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]

[Artie]

Saying "that's just the way we are designed" is not an explanation. For example some questions you'll need to answer are: why did God make us the way He did? Why did He destroy so many previous species of life...

I would be most interested in knowing why He created 135 million years worth of dinosaurs before creating us.

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH:
Telling me that I can't call a spade a spade will not work. You conveniently ignored the fact that JANX baited me--while putting on a front of being "civil"--by ending each of his/her idiotic posts to me with the word "Cheers". Below are three examples of JANX baiting me within this thread.

The alleged 'baiting' by another member is not relevant to your improper behavior. If you feel someone is not behaving civil, you can report them.

If someone hits you, turn the other cheek.

I personally do not see how disagreeing with you, and providing accurate information is baiting myself.

This is a privately run board, so 'free speech' is not unlimited here. Any opinion can be expressed... but insulting behavior and rude behavior is not tolerated.

Remember Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

[Janx]

I challenge Alter2Ego to prove his statements,

EXAMPLE #1 OF BAITING BY JANX: [/size]

Excellent, so you believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form and you probably know that these changes are coded in genes which can be passed on to offspring.

So what's stopping you from believing that after several such adaptations a lifeform becomes different enough from it's original form to qualify as different species? What do you believe happens to life when it comes to to that precipice of becoming a new species? Does it just stop and turn off it's adaptation mechanism?

EXAMPLE #2 OF BAITING BY JANX:

If you believe that life adapts; that life changes form, appearance, and behavior to adapt to environmental changes why do you believe these changes stop before they alter a living thing into another species?

Further, what do you make of the fossil records of apes, cetacea, and birds? Why do animal species keep dying out and being replaced with species of slight variation that gradually progress into forms we see at present day?

EXAMPLE #3 OF BAITING BY JANX:

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.

Each and every time JANX made the above statements, I informed him/her that I said nothing of the kind.

Post 18: Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be. But that's not evolution. It's simply adaptation.

Post 20: That's an example of adaptation. This is what happens when animals are exposed to certain environmental changes. Their bodies adapt.

Post 20: If you visit third world countries, you will see examples of adaptation among people who are lacking in basic nutritional requirements: their growth is stunted so that they require less food and can continue to survive.

• Change, v,
  Make or become different
  http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/change
  
  Adapt, v,
  make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify:
  http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/adapt?q=adapt

Cheers.

[Janx]

Hi everyone, I’ve been asking Alter2Ego two basic questions this debate,

• 1) What's stopping variation and adaptation in a population will lead to new species?
  
  I ask this question because I want to know what makes variation and adaptation happens but suddenly stops at a certain boundary called “macro-evolution�.
  
  2) What is Alter2Egos definition of “variation� and “species�?

Here are my previous attempts to get answers for these questions:

Attempt #1 Post 19: What's stopping you from believing that continuing variation and adaptation in a population will lead to new species? What makes you believe that variation and adaptation happens but suddenly stops at a certain boundary?

Attempt #2 Post 21: So what's stopping you from believing that after several such adaptations a lifeform becomes different enough from it's original form to qualify as different species? What do you believe happens to life when it comes to to that precipice of becoming a new species? Does it just stop and turn off it's adaptation mechanism?

Attempt #3 Post 23: If you believe that life adapts [as demonstrated in previous post]; that life changes form, appearance, and behavior to adapt to environmental changes why do you believe these changes stop before they alter a living thing into another species?

Further, what do you make of the fossil records of apes, cetacea, and birds? Why do animal species keep dying out and being replaced with species of slight variation that gradually progress into forms we see at present day?

Attempt #4 Post 27:

I made it clear that adaptation is not a change of appearance. I clarified it by saying that South Koreans still look like human beings and they still look like Koreans--despite being smaller versions of North Koreans.

Hi Alter2Ego,
change/CH�nj/
Noun: The act or instance of making or becoming different.

ap•pear•ance/əˈpi(ə)rəns/
Noun: The way that someone or something looks.


- South Koreans are human beings but you have granted that they look different from other human beings.

- You have granted that they look different because they have adapted from environment pressures.

- You have granted that animal follow a similar process.

- You accept the definition of "species" as stated in your OP

So for the third time:
If change in appearance through adaptation happens, such as what you described in human and other animals, what will stop this this change from continuing to happen until it results in a different species?

Attempt #5 Post 31: …please explain your new definition of "species". For example what qualifies a creature as "exact same"? A doberman and pit bull are not identical. They have similar characteristics to wolves, coyotes and foxes. Where do you draw the line?

Attempt #6 Post 53: The problem can be illustrated like this: there is variation between a dog and a fox; there is variation between a man and a chimp. Are dogs and foxes; men and chimps just variations of the same species?

If the answer is yes, then you are not sticking to your definition.

If the answer is no, then the term "variation" is not enough to distinguish between species and therefore not interchangeable with the term "species".

So, Alter2Ego, Are man and chimp a variation within the same species like pit bull and doberman?

Attempt #7 Post 57: If a population of animals comes under environmental pressure that forces it to adapt and therefore change it may eventually gather enough adaptations to make it genetically incompatible (unable to interbreed) with it's original species and therefore classifying it as a new species.

Do you agree with this?

Attempt #8 Post 69: 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.

Attempt #9 Post 100: 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.

Cheers

[TheJackelantern]

As of this time right now, there is still research being done on the limits. But we've yet to see anything make a radical difference as of yet, so there are observable limits within each generation.

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n7 ... 0-565.html

You didn't answer his question..

It does not necessarily show life on earth evolving over time in stages whatsoever. It's pure speculation. There's the issue of Geological strata but that's for another day.

Actually it does.. And speaking of epigenetics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091844.htm

And it's also interesting that you keep ignoring the fact the DNA is altered just by the process of reproduction alone. We went through all this before.. And guess what, the link provided is an example of macro-evolution.. How fun!...

Simple, all DNA basically has some kind of source code which all living beings share, and that's the way we Creationists believe life was created, from these building blocks to make different forms. Even if we are 96% or 92% whatever related to chimps, we're also 90% related to dogs. As for the "ancestry trees", you'll see that many of the "hopefuls" like Australopithecus have been debunked and there remains nothing but missing links, at best they have GUESSES based on what they now perceive as "branches", but there is nothing recoverable, even Homo Erectus that can be conclusively traced.

Please provide peer reviewed journals on those subject. And talking about missing links, I think your GOD is the biggest missing link here. Not to mention that 6 billion people have never once witnessed that magical appearance of some living organism. All your position is, is a giant gap and pure assumption. Science on the other hand actually has evidence.. Most of which you simply choose to ignore and play a dishonest game of GOD of the GAPS.... You may as well claim snowflakes were magically hand crafted since complexity in your view can't happen on it's own.. Yeah, and we make god make snowflakes too.. So how about you actually try filling in these so called gaps with some actual empirically supported data..

It's ALL speculation.

No, that's the god of the gaps argument.

Even Gould lamented how there's not really much if any direct evidence for transition as of yet.

Incorrect

You're welcome to believe in total speculation without much actual evidence if you want though

The evidence is overwhelming btw... And there are different means of establishing species vs just genetics. You deal a lot with subspecies, and differences in traits, behaviors, and environments... Speciation to which involves to the point where the two splits can no longer mate and produce offspring is already demonstrated in tree frogs.. and as far as frogs becoming extremely different as they are today will require a very long time.. And you know this, and it's why you dishonestly use it as an argument. And this isn't an argument against evolution, it just shows your lack of understanding of evolution.

Let's go over the common issues with creationist arguments:

1)

Macroevolution is cats turning into dogs
Creationists who try to deny that speciation is an example of macroevolution and thus of evolution itself try to argue that macroevolution only occurs on some undefined, mysterious level above species which they label "kind." Sometimes "kind" seems synonymous with species but other times it seem equated with family or genus. Rarely do creationists try to explain what "kind" is in any scientific sense because it's a concept they get from the book of Genesis in the Bible; it has no scientific basis whatsoever. Instead, they just keep repeating slogans like "cats don't turn into dogs," as if the only legitimate example of macroevolution would be a cat evolving into a dog or a fish evolving into a zebra. No scientist uses "macroevolution" this way and that's why it's a blatant misrepresentation.

2)

Macroevolution is new information; microevolution is shuffling genes around
There are a lot of misunderstandings and misrepresentations packed into this short statement. First, moving genes around can produce macroevolution if it produces a new species: individuals that can't mate with their ancestors and produce fertile offspring. Second, "information" is left deliberately vague here. Is information in the presence of a single gene, or how multiple genes are ordered? If the latter, then then introduction of a new gene is only "information" because of the new sequence of genes produced and this means that a new sequence produced by shuffled genes is also new information. Third, we don't need the supernatural to explain the introduction of new genes: we know it happens when bacteria and viruses insert their own genes into the DNA of a host, or that DNA duplication errors create changes in genes, and DNA sequences to which in themselves become new information

3)

If we can't see it occurring, then it's not real
The most basic creationist misrepresentation of macroevolution is that we can't observe macroevolution occurring and if we can't observe it, then it's not science and isn't real. This is an ironic position to take because Christian apologists misrepresent atheists as arguing "we can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist." Apologists "respond" to this falsehood by pointing out that there is nevertheless evidence of God. Creationist Christians, though, won't accept such reasoning with macroevolution. It is wrong that science can only study phenomena we directly and personally observe. They are also very wrong to argue that if we haven't directly observed something then it can't be true or real. They key is the presence of real, reliable, and consistent evidence — and we have an overwhelming amount of such evidence for macroevolution.

4)
Creationists often deny the fact that micro-evolution is the same as macro-evolution and are governed by the same mechanisms.. This to which includes ignoring how single cellular organisms can become mufti-cellular organisms such as found in algae. This being a prime example of macro-evolution. And all evidence of macro-evolution is denied based on their concept fish to cats, or dogs to monkeys argument. This to which is a false argument, and is not what macro-evolution states.

And you will notice that Creationists such as Alter2Ego and Shermana ignore having to deal with the evidence given.. Such as energetics, horizontal gene transfer, DNA duplication errors, Genes introduces by bacterial and viruses, Gene duplication, Chromosomal fusion, protein folding, Atavism, Snakes once being reptiles with legs, Fish to amphibian fossil record, Manatee and whale evolution, and many other areas of evolution...

They simply assume GOD DONE IT because that's what they believe.. You will not find them adhering to the scientific method in regards to their own position..