Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Teach the controversy! Asteroidism is false!

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:43:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We can tell based on smaller impact events on a small scale that the Barringer Meteor Crater looks like an impact event simply from a larger body. I can probably say the same for the Chixulub crater. I can look at the soil surrounding the crater and find shock-quartz; something we know is only formed in high energy conditions; the kind of conditions associated with large impact events. We can look at the material around and find remnants of material that doesn't conform to the earths general composition; something that implies extra-terrestrial origin. We can see and detect asteroids all the time, many smaller ones hit the earth and leave tiny craters. Some bigger ones skirt by, but we know that there is no conceptual reason why larger asteroids couldn't hit. We can't really see any events on earth that could explain the origin of meteor craters any other way.

So, scientifically speaking, it's a fairly uncontentious, open and shut case, lots of evidence, lots of reasons to think that it's the case. So, for the sake of argument, lets say a religion shows up with a holy book that says it's not true. All of a sudden these guys, lets call them Religious Nut Jobs (RNJ) for the sake of argument, start taking issue with the teaching of asteroid theory.

They start calling anyone who beleives that craters are caused by asteroids "Asteroidists", and refer to the theory as "Asteroidism". They then profess that all the science is on their side, and claim It's obvious that the meteor crater was caused by a particular type of volcano made by God .

Science points out that this is dead wrong; it is definitively NOT volcanism due to the lack of any ash, igneous rock, and massive differences in feature. The RNJ simply reply "Common Craters imply common volcanos". Science shrugs, and points out that they are very much not common, and can only be thought of as common if you ignore all the features that make them different.

The RNJ continue by pointing out that there are high temperatures and pressures and can be caused by high temperatures and pressures in volcanism. Scientists point out how ridiculously wrong this in and how that doesn't match any of the data. They are ignored.

The RNJ then point out that the iridium layer evidence at the K-T boundary "Assumes an extra terrestrial origin". Scientists point out "Uh, how else could it possibly get there, we've checked, we have done a fair amount of research into geology and have no other explanation, we know irridium is more common in asteroids than on earth". The RNJ reply by saying "A magic volcano that caused the crater pumped out irridium into the atomsphere and it got laid down". Science points out how this is impossible, but it doesn't matter.

Science: "What about shooting stars?"

RNJ: "HAH! These are just shooting stars, not Meteors."

Science: "But some of them actually hit the ground and make small craters, exactly like the big one, just smaller."

RNJ "And what does that prove, no matter how many times anything we see them hit the ground it is JUST a shooting star that made it, NOT a big asteroid."

Science: "They're the same thing; one is just larger than the other."

The RNJ scowl "No. They are totally different, shooting stars are MICRO asteroids; which we totally agree and do not deny. What you're talking about are MACRO asteroids; for which there is no evidence."

Science: "MACRO asteroids are just large MICRO asteroids, it's just an extension of the same process; we see large asteroids in space all the time."

RNJ: "And? Assuming they can hit the earth is just an assumption. There is evidence that there is an asteroidal wall that means it is impossible for large asteroids to hit the earth. God made sure that only Micro asteroids can hit, there is no evidence for macro asteroids hitting the earth."

Science facepalms: "we know a lot about how the atmosphere and gravity actually works, there is no wall."

RNJ: "Yeah? How come every single day, and even millions of times a year in every single observation ever made in ALL of human history all show every day that all we EVER see is MICRO asteroids, never MACRO asteroids! Larger asteroids simply CANNOT hit the earth as they are deflected by the atmosphere."

Science sighs loudly, "Uh, it REALLY doesn't work like that."

RNJ: "It obviously does; it explains the observation of why we have NEVER seen a massive asteroid hit the ground."

Then, a moment of serendipity as science tracks and records a massive airburst of a massive meteor. Science points it out: "See, big objects CAN hit the earth."

The RNJ reply: "Still just MICRO..."

Science: "Okay, okay, lets allow us to test this. How LARGE does an asteroid have to be to be considered MACRO."

The RNJ reply: "Big."

Science: "How Big?"

RNJ: "Like, really big."

Science: "10 meters? We have seen 10 meter asteroids hitting us"

RNJ: "No."

Science: "100 Meters?"

RNJ: "Just big."

Science: "You have to be more specific like that. How are we supposed to know how to test your theory if you want to define what a MACRO object is?"

RNJ: "Um, we just did. BIG. Like, really BIG. What are you not understanding?"

Science: "So where is your maths, what demonstrates that the asteroid will bounce of the atmosphere, what maths are you using? What process is there to prevent it?"

RNJ: "We don't need maths. Asteroids that are too large either hit the moon or bounce off; it is self evidence based on the fact we ONLY see MICRO asteroids and never MACRO asteroids."

Science: "You do know that I kind showed that was wrong earlier."

RNJ: "No you didn't."

Science facepalms yet again. Then, another person walks in. They appear to have a lab coat on over some weird religious garb. The person introduces himself: "Hi, I am Dr Dimbski, I'm a proponent of intelligent volcanism. I beleive everything he does, but I don't use the word God."

Science: "Oh geeze."

Dr Dimbski: "Asside from everything that the RNJ says, Science supports the fact that Meteor craters cannot be caused by Macro Asteroids."

Science: "Okay, lets hear it."

Dr Dimbski: "Well, the crater consists of Complex Specified material which isn't found in asteroids, so it can't be an asteroid that caused it."

Science: "Oh, have you found some special compound? What is it? An allotrope of irridium? a bonded metal hydride?"

Dr Dimbski: "Something like that, it's this chemically, earthy stuff in the creator."

Science: "Uh. What type?"

Dr Dimbski: "I just said, Chemically earthy stuff. But it is evident that it can't be created by an asteroid, only intelligent volcanism."

Science: "Why can't it be created by an asteroid?"

Dr Dimski: "I just said; it requires an intelligence to create this chemically earthy stuff."
Science: "Okay, that makes no sense."

Dr Dimbski: "Not at all; it is also evident that for Asteroidism to be true; material has to be added to the earth, no such new material can be found."

Science: "Ah! We have found REAL meteorite fragments in the big craters that are definitely extra terrestrial as they don't match anything found on earth!"

Dr Dimbski: "That's not new material."

Science: "Uh, why? It's not of terrestrial origin."

Dr Dimbski: "Is it made of basic chemical elements?"

Science: "Yeah."

Dr Dumnski: "Then it's the SAME material as is already on the earth; it isn't NEW material."

Science: "Why am I even wasting my time :("

RNJ: "Hey, wait, come back; we need to talk about the Controversy surrounding Asteroidism."

Science: "WHAT CONTROVERSY??!!"

RNJ: "Are we arguing with you?"

Science: "Not really 'Arguing', you are disagreeing with reality with weird arguments that make no sense."

RNJ: "How else would you define controversy.

With that, science went to bed with a cool towel draped over it's head.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:03:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Can't... breathe...

Did you really write that, Ramshutu? Today, even?

Please have my love child.

I realise science can't help us do that, because life is taboo with respect to science, and life can only be Bugattied by LIFE.

But you're alive, and so am I. You're a man, and I'm a guy who can fake a contratenor falsetto...

I know we'll probably have at best some deformed creature with too many Y chromosomes, but... all life is sacred, even if it's just a virus... so... please consider at least letting our viruses reproduce.

At worst, we can sneeze our way to co-paternity together.

Thanks.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 8:09:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 2:03:38 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Can't... breathe...

Did you really write that, Ramshutu? Today, even?

Please have my love child.

I realise science can't help us do that, because life is taboo with respect to science, and life can only be Bugattied by LIFE.

But you're alive, and so am I. You're a man, and I'm a guy who can fake a contratenor falsetto...

I know we'll probably have at best some deformed creature with too many Y chromosomes, but... all life is sacred, even if it's just a virus... so... please consider at least letting our viruses reproduce.

At worst, we can sneeze our way to co-paternity together.

Thanks.

Yes, this is all me, and yes was yesterday. Probably the most bizarre reply I've ever had to a post on this forum. If you're willing to be my back-up that could work!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 8:45:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lmfao. I love it!

It started out a bit meh but got really good when the analogies really started sticking.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 9:45:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hahaha. My favorite is 'macroasteroids'. Glorious. Every time someone starts talking about speciation without understanding the mechanisms involved and without actually defining anything I tend to just walk away. Since there's no clear barrier between species, and you won't define one, how are you making a point?
"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 -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether. Theoretically they're the same process, but there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that microevolution + microevolution + microevolution = changes associated with macroevolution unless you can show that there are viable evolutionary pathways (ramps of minor improvement) connecting distant evolutionary states, and that's not as easy as one might think.

As William Dembski observes:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination. For cooption to work there has to be coordination. Design is known to have the capability to effect such coordination. You're claiming that natural selection does as well, but there is no evidence of that. The only evidence is of isolated pieces waiting to be coordinated. That's why I insist on **detailed** Darwinian pathways (and no, you haven't provided them). Pathways are continuous trajectories that connect the dots. The issue is not whether the dots are in place but how to connect them. You've offered no evidence that natural selection can do that -- or is your evidence simply that it couldn't have been design and therefore natural selection is all that's left? That sounds like an argument from ignorance.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether.

Oh damn. Now I have to be serious.

If one were truly trying to make a scientific point, it would be useful to actually pay attention to science: Specifically comparative anatomy and observed evolution; with a smattering of genomics.

So, we know stuff can vary in size, shape, bone shape. Bones can fuse, and bones can duplicate; all of this is observed in reality. What you call MICRO evolution.

Looking at the cladistics and the nested heirarchy, in almost all cases, a wide variety of species, up until around the "class" and in a lot of cases, order; most mammals groups differ primarily only by size, shape, bone shape, bones fusing, bones duplicating. This is further refined and reinforced by additional fossile evidence going back in time that show the general progression of those species by just that; minor changes.

Dogs and bears are pretty similar, Chimps and humans and all the great apes, are pretty similar too, and there aren't really any major differences that are either unexplainable by the types of mutation we see today, or for which there is not general fossile evidence.

Even at the class level, for example all birds, all mammals, various forms of fish, frog, reptile, and many others; really only differ from other species in their own class in terms of "Micro changes".

Then there are large changes; for example transitioning from eggs to live birth (observed in the wild), or large scale changes in organ structure such as incremental changes to heart morphology, such as increasing the number of chambers, or changes to how the organ structure (observed in the wild).

Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

One of the key transition, the move from sea to land, has evidence too; using the types of mutations of the like we see today: IE microevolution; we can provide a plausible step for the development of the lungs, and this is further evidenced by seeing gradual intermediaries between fish, fish with small swim bladders, fish with large swim bladders, and lung fish. We have intermediate forms showing changes to gills to make them less gill like, and changes to lobe finned fish that makes them more amphibian like. Thus far, there is no need to "create" a new organ, or some new features, as each described so far is really only small changes applied to whats already there.

I've now gone back nearly 400 Million years; with most significant changes that have occured between terrestrial verterbrates really only boiling down to minor changes over time; this is supported by the fossil evidence showing, well, sequential steps; comparative anatomy that shows that life really doesn't differ that much if not for size and shape; the nature of mutations we see happening AND accumulating today are sufficient to explain 99% of the diversification of life after this point, with either evidenced pathways at the genomic level, or general evidence that lends credence to the concept that such a change was caused by micro-changes.

What about before 400 million years? Well, that's relatively simple too, because up until that point most verterbrate life was very fish like, and most verterbrates both at the time, AND now, are very similar, with changes in size, shape and basic structure. There are some differences, such as cartelagenous fish and bony fish; and flat fish and other groups broadly grouped under the term "fish". I can do something very similar with arthropods, and most of the core phyla.

Organ structure and "Growing new organs" is a misnoma, because it hasn't really happened at any point in history; most of what we have, has either been hijacked from something already there, or improved over a number of series of successive steps; and this is very much evidenced by the fact that that in many cases extant life still shows the hall marks in those successive steps; there are graduated examples of eyes, hearts, lungs, stomachs: If I lay out all the different types of heart in life today, there's not really any point where it's "new", there is gradual change from something really, really simple (worms) to something fairly modern (humans).

Your problem is, that in making the "Macro" claim; you are simply not paying attention to the current state of scientific research, and you certainly are not paying any attention to what life actually is; because while there is a huge variety in life, at no point is there really any big difference.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 4:30:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Brilliant! I loved it! Encore! Encore!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 4:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

So what if bird wings evolved from lizard arms. They perform very different functions. Wings are new in the sense that they enable flight, whereas arms do not even come close.

As Dembski said:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

I don't deny that these transitions occurred. But how can science be sure that evolutionary pressures were sufficient to get from one evolutionary state to another without any guidance? You see a bunch of transitional dots and assume there's a ramp of gradual improvement connecting them. You can't assume that because it would be beneficial for an organism to evolve in x direction that it could, given that the fact that evolution is a totally myopic process.

I'll skip the rest.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 5:51:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 4:42:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

So what if bird wings evolved from lizard arms. They perform very different functions. Wings are new in the sense that they enable flight, whereas arms do not even come close.

As Dembski said:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

I don't deny that these transitions occurred. But how can science be sure that evolutionary pressures were sufficient to get from one evolutionary state to another without any guidance? You see a bunch of transitional dots and assume there's a ramp of gradual improvement connecting them. You can't assume that because it would be beneficial for an organism to evolve in x direction that it could, given that the fact that evolution is a totally myopic process.

Your argument was that MACRO is different from MICRO.

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether."

I included this in my analogy because creationists, in general, do EXACTLY what you do here, which is define MICRO and MACRO as if there is some major differences, major hurdles and major jumps in life at almost every level that somehow need something really crazy to happen.

This contention is false, because taxonomy and paleontology demonstrate that even the most disparate differences between any two creatures can always be broken by showing fossile or extant species that are morphologically between those two; halving the size of the jump each time.

This MICRO/MACRO argument is broadly speaking what is called assuming your own conclusion.

I am ignoring your response, because it is effectively changing the subject away from MICRO vs MACRO, and away from my explanation that there are successive steps that can be shown between life that doesn't require any sort of MACRO change in the way you claim it does.

If you're willing to actually to return to my argument, instead of changing the subject by now invoking two new arguments that are unrelated to your initial point, I will deal with your rebuttal.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:31:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 5:51:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:42:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

So what if bird wings evolved from lizard arms. They perform very different functions. Wings are new in the sense that they enable flight, whereas arms do not even come close.

As Dembski said:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

I don't deny that these transitions occurred. But how can science be sure that evolutionary pressures were sufficient to get from one evolutionary state to another without any guidance? You see a bunch of transitional dots and assume there's a ramp of gradual improvement connecting them. You can't assume that because it would be beneficial for an organism to evolve in x direction that it could, given that the fact that evolution is a totally myopic process.

Your argument was that MACRO is different from MICRO.

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether."

I included this in my analogy because creationists, in general, do EXACTLY what you do here, which is define MICRO and MACRO as if there is some major differences, major hurdles and major jumps in life at almost every level that somehow need something really crazy to happen.

This contention is false, because taxonomy and paleontology demonstrate that even the most disparate differences between any two creatures can always be broken by showing fossile or extant species that are morphologically between those two; halving the size of the jump each time.

I JUST said that I don't deny the existence of transitional forms. My point was that their EXISTENCE does not prove that there were viable pathways connecting them. You haven't addressed this point.


This MICRO/MACRO argument is broadly speaking what is called assuming your own conclusion.

I am ignoring your response, because it is effectively changing the subject away from MICRO vs MACRO, and away from my explanation that there are successive steps that can be shown between life that doesn't require any sort of MACRO change in the way you claim it does.

I'm not suggesting that in order for a wing to develop, it must be created in one go without any successive progression.


If you're willing to actually to return to my argument, instead of changing the subject by now invoking two new arguments that are unrelated to your initial point, I will deal with your rebuttal.

They're not unrelated though. My point was that macroevolution is an unjustified extrapolation of microevolution (and thus not reducible to it) precisely because of the those arguments (which I in fact described in my original post). We are lead to believe that a series of minor improvements lead to the development the eye, for instance. You argue that this series of improvements was guided by nothing but immediate improvements for the organism in question, and thus conclude that macroevolution is not fundamentally different from microevolution. My point was that proving this is more difficult than merely coming up with transitional forms. You have to show that evolutionary forces alone could account for progression of transitional forms, culminating in brand new functions of the evolved organisms.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm always impressed when people unqualified in science announce without diligent literature search or any demonstrated expertise that there's no evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough.

We have documented examples of polymelia and polydactyly (additional limbs and digits) appearing as mutations, of organs appearing in place of other organs (e.g. an insect's antenna becomes a leg from a simple mutation), and of organs changing form and function.

I'm not clear what additional transformations are needed for macroevolution, or why a succession of these transformations cannot combine, and I'm baffled beyond articulation at the unspecified 'walls' between 'species'.

But whatever is causing all this, the asteroids are clearly never BIG enough, and they do bounce off the moon because... well, because SCARY, and besides, otherwise God would have to hand out umbrellas.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 10:06:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 7:09:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm always impressed when people unqualified in science announce without diligent literature search or any demonstrated expertise that there's no evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough.

We have documented examples of polymelia and polydactyly (additional limbs and digits) appearing as mutations, of organs appearing in place of other organs (e.g. an insect's antenna becomes a leg from a simple mutation), and of organs changing form and function.

I'm not clear what additional transformations are needed for macroevolution, or why a succession of these transformations cannot combine, and I'm baffled beyond articulation at the unspecified 'walls' between 'species'.

But whatever is causing all this, the asteroids are clearly never BIG enough, and they do bounce off the moon because... well, because SCARY, and besides, otherwise God would have to hand out umbrellas.

Yeah, this one just makes me head-desk. Speciation is an idea; it's a neat, tidy idea that humans came up with in order to put things in little charts and then argue ad nauseum as to which column they really belong in. But nature is messy. I've studied ferns for a bit, and when you combine hybridization and polyploidy, holy sh!t nature is messy.

The problem is that the people who push this aren't really members of the scientific community; they don't even know what they're really talking about because they haven't spent any considerable amount of time in the field debating that things that scientists actually debate, thing like 'when and where did this group branch out? Which groups is it similar? What niche could it have occupied, judging from this morphology? How did geological events and climate affect selective pressure? What are the genetics involved with this trait, and how would things pan out and a pressured, isolated population at the edge of this species's distribution?'

So they spin arguments out of ignorance of the subject matter, and of course they aren't going to peddle this stuff to the people who know what they're talking about. They take their snake oil straight to the hoi polloi and allow them to, in their limited understanding of the subject, run with it. These people have little to no idea that the 'scientists' whom they are following are more akin to priests, and have no standing in the actual scientific community, and a lot of them really don't care. Maybe this fuels the flames of their conspiracy theories, or bolsters their religious beliefs, or just makes them feel like a special snowflake. Fiction is so much more important to them than the truth that they shut down when someone who actually knows what they're talking about begins to speak, and just regurgitate arguments which they are incapable of understanding without the necessary contextual knowledge as if it's some sort of long, sesquipedalian mantra.
"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 -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 9:45:52 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Hahaha. My favorite is 'macroasteroids'. Glorious. Every time someone starts talking about speciation without understanding the mechanisms involved and without actually defining anything I tend to just walk away. Since there's no clear barrier between species, and you won't define one, how are you making a point?

- I remember you doing that on me, walking away, -_- .
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:43:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

- Yet, we don't see this in serious sciences, Fundamental Physics for example. I wonder why!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:23:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:18:35 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/9/2015 9:45:52 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Hahaha. My favorite is 'macroasteroids'. Glorious. Every time someone starts talking about speciation without understanding the mechanisms involved and without actually defining anything I tend to just walk away. Since there's no clear barrier between species, and you won't define one, how are you making a point?

- I remember you doing that on me, walking away, -_- .

Haha, I just get frustrated with this discussion because I've literally had it hundreds of times. It's one of my least favorite things to debate.
"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 -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 11:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 11:23:12 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/9/2015 11:18:35 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/9/2015 9:45:52 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Hahaha. My favorite is 'macroasteroids'. Glorious. Every time someone starts talking about speciation without understanding the mechanisms involved and without actually defining anything I tend to just walk away. Since there's no clear barrier between species, and you won't define one, how are you making a point?

- I remember you doing that on me, walking away, -_- .

Haha, I just get frustrated with this discussion because I've literally had it hundreds of times. It's one of my least favorite things to debate.

- Yeah, I get that. It happens to me often too.

- & I don't know, I am very theoretical when it comes to science. If I don't see a pattern, a number, an equation, a formula, something I can see with my mind, I'd be just too skeptical about it.

- & I hate the fact that in modern science, scientific value & merit is very often over exaggerated. I know for a fact that if a theory similar in construct to evolution was proposed in fundamental physics, it would receive much criticism & skepticism from the community, it probably won't survive a day. The same thing goes for the overwhelming majority of phycology related studies. & my issue is that merit is due where merit is due, not everything a scientist does is scientific, & not all scientific theories have the same value, some are worlds apart more accurate than others, thus shouldn't be considered on par!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 12:07:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 10:06:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/9/2015 7:09:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm always impressed when people unqualified in science announce without diligent literature search or any demonstrated expertise that there's no evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough.
Speciation is an idea; it's a neat, tidy idea that humans came up with in order to put things in little charts and then argue ad nauseum as to which column they really belong in. But nature is messy. I've studied ferns for a bit, and when you combine hybridization and polyploidy, holy sh!t nature is messy.

Yes indeed, Skeps. What our Creationist colleagues don't seem to realise is that even in the 1750s, a century before Darwin's Origin of Species, while George Washington was still trying to grow a beard, biologists were beginning to suspect that species were mutable, and that taxonomies of species like that of Linnaeus were synthetic and arbitrary. Naturalists like the Comte de Buffon didn't have a great knowledge of anatomy, and only an intuitive understanding of genetics, but even he could see unaccountable diversity in similar environments, and guess that species weren't static. So these insights into speciation aren't new... They are in fact, older than the first Standard Text version of the KJV Bible.

But apparently there's a gap of a quarter of a millennium between what biologists understand biology to be, and what biblical literalists understand it to be -- and it's only the last two generations who've noticed. :p And if it weren't so sad, it'd be comical that they're only now inventing conspiracy theories while still struggling to catch up on the actual science -- and it's beyond ironic that the thought they're trying to refute is itself older than the version of the Bible they're trying to refute it with. :p
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:17:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 8:43:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Ok, you made a funny, that's cute.

You keep pleading for legitimacy of your millennia-old philosophical belief by putting it on the coattails of phenomena that can actually be observed and shown to exist, and I'll keep recognizing that for what it actually is...ideological propaganda. Preach on brother. ;)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:31:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
My point was that proving this is more difficult than merely coming up with transitional forms. You have to show that evolutionary forces alone could account for progression of transitional forms, culminating in brand new functions of the evolved organisms.

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether. Theoretically they're the same process, but there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that microevolution + microevolution + microevolution = changes associated with macroevolution unless you can show that there are viable evolutionary pathways (ramps of minor improvement) connecting distant evolutionary states, and that's not as easy as one might think."

There is some very subtle conflation of terms, and concepts here that I need to be very clear about. To start off with, I am going to ignore the "mechanisms" by which evolution operates, and only focus on variation and sequential changes.

Micro-evolution, as defined by Creationists, is variation in traits, size shape,etc that we actually observe today. Macro evolution, as defined by both creationists and yourself, is big structural change. The argument that they are different, remember that we are ignoring the validity of natural selection for the moment, is based on the implicit or explicit assertion that there are some changes that cannot be distilled down to small sequential changes either equivalent or analagous to the types of changes we can observe. For the reasons I explained above, this is assuming ones own conclusion. The evidence demonstrates that the accumulation of changes of the type we see today is sufficient to explain the overwhelming majority of the differences in all life; and for remaining examples, evidence exists to either directly or indirectly demonstrate transitions via demonstrable genetic pathways, fossile transitions, or conceptual transitions. By "sufficient to explain", I do not mean "Natural selection explains", but solely that the differences in all life can be sufficiently broken down into small sequential steps along the lines of what we see varying today either directly through fossil or taxonomic evidence, or conceptually; and I beleive the problem here is the conflation of those two things.

At this point, and throughout my post before, Natural selection is largely irrelevant. The Micro vs Macro argument as presented both by you here and Creationism in general; is fundamentally about whether big changes can be broken down into smaller and more sequential ones along the lines of what we see today; NOT whether it is possible for natural selection to drive them. They are two different arguments.

It seems a little clearer now that you are not arguing against the existance sequential steps just their cause; for this I apologise as this wasn't particularly clear given your first bolded quote.

So lets look at this: How can we show that sequential steps in the past are definitely due to Natural Selection (or one of the other mechanisms that exist)?

Well, the only way it can be definitively shown is if we had pre-historical DNA, subject it to many generations of selective pressure and see if it results in a similar changes. Even if we had the DNA, this is no gaurentee we can produce the same thing unless we know exactly what the selective pressure is; and the random nature of mutations means the chances are that whatever we produced will be convergent rather than the same; because without duplicating every single mutation in the chain to make a big change happen, whatever comes out as a result will be different. In all of these cases we will never be able to reproduce "exactly" what we see in the past. In both these cases, it would be possible for you to argue that "I can't show natural selection caused the sequential changes we see in the fossile record" even though pretty much everything is in place. In fact, short of actually of being able to see every animal vary, compete and survive along the chain; it is not possible to live up to the confirmation you demand.

What we can show, is that selection pressure can cause significant changes, the sort of large changes we see in the fossile record, and we can describe selective pathways for the changes we see in the past and can boil down structural changes to understandable mutational pathways; and in many cases these can and have been tested against fossile evidence. Essentially, considering the amount of time we have to work with and our observations, we can conclude that selection pressure is, and remains a significant driver of morphological change; in many exemplar cases major change and applying the processes we see operating and working today applied to the past explains the historical evidence too. As a result, your argument that this "can't be shown" or "can't be demonstrated" is really just a case of special pleading too.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 10:17:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/8/2015 8:43:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Ok, you made a funny, that's cute.

You keep pleading for legitimacy of your millennia-old philosophical belief by putting it on the coattails of phenomena that can actually be observed and shown to exist, and I'll keep recognizing that for what it actually is...ideological propaganda. Preach on brother. ;)

The beauty about the analogy is that it is exactly what Creationists do. Exactly. It shows the clear straw men, special pleading, ignorance of the science and continued habitual resorting to any means of creating an argument against Evolution, regardless of whether it is logical or not.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 7:09:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm always impressed when people unqualified in science announce without diligent literature search or any demonstrated expertise that there's no evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough.

We have documented examples of polymelia and polydactyly (additional limbs and digits) appearing as mutations, of organs appearing in place of other organs (e.g. an insect's antenna becomes a leg from a simple mutation), and of organs changing form and function.

What's the most complex function that has been created by a mutation?


I'm not clear what additional transformations are needed for macroevolution, or why a succession of these transformations cannot combine, and I'm baffled beyond articulation at the unspecified 'walls' between 'species'.

You can't necessarily get to a complex and coordinated biological system by short obvious steps. There are many "leaps" which have to be made. Proving that there were viable evolutionary pathways connecting all transitional forms is harder than merely pointing to the transitional forms.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 4:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 2:46:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 7:09:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I'm always impressed when people unqualified in science announce without diligent literature search or any demonstrated expertise that there's no evidence, or the evidence isn't good enough.
We have documented examples of polymelia and polydactyly (additional limbs and digits) appearing as mutations, of organs appearing in place of other organs (e.g. an insect's antenna becomes a leg from a simple mutation), and of organs changing form and function.
What's the most complex function that has been created by a mutation?
I have a suggestion, Dylan. Why don't you read some peer-reviewed biological journals and tell us? Find a biologically-accepted measure of complexity in organ function; rank the organs found in nature by complexity; survey the literature to find which complex organs see the least biological study, and present us with a synthesis of your findings. as (say) a top ten list of weird and complex organs that biologists overlook.

That's exactly the sort of thing a PhD in biology might do in the first six months of candidature, and three steps more than Creationists normally bother with.

I'm not clear what additional transformations are needed for macroevolution, or why a succession of these transformations cannot combine, and I'm baffled beyond articulation at the unspecified 'walls' between 'species'.
You can't necessarily get to a complex and coordinated biological system by short obvious steps. There are many "leaps" which have to be made.
Biologists routinely hypothesise the development of interesting organs in already found in nature, check the predictions of their hypotheses against other functions found, and confirm their understanding against cladistics, genetics and the fossil record. Such work can be the lifetime study of research biologists -- studying how eyes or livers or hearts or stomachs or nerves work across species, for example. So which logical step are they ignoring?

The eye, for example, is a complex and sensitive organ. Yet biologists have found key steps in its evolution from light-sensitive cells, to light sensor to (via several steps) an organ that can focus images and detect movement -- and all those steps involve simple changes routinely found in nature, and are supported by the expected forms of eye found in extant species. So how is the evolution of eyes not explained by observed phenomena?

Or which organ is more complex than eyes, which biologist says it's hard to see how it developed, and which biologist feels there's so little evidence for development that we might never know how it evolved?

(Here's a hint: don't quote a philosopher, theologian or mathematician in your reply if you'd like me to take you seriously. Please quote someone who has published peer-reviewed papers in biology as your source. If you'd like to impress me, quote more than one source to show a spectrum of scientific opinion.)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:10:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 4:05:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/10/2015 2:46:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The eye, for example, is a complex and sensitive organ. Yet biologists have found key steps in its evolution from light-sensitive cells, to light sensor to (via several steps) an organ that can focus images and detect movement -- and all those steps involve simple changes routinely found in nature, and are supported by the expected forms of eye found in extant species. So how is the evolution of eyes not explained by observed phenomena?

I'm simply unconvinced that biologists have demonstrated viable evolutionary pathways connecting the various stages of the eye. It is hardly obvious that given a light-sensitive patch of cells (which is quite an accomplishment on its own, considering how integrated the visual system must be in order for the organism to make use of the information) , that they will begin to form a cup and eventually the organism will be able to interpret the information in such a way as to detect directionality. The proof that it would happen without guidance? That it did happen. After hearing any famous biologist speak on this matter, it is clear that divine creativity is not even considered, so naturalistic explanations are all that's left, and thus obviously sufficient. I think biologists give Darwinian naturalism the benefit of the doubt every step of the way because it's all they're willing to consider. Evolution is certainly part of the explanation (something very much like evolution indeed occurred), but I'm not convinced that it is the whole explanation.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:34:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 8:10:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/10/2015 4:05:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/10/2015 2:46:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The eye, for example, is a complex and sensitive organ. Yet biologists have found key steps in its evolution from light-sensitive cells, to light sensor to (via several steps) an organ that can focus images and detect movement -- and all those steps involve simple changes routinely found in nature, and are supported by the expected forms of eye found in extant species. So how is the evolution of eyes not explained by observed phenomena?

After hearing any famous biologist speak on this matter, it is clear that divine creativity is not even considered, so naturalistic explanations are all that's left, and thus obviously sufficient.

Divine Creativity has been the principal explanation of the diversity of life for thousands of years up until the description and outlining of the theory of evolution.

Special creation has been disproven as every possible test that one can come up to demonstrate it's true has shown it has been false. Taxonomy, Genetics, geology and paleontology all had the potential to validate special creation, and has instead disproved it and have all shown to be consistent with evolution.

In this respect, Divine Creativity has been considered and indeed has been the primary paradigm by which life and the universe has been described up until the last century and a half. It has now been discarded.

"Guided Evolution", as you are describing. is not a falsifiable proposition. You cannot show it is true or false; and even if Natural selection could be demonstrated at each step for every single change that has ever occurred, it would not invalidate your proposition either.

It is the inability to tell whether your proposition is fact, or fiction combined with the fact that it offers no predictive framework that means it does not add any knowledge or provide any true explanation and therefore cannot be considered science; at best Pseudoscience.

Because of all of this, it is fair for Biologists not to consider divine creativity. The testable, explanatory framework that offers a number of key predictions and provides a testable model of how our reality works; a model that has been repeatedly tested and continually demonstrated to be accurate in those predictions cannot "prove" natural selection for the reasons I cited but the evidence in support of it, of which there was a great deal alluded to in my previous post; means that using this as a naturalistic explanation is infinitely more supported than the divine guidance proposition.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 9:20:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 8:10:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/10/2015 4:05:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/10/2015 2:46:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The eye, for example, is a complex and sensitive organ. Yet biologists have found key steps in its evolution from light-sensitive cells, to light sensor to (via several steps) an organ that can focus images and detect movement -- and all those steps involve simple changes routinely found in nature, and are supported by the expected forms of eye found in extant species. So how is the evolution of eyes not explained by observed phenomena?
I'm simply unconvinced that biologists have demonstrated viable evolutionary pathways connecting the various stages of the eye.
I'm saying this as a former scientist myself, Dylan -- one who has trained and mentored scientists, though not in biology.

A statement like that, if made by a PhD candidate, would be considered an opportunity for original doctoral research.

But one can't make a statement like that with any authority until one has first:
* Completed a BSc majoring in biology in about the top third of the class;
* Been accepted to a PhD program, under competent supervision; and
* Completed a literature survey taking about six months full-time to review, analyse and synthesise the work done to date against accepted scientific practice.

Such work is normally the first step in completing a PhD, and it's targeted exactly at finding such holes in the research, to try and fill them with original work -- that's how you get a PhD and begin a career as a research scientist.

Yet until we've done that leg-work, we cannot say with any authority that the research to date has holes. Instead, we're admitting that we don't have the education, haven't done the reading, and don't have competent supervision to examine it.

We don't normally offer professional advice on brain-surgery or patent law without training, qualification and mentoring. At around 250 years old now, modern biology is one of the most complex sciences ever explored, and we simply can't pronounce on it methodologically with the educations most of us have -- a few weeks of dissected frogs in high-school.

So instead, we should do what journalists do: source quotes and ideas from experts. And those quotes show overwhelming support for evolutionary biology, with plenty of peer-reviewed papers showing how species and organs evolved.

But is that an unbiased view?

I think it is.

From UNESCO figures, I pulled out stats showing that there are some 320,000 full-time-equivalent researchers in Natural Sciences presently, all with Higher Education. [http://data.uis.unesco.org...#] (I've seen estimates of ten times that number working in biology careers over-all.) That's a lot of education, a lot of disparate thought, a lot of opportunity for dissent, a lot of people looking for ways to make an original mark in natural sciences, and pick up something that has been overlooked.

In conclusion, I can work through a rough explanation of how an eye evolved -- up to a point -- but there are many people who could do it better than me, and it bothers me not at all if untrained people who don't read in biology don't understand it.

Most don't know how their smartphones work either.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 9:37:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/10/2015 9:20:09 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
From UNESCO figures, I pulled out stats showing that there are some 320,000 full-time-equivalent researchers in Natural Sciences presently, all with Higher Education. [http://data.uis.unesco.org...#]

(Sorry, I discovered that my data download had double-counts. Separating them, I get around 196,000 FTE Natural Science researchers with Higher Ed, and 216,000 FTE total.)
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:22:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:31:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:51:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:42:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

So what if bird wings evolved from lizard arms. They perform very different functions. Wings are new in the sense that they enable flight, whereas arms do not even come close.

As Dembski said:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

I don't deny that these transitions occurred. But how can science be sure that evolutionary pressures were sufficient to get from one evolutionary state to another without any guidance? You see a bunch of transitional dots and assume there's a ramp of gradual improvement connecting them. You can't assume that because it would be beneficial for an organism to evolve in x direction that it could, given that the fact that evolution is a totally myopic process.

Your argument was that MACRO is different from MICRO.

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether."

I included this in my analogy because creationists, in general, do EXACTLY what you do here, which is define MICRO and MACRO as if there is some major differences, major hurdles and major jumps in life at almost every level that somehow need something really crazy to happen.

This contention is false, because taxonomy and paleontology demonstrate that even the most disparate differences between any two creatures can always be broken by showing fossile or extant species that are morphologically between those two; halving the size of the jump each time.

I JUST said that I don't deny the existence of transitional forms. My point was that their EXISTENCE does not prove that there were viable pathways connecting them. You haven't addressed this point.


This MICRO/MACRO argument is broadly speaking what is called assuming your own conclusion.

I am ignoring your response, because it is effectively changing the subject away from MICRO vs MACRO, and away from my explanation that there are successive steps that can be shown between life that doesn't require any sort of MACRO change in the way you claim it does.

I'm not suggesting that in order for a wing to develop, it must be created in one go without any successive progression.


If you're willing to actually to return to my argument, instead of changing the subject by now invoking two new arguments that are unrelated to your initial point, I will deal with your rebuttal.

They're not unrelated though. My point was that macroevolution is an unjustified extrapolation of microevolution (and thus not reducible to it) precisely because of the those arguments (which I in fact described in my original post).

Macro evolution is "change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth." Micro evolution is " defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population."
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Other sources:
http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Macro evolution is not just limited to the growth of new organs. Examples of speciation:
http://phylointelligence.com...
http://www.nature.com...

Using these definitions, macro evolution is not just an unjustified extrapolation of microevolution.

We are lead to believe that a series of minor improvements lead to the development the eye, for instance. You argue that this series of improvements was guided by nothing but immediate improvements for the organism in question, and thus conclude that macroevolution is not fundamentally different from microevolution. My point was that proving this is more difficult than merely coming up with transitional forms. You have to show that evolutionary forces alone could account for progression of transitional forms, culminating in brand new functions of the evolved organisms.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 10:32:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:31:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:51:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:42:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 4:01:21 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/9/2015 2:49:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Between reptiles, birds, mammals, and sub-divisions, there aren't actually that many big changes, wings, hair, placenta, changes in organ structures (3-4 chambers) and certainly not at any point any "growing of new organs" or "brand new features", because most of what is found in all life was already there before in some form before. Birds wings, have similar structure to lizard arms; it is not NEW in any true sense of the word, as most of what a wing is, is pretty much the same as the dinosaurs before.

So what if bird wings evolved from lizard arms. They perform very different functions. Wings are new in the sense that they enable flight, whereas arms do not even come close.

As Dembski said:

The issue is not whether pieces exist for cooption (whether in the same organism or, with the immune system, even in different organisms) but whether those pieces can properly be coordinated to produce the final function in the IC system under examination.

Plausible pathways for all many of these actually exist, with several of them having defined mutational pathways (IE: breaking down such a change in terms of a series of point mutations to the genome that allows one to move to the other). There is much fossile evidence that demonstrates many of these transitions as well by actually presenting either direct intermediate steps between what was before, and what is there; or showing features that are intermediate (which does not necessarily make the species transitional).

I don't deny that these transitions occurred. But how can science be sure that evolutionary pressures were sufficient to get from one evolutionary state to another without any guidance? You see a bunch of transitional dots and assume there's a ramp of gradual improvement connecting them. You can't assume that because it would be beneficial for an organism to evolve in x direction that it could, given that the fact that evolution is a totally myopic process.

Your argument was that MACRO is different from MICRO.

"The difference between micro and macro evolution is that microevolution involves minor variations in the same biological functions e.g., the color of fur, size of leg muscles, whereas macroevolution often involves changes in the underlying hardware e.g., growing a new organ altogether."

I included this in my analogy because creationists, in general, do EXACTLY what you do here, which is define MICRO and MACRO as if there is some major differences, major hurdles and major jumps in life at almost every level that somehow need something really crazy to happen.

This contention is false, because taxonomy and paleontology demonstrate that even the most disparate differences between any two creatures can always be broken by showing fossile or extant species that are morphologically between those two; halving the size of the jump each time.

I JUST said that I don't deny the existence of transitional forms. My point was that their EXISTENCE does not prove that there were viable pathways connecting them. You haven't addressed this point.


This MICRO/MACRO argument is broadly speaking what is called assuming your own conclusion.

I am ignoring your response, because it is effectively changing the subject away from MICRO vs MACRO, and away from my explanation that there are successive steps that can be shown between life that doesn't require any sort of MACRO change in the way you claim it does.

I'm not suggesting that in order for a wing to develop, it must be created in one go without any successive progression.


If you're willing to actually to return to my argument, instead of changing the subject by now invoking two new arguments that are unrelated to your initial point, I will deal with your rebuttal.

They're not unrelated though. My point was that macroevolution is an unjustified extrapolation of microevolution (and thus not reducible to it) precisely because of the those arguments (which I in fact described in my original post). We are lead to believe that a series of minor improvements lead to the development the eye, for instance. You argue that this series of improvements was guided by nothing but immediate improvements for the organism in question, and thus conclude that macroevolution is not fundamentally different from microevolution. My point was that proving this is more difficult than merely coming up with transitional forms. You have to show that evolutionary forces alone could account for progression of transitional forms, culminating in brand new functions of the evolved organisms.

Define organ: a grouping of tissues into a distinct structure, as a heart or kidney in animals or a leaf or stamen in plants, that performs a specialized task.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Example of an organ evolving: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."