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]

[Autodidact]

"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.

wiki:

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[22][23] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[24]

Do you want more?

Nothing in science is ever proven. It's hard to debate science with people who don't know what it is.

[Autodidact]

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.[/size]

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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:
I didn't give a new definition of "species." I've said repeatedly that "species" is nothing more than "variation" within the same type of animals. Can a Doberman and a Pit Bull interbreed aka have offspring? If the answer is YES, it means they are simply "variations" or "species" of the same animal: a DOG.

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
1. Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species
[/quote]
And the other part, the part that is not loosely speaking:
"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species

Various breeds of dogs are not reproductively isolated. Therefore they are not different species.

Autodidact wants to stick to evolutionist lingo: that all dogs are a single "species." The word "species" is not confined to ALL animals in a specific group--such as the argument that all horses are a single species. The word "species" is used loosely to promote macro-evolution theory. So whenever you read something from an evolutionist website that's talking about "species transition," they are NOT talking about the appearance of an entirely different type of animal.

When you read about a species transition, it means that there is a new species according to the definition you provided: a reproductively isolated breeding population.

In reality, "species transition" is nothing more than small changes in the same type of animal. So the animal didn't "transition" from, say, a dinosaur to a bird (another false macro-evolution claim). It simply adjusted to its environment by getting smaller or larger, etc. but remained the same type of animal.

Please read this next statement and focus really hard on understanding it:
ToE does not NOT not say that an animal transitions from a dinosaur to a bird. If it did, ToE would be wrong.

Until you grasp this, you are arguing against a theory which does not exist.

O.K., so they're the same "type." Now, what is a "type?" Until you define your terms, we cannot evaluate whether your statements are true or not.

To show you that the word "species" does not always mean every single animal or thing within a particular type of creature, notice the quotation below from Fiji Times Newspaper. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

"Two new scientific papers have been published highlighting the discovery of two new species of freshwater fishes unique to Fiji and only known from two river systems in Vanua Levu."
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=152099

Notice that they used the word "species" to describe two new variations of fish. That's why I use the word "species" and "variation" interchangeably, because that's what it boils down to.[/font]

Actually, no. In this article they are using the word in the correct scientific sense as two types of isolated breeding populations.

I think if you're going to discuss science, it helps to use scientific definitions. Don't you?

[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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:
I didn't give a new definition of "species." I've said repeatedly that "species" is nothing more than "variation" within the same type of animals. Can a Doberman and a Pit Bull interbreed aka have offspring? If the answer is YES, it means they are simply "variations" or "species" of the same animal: a DOG.

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
1. Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


Autodidact wants to stick to evolutionist lingo: that all dogs are a single "species." The word "species" is not confined to ALL animals in a specific group--such as the argument that all horses are a single species. The word "species" is used loosely to promote macro-evolution theory. So whenever you read something from an evolutionist website that's talking about "species transition," they are NOT talking about the appearance of an entirely different type of animal. In reality, "species transition" is nothing more than small changes in the same type of animal. So the animal didn't "transition" from, say, a dinosaur to a bird (another false macro-evolution claim). It simply adjusted to its environment by getting smaller or larger, etc. but remained the same type of animal.

To show you that the word "species" does not always mean every single animal or thing within a particular type of creature, notice the quotation below from Fiji Times Newspaper. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

"Two new scientific papers have been published highlighting the discovery of two new species of freshwater fishes unique to Fiji and only known from two river systems in Vanua Levu."
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=152099

Notice that they used the word "species" to describe two new variations of fish. That's why I use the word "species" and "variation" interchangeably, because that's what it boils down to.[/font]

Hi Alter2Ego,

• If loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.

...then all dogs are one species with variation within that species. The two fish mentioned in that article are their own individual species, which may also have variation within them, but are not the same species as all other fish because they cannot interbreed with all other fish.

The key idea here is "interbreeding". It's a useful dividing line.

Variation : (noun)
1: an instance of change; the rate or magnitude of change
http://www.wordiq.com/variation

The problem with using the term "variation" to categorize animals is that there are similarities within all classes of life. Therefore, if we stick to our definition of "species" it would be incorrect to say that the two newly discovered fish in Vanua Levu are variations within fish. "Fish" is not a species because not all fish can interbreed.

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?

Cheers.

[Autodidact]

[font=Verdana][center]IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS[/center]


Definition of Scientific Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm



Definition of Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.



Definition Of Scientific Fact
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact[/font]

Great. So now you understand that ToE has been supported by repeated testing, which is why it is a scientific theory. One hopes you will never make the mistake of trying to advance your cause by saying the position you are opposing is "only a theory."

[Autodidact]

It is truly amazing how many proponents of Macro-evolution are unaware of the issue of the "species problem".

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

Generally the same people who are unaware of the issue assert there's no such thing as a difference between "Micro" and "Macro" evolution in the scientific community.

The fact that there is a "species problem" is strong evidence that ToE is correct. Again, the fact that you don't grasp this tends to indicate that you don't understand ToE. Would you like me to explain it?

I am always ready to explain what ToE actually says to anyone who is interested in learning.

Just think, if you understood it, you could actually argue against it!

The people who think there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution tend to be creationists.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 38:

"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.

Again with the accusation of dishonesty. Is there no slander to which the theist is not exempt?

If you accept the "micro" deal, then the reasonable and logical inference, based on reams of data, is that the "macro" deal has occurred, and in all probability will occur in the future.

Is the Atlanta Zoo gonna wake up tomorrow to find all its elephants have given birth to giraffes? Of course not. What the evidence indicates though, is that an accumulation of change over time can and will alter a group of animals to the point where they are so significantly different as to no longer constitute being in the same branch on the tree of life.

[Janx]

So Alter2Ego,

I hope you see how the term "variation" is not equal to "species". Variation acknowledges the presence of distinct characteristics while "species" defines a specific characteristics by which to distinguish forms of life. "Variation" is a term that admits to variety while "species" sets boundaries among that variety.

Having this cleared up. Let's go back to our discussion:

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?

[Mithrae]

The fact that there is a "species problem" is strong evidence that ToE is correct. Again, the fact that you don't grasp this tends to indicate that you don't understand ToE. Would you like me to explain it?

I am always ready to explain what ToE actually says to anyone who is interested in learning.

Just think, if you understood it, you could actually argue against it!

The people who think there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution tend to be creationists.

I'm interested in learning. I only know a bit about the subject as I've said, but it seems obvious to me that there must be a big difference between the two (though I agree they're most commonly seen as Creationist buzz words).

Seems to me that if we'd simply found chihuahuas and great danes in the wild, in all likelihood they wouldn't breed with each other because of the obvious size problem and we'd most probably classify them as different species. But the breeds were developed simply from selection of the variations in visible traits, virtually all of which I believe were already present in the genome of the original domesticated wolves. (The short nose of pugs and pitbulls is a genetic defect, if memory serves; there may be other examples also.)

But since wolves and humans and whales and so on all share a common ancestor species, can we therefore infer that the DNA of this ancestor species contained the complete genome of humans, wolves, whales and so on? Even earlier back, was there a fish species whose DNA contained all the genetic information necessary for all the fish, amphibian, reptile, avian and mammal species since? Was the only mechanism in play the pressures of natural selection, favouring one or another of the phenotypical variations possible depending on environment - such as we see in most observed cases of evolution among vertebrates?

Obviously (as I understand it) we also need to introduce mutations into the equation to account for all the changes between fish and mammals. I don't want to embarass myself too much, so let me know if I've gone wrong with any of that But surely that's a fairly significant distinction worth acknowledging?

[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.

wiki:

Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[22][23] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[24]

Do you want more?

Nothing in science is ever proven. It's hard to debate science with people who don't know what it is.

Yes, people who think that Macro-evolution is a "fact" probably don't know what "science" actually is. And people who use the word "fact" in shaky ways as well.

[Shermana]

Again with the accusation of dishonesty. Is there no slander to which the theist is not exempt?

Slow your roll buddy, I get hammered with the accusation of Dishonesty quite often for merely asking questions sometimes. And yes, there is dishonesty by those who try to fudge the differences between Macro and Micro as if there's none. That is not slander. And if you continue to have a problem with this, I'll have to ask you to kindly interject EVERY TIME I am accused of dishonesty. Do you wish to retract before I request that you interject on EVERY OCCASION of which I am ever accused of dishonesty (or Creationist) on this regard? I can almost feel some guilty conscious coming from this quote, as if you know that Atheists and Macro-evolutionists use this term (and worse) quite liberally or something.

If you accept the "micro" deal, then the reasonable and logical inference, based on reams of data, is that the "macro" deal has occurred, and in all probability will occur in the future.

Then you obviously don't understand much about mutations and DNA structural changes. That's fine, most "Macro-evolutionists" don't seem to either.

Is the Atlanta Zoo gonna wake up tomorrow to find all its elephants have given birth to giraffes? Of course not. What the evidence indicates though, is that an accumulation of change over time can and will alter a group of animals to the point where they are so significantly different as to no longer constitute being in the same branch on the tree of life.

Thank you for further demonstrating your lack of understanding of the very concepts in question. When you can prove that radical DNA changes can and will happen, let me know. Maybe you'll win a Nobel prize. Jackelentern (who is one of the many who fling the word "Dishonesty" at every opprotunity) has tried and failed to explain the Bat wing, maybe you can explain such major gaps in the theory. Do you even understand why there are objections in the first place to such radical transitions? Are you aware that almost all mutations are neutral, and the ones that aren't are deleterious? Do you have any idea how many years even a change from one kind of "monkey-thing" to another would take? Compared to how many years Mammals are supposed to have been around?

Until then, there's a good reason why many (though not the majority) non-Creationist biologists oppose the TOE.