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]

[Janx]

A Doberman and a Pit Bull are not two different species. They are two different breeds of the same species. You are wrong.

You can use words any way you want, but if you want to talk science, it helps to use the scientific definitions, so other people understand you.

You're simply confirming what I've been saying all along--that "species" merely means variation of the exact same creature--in this case, two species of dogs. You are so determined to disagree with me that you ended up agreeing without meaning to.

Hi Alter2Ego,

Does this mean you withdraw your definition of "species" in the OP?

If so, 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?

Sadly you have failed to answer any of my questions. I'm disappointed. Perhaps when you have more time...

Cheers.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

You need to stay away from science fiction films and books, because it's clear that you're not going to accept anything less than macro-evolution THEORY aka NOT FACT. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to continue believing in the macro-evolution myth, since that's apparently what makes you happy.

You clearly need to do some research on science...perhaps take a few college courses?

This may help you understand what a scientific theory is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And if you feel the need to be just as rude to me as you were to Janx, you won't get any reply.

[bernee51]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT:
Referring to dogs as different "breeds" is simply a choice of words. Some people refer to variations of dogs as "species." Below are a couple of websites where variations of dogs are referred to as different "species." If you want to refer to them as "breed," go ahead. I'll refer to them as "species." You say "potatoe" and I say "potahtoh."

"Dogs come in all shapes and sizes, and new breeds are being created all the time. The most impressive dog species, however, are the tall breeds. When standing on their hind legs, they can rival a man's height."
http://www.soyouwanna.com/tallest-speci ... 38415.html

"Dog Species, Breeding, Training and Dog obedience"
The variety of dogs in shapes and sizes make dog the most diverse mammal species of all, numbering over 350 distinct types from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. Basic dog obedience therefore seems to be attributed to types of dogs, but basic dog training seems to be inadequate for house training the different species of dogs using almost the same method by different dog grooming and training programs."[/font]

http://jacksonneshah.articlealley.com/d ... 88201.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Dog-Species,- ... &id=261336

on the one hand you seek to have a scientific discussion viz. your OP then you use as references quote mines from popular (i.e. non-scientific) articles on dogs. Ya canna have both ways.

And, just as a matter of interest, do you have anything to offer in rebuttal to this...or do you choose to overlook when the tide is running against you.

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

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?

We currently use genetics, fossil records, carbon dating, and generally a good heaping dose of logic!

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?

No, because lizards don't evolve into mammals. If of course that is what you are referring to. Certain categories cannot evolve into other categories, as it would contradict the basic reasons that govern natural selection.

If you are talking about ape like species evolving into humans, well it's hard to say exactly. We can never have fossil records that are perfect (contain all evolved forms), as this is impossible due to several factors. For example, fossils are rare things (otherwise we wouldn't have fuel problems!), and conditions must be perfect in order for them to form properly. But, since we can logically link these fossils together, and we can show a genetic similarity throughout all living things; we can safety assume that evolution does occur. (in some way or another)

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?

Well, you should have asked that first!

Actually, if you read the 'Origin of Species' Charles Darwin had quite the problem in defining this very term. He spent quite a few pages upon defining what he meant by 'Species'.

Species are for the most part determined by how many living creatures share the same major/minor variations. This is why 'Genus' is the largest category, followed by species and sub-species. It is merely an arbitrary grouping based upon similarities.

But, getting to the point. A species cannot evolve instantly into another species, it defies simple logic. If evolution occurred this fast then within five generations we would have a new species (although simple cells may have such fast evolution).

Instead, species evolve slowly by gaining variations which are advantageous to their survival; as these variations build up, they 'become' a separate species. Hence, macro-evolution coming from micro-evolution.

It's not my job to convince you that evolution is true, you have to read up on it for yourself. But really evaluate the logic, buy some good books on it (Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin). It may take you awhile to grasp the basic (but complex) evolutionary concepts.

In the end, you may find yourself amazed by the world around you!

[Autodidact]

You forget that you provided us with a definition in your first post. According to your definition, various breeds of dogs are not different species.

I take it from your lack of response that you are not in fact interested in learning either about the Theory of Evolution or how to use our quote function, but prefer to remain ignorant of both, irritating your readers while arguing about a theory that exists only in your imagination?

[Alter2Ego]

You need to stay away from science fiction films and books, because it's clear that you're not going to accept anything less than macro-evolution THEORY aka NOT FACT. As far as I'm concerned, you're free to continue believing in the macro-evolution myth, since that's apparently what makes you happy.

You clearly need to do some research on science...perhaps take a few college courses?

This may help you understand what a scientific theory is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

And if you feel the need to be just as rude to me as you were to Janx, you won't get any reply.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- THE BLACK PHILOSOPHY:[/font]

I suggest you follow your own advice. I certainly don't need Wikipedia to tell me what I've known from way back when. I'm well aware of what a "scientific theory" is. It's nothing more than a collection of hypotheses that can be DISPROVEN.

Next you will be arguing that "scientific theory" is not just plain old layman theory, that it's as close to "fact" as one can get. Yeah. Right. Heard it all before. No amount of high-sounding terminologies will take macro-evolution out of the realm of THEORY and make it FACT. And you can quote me on that.

BTW: I don't recall being rude to anyone on this forum. I didn't hear JANX complaining. But now that you've got the ball rolling in the Complaint Department, there's no telling what JANX will do from here on in.

[Autodidact]

You clearly need to do some research on science...perhaps take a few college courses?

This may help you understand what a scientific theory is...[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I suggest you follow your own advice. I certainly don't need Wikipedia to tell me what I've known from way back when. I'm well aware of what a "scientific theory" is. It's nothing more than a collection of hypotheses that can be DISPROVEN.

No, that's not what it is. Again, you can use the term in some other sense, but it makes it very hard for us to understand you.

Next you will be arguing that "scientific theory" is not just plain old layman theory, that it's as close to "fact" as one can get. Yeah. Right. Heard it all before. No amount of high-sounding terminologies will take macro-evolution out of the realm of THEORY and make it FACT. And you can quote me on that.

The more you post, the more obvious you make it that you have no idea what you are talking about.

The fact that evolution is a theory means it has reached the highest level of scientific certainty, evidentiary support, and explanatory power.

In addition, it's also a fact. Kind of like gravity. Or germs. Or heliocentrism. A theory is what science is aiming for. So when you tell us a theory, you're telling us that it IS scientific. Which is, of course, the exact opposite of your thread title.

Tell me, Alter, how do you expect to refute one of the most strongly evidenced and accepted foundational theories in all of science, without learning either what it is, what science is, or what a theory is?

[Shermana]

"In addition, it's also a fact. "

Please back your claim with a link that Macro-evolution (as opposed to observed instances of Micro-evolution that is sometimes dishonestly interchanged with the concept of "Macro"/actual DNA structural changes, examples such as with bacterial and insect changes that are still nonetheless "micro") is a FACT.

Micro-evolution is a proven fact however.

[FrostyM288]

Deleted post. Thought I finished reading the thread but I didn't :/

[Alter2Ego]

Adapting to one's environment does not mean the creature changes to something entirely different. Likewise, variations aka species of the same animal does not mean that each species is an entirely different animal. Variation in humans includes Asian people, Caucasian people, Hispanic people, African people, etc. That's why humans of different variations can interbreed--because they belong to the human "species."

So I take it you do not have the courtesy to learn our quote function, but prefer to continue to annoy other people by not mastering this simple function?

You have no idea what you're talking about. There are not different species of dogs; they're all the same species. All humans are the same species.

I repeat, the story you're describing bears no resemblance to the actual ToE. Do you want to learn what ToE actually says, or do you prefer to continue to tilt at a non-existent windmill?

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANIMAL EVOLVING INTO ANYTHING. That is not what ToE says. You don't understand the theory. You're embarrassing yourself.

I stand by willing to teach you what ToE actually says. Apparently you would rather not know. I wonder why that is?

Now, that definition of "type" you were going to provide? What is it again? Or can you not define it?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT:
My exact words were:

Likewise, variations aka species of the same animal does not mean that each species is an entirely different animal. Variation in humans includes Asian people, Caucasian people, Hispanic people, African people, etc. That's why humans of different variations can interbreed--because they belong to the human "species."

You keep harping to me "you don't know the definition of the Theory of Evolution."

I gave it in my opening post based upon what was written in two different text books. I defined "micro-evolution" (variation or small changes within a particular TYPE of animal, such as different kinds of dogs) and "macro-evolution" which is change above the species level so that you wind up with a completely different type of animal (such as a dinosaur turning into a bird).

What you and others on this forum don't get is that I use the words "variation" and "species" interchangeably--to indicate variation within the same type of creature. In other words, all humans are the same, but there are variations (Korean, Chinese, Caucasian, African) within the human family.

If you and others are going to start complaining about my use of "variation" and "species" as interchangeable words, you are doomed to be deceived by the macro-evolution scientists when they make claims about "species transitions." In reality, they're talking about variation or adaptive changes within the exact same type of animal. What I'm telling you is that the pro-evolution scientific community uses "species" interchangeably with the word "variation" when it suits their purposes.

When I say TYPE of animal, I mean the exact same animal (eg. dogs). When I say SPECIES, I'm referring to "variations" of the same animal (different types of dogs). I'm doing it like this, because that's what the pro-evolution scientific community is doing. I've read enough pro-evolution papers to see exactly that. And I'm not the only person who has seen this deception. People have written books about this.[/font]