experimental evidence of the substances within the earth, including the core, but I never see creationists questioning this. We don't have experimental evidence of heliocentrism, but I hardly ever see creationists questioning that anymore. I could go on.

Please by all means explain what "experimental evidence for evolution" would look like and how one can draw the conclusion of design without simply claiming "it looks/could be designed." Two conclusions having a greater than 0 percent chance of being likely does not make them equally likely. "Same evidence, different interpretation" is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the real process of scientific inquiry to fit one's a priori conclusions..