Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)

DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor .
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal?[/font]

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below is a reminder of what macro-evolution theory means. Keep your eyes on the words in red. The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."
(Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

Ancestry of organisms
"Most biologists believe in common descent: that all life on Earth is descended from one common ancestor. This conclusion is based upon the fact that many traits of living organisms, such as the genetic code, seem arbitrary yet are shared by all organisms. Some have suggested that life may have had more than one origin, but the high degree of commonality argues strongly against multiple origins."


http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

[scourge99]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below is a reminder of what macro-evolution theory means. Keep your eyes on the words in red. The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:

You continue to cite Darwin as though whatever Darwin said is believed today by the scientific community. While Darwin was correct on many evolution issues he was also wrong or inaccurate on others. Citing the words of Darwin is no more intellectually honest than citing the words of Galileo or Newton and then arguing that current scientific understanding is flawed because what they believed was wrong or inaccurate.

What you need to do is present the scientific community's understanding of today, not of a single scientist or a scientist from many years ago. Granted, this can be no easy task and requires more work and knowledge than simply quote mining famous scientists.

[TheJackelantern]

ALTER2EGO

Your post is an utter fail at addressing other peoples posts here, and it's wrong on so many levels.. Some advice, and this is friendly advice.., I would suggest not quoting Darwin or anyone from 1859.. Especially when many of Darwin's premises have been proven wrong in modern evolutionary science. As scourge99 pointed out already..

I suggest visiting the two evolution topics in the science forum, and doing some actual research on the subject that doesn't involve parroting form the discovery institute or creation.com ect... What's even more interesting is that you quote supposed scientists from a list and yet provide no peer reviewed work from them on the subject.

Lastly, you did not bother to properly address my post or anyone's here.. Dishonesty is not a virtue worthy of any sort of intellectual respect.

[scourge99]

Well we are getting somewhere Alter2Ego,

This would indicate you believe that Chimp and Human are the same species. They are after all just variations of the same animal.

If not please provide me with a definition that allows for distinction between the two.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:

Either your reading and comprehension skills are slow on the uptake or you're able to read minds, because in just about everything you post to me, you ignore what I write and come up with your interpretation of what I'm supposedly thinking. You are so skilled at reading minds that you know that I "believe that Chimp and Human are the same species." Tell me what else you know about how I think, based upon your mind-reading skills. This is becoming interesting.

BTW: Since when did an ape, a chimpanzee, or any of those types of animals become HUMAN? I can't help you if you insist on becoming a disciple of the idiot Carl Linnaeus. He was the fool that developed a Taxonomy Table upon which he decided--based upon his personal opinions--that humans and apes are related. Not surprisingly, being that he was European, he gave black people the lowest rank among humans on his Taxonomy Table.


According to the Genesis account, humans are distinct from animals. But I don't expect an atheist/evolutionist to accept what Almighty God says. I expect them to do exactly what you're doing: ignore God's inspired words and follow after the flawed thinking of imperfect humans like Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin.[/font]

Hi Alter2Ego,

You are not very good at answering my challenges. The count might be 10 to 0 by now. I'm starting to think you are just here to preach rather than debate.

I also think you are trying to debunk science with word games. It doesn't matter what you call the natural process of evolution. What matters is that you admit life adapts to it's environments and admit that this adaptation results in change. It doesn't mater what label you place on the outcome, you can call it "variation" or whatever you want for all I care - the end result is the same: life evolves and you know it, calling it another name doesn't make it go away.

But I'll give you another shot to prove me wrong:

Please let me know if you believe that humans and chimps are just variations of the same species.

If not, please provide me with a definition that allows for distinction between the two.

As a bonus challenge can you make this distinction apply to horses and dogs.

Good luck! Cheers.

Alter2Ego does not appear to honestly consider the responses of others. This is just an opportunity to preach her beliefs at all costs, even if that means intentionally lying and distorting. In her response to me she blatantly quote mined scientists, perhaps thinking that no one would actually double check the context of the quotes. That was a mistake. Several others called her out on the quote mining and she lacked the integrity to come clean and admit mistake or concede the point. Instead she ignored those responses. This is a reoccurring theme.


Alter2Ego Quote Mining

Link exposing the quote mines

[bernee51]

Alter2Ego does not appear to honestly consider the responses of others. This is just an opportunity to preach her beliefs at all costs, even if that means intentionally lying and distorting.

I am not sure that the apparent dishonesty and disingenuousness is deliberate...it has more of the appearance of "performative utterances'. Just as the writers of the gospels believed what they wrote and wrote what they believed, so too, I think in this case.

In her response to me she blatantly quote mined scientists, perhaps thinking that no one would actually double check the context of the quotes. That was a mistake. Several others called her out on the quote mining and she lacked the integrity to come clean and admit mistake or concede the point. Instead she ignored those responses. This is a reoccurring theme.


Alter2Ego Quote Mining

Link exposing the quote mines

That is my experiece. In another thread, I clearly set out the way in which the elements evolved, the claim being that they HAD TO BE designed. This was and contnues to be totally ignored.

It has been my experience, here and elswhere, that oft times people of such single minded religious conviction are totally closed to any opinion which may challenge their beliefs and jump from topic to topic hoping no one will notice their lack of willigness, if not ability, to engae in meaningful conversation.

[TheJackelantern]

I have to agree.. She's definitely quote mining, and definitely not engaging in honest discourse. That video I posted on Christian honesty really applies here.. scourge99 is correct. And there is no point in discussing such matters with people whom have no sense of integrity, or honesty.. :/

bernee51 ,

Actually, her posts come off as something she's been doing for a while.. A creationist that doesn't know the game they play doesn't seem to fit well here. The key to note is the total lack of addressing anything honestly.. A normal person from a position of general ignorance would have shown intellectual integrity and a genuine interest in the subject. I find none of those in her responses thus far..

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below is a reminder of what macro-evolution theory means. Keep your eyes on the words in red. The weblink to the official definition of Evolution Theory is directly below.[/font]


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:

You continue to cite Darwin as though whatever Darwin said is believed today by the scientific community. While Darwin was correct on many evolution issues he was also wrong or inaccurate on others. Citing the words of Darwin is no more intellectually honest than citing the words of Galileo or Newton and then arguing that current scientific understanding is flawed because what they believed was wrong or inaccurate.

What you need to do is present the scientific community's understanding of today, not of a single scientist or a scientist from many years ago. Granted, this can be no easy task and requires more work and knowledge than simply quote mining famous scientists.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- SCOURGE99:
I notice you conveniently ignored the 2012 definition of evolution theory, which I posted directly underneath Darwin's 1859 definition. The two definitions are exactly the same--more than 150 years later. In other words, modern-day evolutionists have the same belief as Charles Darwin regarding "common decent." The macro organic-evolution theory is still based upon the premise that all life forms that have ever existed--including those in existence today--evolved from a single organism.

Go to the two scientific websites at the end of this post, and you will see that they both give the 2012 definition of macro-organic evolution theory.[/font]


http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Theory_of_evolution

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

[TheJackelantern]

^ we rest our case.. Prime example of what we are talking about.

[Alter2Ego]

I have to agree.. She's definitely quote mining, and definitely not engaging in honest discourse. That video I posted on Christian honesty really applies here.. scourge99 is correct. And there is no point in discussing such matters with people whom have no sense of integrity, or honesty.. :/

bernee51 ,

Actually, her posts come off as something she's been doing for a while.. A creationist that doesn't know the game they play doesn't seem to fit well here. The key to note is the total lack of addressing anything honestly.. A normal person from a position of general ignorance would have shown intellectual integrity and a genuine interest in the subject. I find none of those in her responses thus far..

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- THE JACKE LANTERN
I could say the same thing about everybody else here. All of your posts come off as something you've been doing for a while: running from the truth and accusing people of "quote mining"--because you realize you can't present an effective rebuttal to what's being quoted.

I feel your pain. I realize it's especially crushing to you all when many of the scientists I quote are pro-evolutionists. You're being debunked by scientific experts from within your own camp, is what I'm saying. And so you whine and complain to each other that I'm "quote mining," as if that's supposed to equate to "that's not what the scientist she's quoting means."

That's exactly what they mean. That's why I quote them and give the name of the publication, page number, and date of publication. I do that so anybody can track down the publication and see it with his or her own eyes.

I gave the modern-day definition of evolution theory at least three different times, including the websites where I got it from, and every single atheist on this forum has refused to accept it by claiming it's not the correct definition.

I've exchanged numerous messages with most of the evolutionists in this thread that have challenged me. It's not my problem if you don't like the answers I give you, because I keep debunking your evolution myth. All of you lined up against me, and all I have is truth on my side. Well, guess what--that's all I need: truth.[/font]

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego does not appear to honestly consider the responses of others. This is just an opportunity to preach her beliefs at all costs, even if that means intentionally lying and distorting.

I am not sure that the apparent dishonesty and disingenuousness is deliberate...it has more of the appearance of "performative utterances'. Just as the writers of the gospels believed what they wrote and wrote what they believed, so too, I think in this case.

In her response to me she blatantly quote mined scientists, perhaps thinking that no one would actually double check the context of the quotes. That was a mistake. Several others called her out on the quote mining and she lacked the integrity to come clean and admit mistake or concede the point. Instead she ignored those responses. This is a reoccurring theme.


Alter2Ego Quote Mining

Link exposing the quote mines

That is my experiece. In another thread, I clearly set out the way in which the elements evolved, the claim being that they HAD TO BE designed. This was and contnues to be totally ignored.

It has been my experience, here and elswhere, that oft times people of such single minded religious conviction are totally closed to any opinion which may challenge their beliefs and jump from topic to topic hoping no one will notice their lack of willigness, if not ability, to engae in meaningful conversation.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- BERNEE51:

If my debunking the evolution myth with scientific quotations from credentialed scientists is your idea of dishonesty, then so be it. You're entitled to your opinion of what's considered dishonesty.

Thus far, not one single evolutionist on this forum has been able to rebut what's being said by any of the sources I quoted. Your only response is to complain that I'm "quote mining." That's not a rebuttal, that's known as whining.[/font]