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]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 87:

Either your reading and comprehension skills are slow on the uptake...
...
the idiot Carl Linnaeus
...
the fool
...

Are you incapable of engaging in conversation without you gotta go to insulting folks?

[Alter2Ego]

From Post 87:

Either your reading and comprehension skills are slow on the uptake...
...
the idiot Carl Linnaeus
...
the fool
...

Are you incapable of engaging in conversation without you gotta go to insulting folks?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JOEY KNOTHEAD:

Since Carl Linnaeus is quite dead--and has been dead since the year 1778--my referring to him as being an idiot and a fool is hardly worthy of comment.

You've deliberately quoted out of context what I said to JANX by isolating just those few words, to make it appear to the moderators of this forum I'm insulting JANX. I suspect you're doing that so that I can join you on the Probation List--which suggests to me that you are vindictive. That's why I will not debate you and will not respond to anything else you post to me as of now. In the future when you falsely accuse me of doing anything, I will simply post a rebuttal to the forum in general and will not directly address you.

Below for the benefit of all who wish to see my statements in context is the entire conversation between myself and JANX. You will find the original post on page 9 of this thread.[/font]

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]

[Autodidact]

Are you incapable of engaging in conversation without you gotta go to insulting folks? [/size]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JOEY KNOTHEAD:

Since Carl Linnaeus is quite dead--and has been dead since the year 1778--my referring to him as being an idiot and a fool is hardly worthy of comment.

No, but it doesn't reflect very well on you, to insult such a fine mind, who contributed so much to our understanding of the natural world.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 92:

Since Carl Linnaeus is quite dead--and has been dead since the year 1778--my referring to him as being an idiot and a fool is hardly worthy of comment.

I don't doubt there's many a theist that considers their insulting of all who disagree to be "hardly worthy of comment".

You've deliberately quoted out of context what I said to JANX by isolating just those few words, to make it appear to the moderators of this forum I'm insulting JANX.

Please note, I linked to the post in question to ensure folks could quickly and painlessly read the entire post. Secondly, never did I say or even imply that you were speaking of JANX. To me it doesn't matter to whom you were referring, only that you have repeatedly slandered and insulted folks, with seeming impunity.

I isolated the offending phrases so the observer could clearly see the slanders you present against others.

I suspect you're doing that so that I can join you on the Probation List--which suggests to me that you are vindictive.

While I'm unable to address my own subconscious, mine is a conscious effort to point out what I perceive to be a double standard - that of theists repeatedly and with seeming impunity slandering others, while I get in trouble when I do the same.

Yes, I did report one of your posts in another thread, only to have my report erased, and the ability to report within that thread removed.

I have decided to take a different tack instead, by exposing your continued and repeated smears for all to see.

That's why I will not debate you and will not respond to anything else you post to me as of now.

Considering that you've not addressed my rebuttals to your arguments in the past, I will now contend you've found what to you is a valid reason for not addressing my rebuttals to your arguments. I trust the observer can draw their own conclusions in this regard.

In the future when you falsely accuse me of doing anything, I will simply post a rebuttal to the forum in general and will not directly address you.

Do you deny writing the words which I quoted you as having written?

Below for the benefit of all who wish to see my statements in context is the entire conversation between myself and JANX. You will find the original post on page 9 of this thread.
...

Which is exactly what I do at the start of my posts, by linking to, and explaining to which post I refer.

[Autodidact]

Alter: That definition? "Type" of animal? How do we tell if two animals are of the same or different "type?" What is your criteria?

[Alter2Ego]

Alter: That definition? "Type" of animal? How do we tell if two animals are of the same or different "type?" What is your criteria?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT

I answered this question at least twice before. When I say "TYPE" I am referring to, for instance, every single "variation" or "species" of dogs (Rottweilers, Greyhounds, Pit Bulls, German Sheperds, etc.).

I use the words "variation" and "species" interchangeably because that's what scientists in the evolution community do. They assign the word "species" to every single dog, using the argument that because all "variations" of dogs can interbreed, they are therefore restricted to one species.

These same dishonest people then turn around and refer to the 35,000 "variations" of fish as 35,000 different "species" even when they're still talking about the same TYPE of creature. Their argument is that the fish are not all able to interbreed; therefore, they are all different species. Ask them if they tested all 35,000 variations of fish to see which ones can and cannot interbreed. You will get no answer.

The fact that evolutionists are not consistent with what's meant by "species" has been confirmed by biologist John Endler who said they use "different species concepts for different purposes" and that "different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species." To quote him:

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species."


This is what I've been saying since I started this thread: the word "species" is a trick-phrase used by evolutionists in the scientific community to mislead laypersons into believing evolution actually has occurred. When they speak of "species transition," they are actually referring to variations of the exact same type of creature. But they don't want laypersons to realize this.

Look at the definition of "macro-evolution" again on my opening post. Also look at what Charles Darwin wrote and compare it with the modern-day official definition of Evolution Theory. The premise of evolution theory is that every creature in existence came from one single organism. Meanwhile, the fossils (bones of long dead animals) does not show a single instance of one type of creature evolving into an entirely different type of creature.[/font]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 96:

These same dishonest people

The slander never ends with this'n.

[TheJackelantern]

I use the words "variation" and "species" interchangeably because that's what scientists in the evolution community do. They assign the word "species" to every single dog, using the argument that because all "variations" of dogs can interbreed, they are therefore restricted to one species.

Classifying a species deals with more than genetic variation.. If you knew anything at all about evolution, you would know that it entails behavior and environmental adaptations.. And Dogs are too close to wolves genetically to not be expected to be capable of breeding. However, many will produce sterile offspring.. And I see that you were unable to tell me how your Creationist stance classifies animal kinds since it rests entirely on goal post moving to where you fail utterly at telling us what "Kinds" of animals you are dealing with. So of course you are going to resort to a variation argument after your initial argument self-collapses.

Ask them if they tested all 35,000 variations of fish to see which ones can and cannot interbreed.

They only need to test one to prove the point.. However, have you? I didn't think so, and this tells me that you know nothing about genetics.

The fact that evolutionists are not consistent with what's meant by "species" has been confirmed by biologist John Endler who said they use "different species concepts for different purposes" and that "different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species." To quote him:

They are consistent, your problems is that you don't know what you are talking about.

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species."

The confusion is that Lewin has no understanding of evolution or how species are classified. Especially when dealing with subspecies. Dogs being a subspecies of wolves both genetically, environmentally, and behaviorally... There are many differences between wolves and dogs.

This is what I've been saying since I started this thread: the word "species" is a trick-phrase used by evolutionists in the scientific community to mislead laypersons into believing evolution actually has occurred. When they speak of "species transition," they are actually referring to variations of the exact same type of creature. But they don't want laypersons to realize this.

No, the term usage of "Kinds" is a trick phrase that's utterly meaningless.... Lets post some videos on exactly what's wrong with your argument:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

Look at the definition of "macro-evolution" again on my opening post. Also look at what Charles Darwin wrote and compare it with the modern-day official definition of Evolution Theory. The premise of evolution theory is that every creature in existence came from one single organism.

Evolution does not state we came from a single individual organism. If you want to go into abiogenesis that would be a different discussion.

Meanwhile, the fossils (bones of long dead animals) does not show a single instance of one type of creature evolving into an entirely different type of creature

.

Incorrect.. For example, we can see one species evolving into modern day snakes:

http://smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/99256.html
http://www.livescience.com/11816-rays-r ... n-leg.html
http://www.examiner.com/paelenotology-s ... their-legs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... China.html




And perhaps you can tell us all here the differences between snakes, lizards, salamanders, eels, lung fish, worms, and amphibians vs reptiles in your concept of taxonomy and classification of species.


You may also want to visit Prof. Thewissen's new site "Digital Library of Dolphin Development" which includes images of tiny limb buds on dolphin embryoes.

Special Featured Articles

Pelvic bone on modern whales
Photographs of Humpback and Pilot Whale mounts contributed by the Milwaukee Public Museum with commentary by Professor Hans Thewissen.

The Evolution of Whales
Based on the sensational National Geographic article from November 2001, The Evolution of Whales. Overview of whale origins. Includes illustrations based on fossil progressions in transitional whales and dolphins. Additional comments from early whale expert and Paleontologist, J.G.M. Thewissen, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.

Hind Limb Bud Images, Dolphin Embryo and Fetus Development
Photographs of hind limb buds on a five week old Pantropical Spotted Dolphin embryo, and 1.5 to 4 month fetus development. Images courtesy of Professor J.G.M. Thewissen.

Sirenian Evolution
(Manatee, Sea Cow, Dugong)
Sirenians and Elephants are evolved from a common ancestor. Like whales, sirenians returned to the water. Though hind limbs on whales may be rare and difficult to witness, many sirenians (not all) still retain vestigial toenails like their elephant cousins, and share other traits in common with modern elephants. Includes commentary between LeVar Burton and Dr. Mark Lowe, Veterenary Science. Contains images courtesy of Reading Rainbow, PBS Television. (GPN/Nebraska Educational Telecommunications and WNED-TV, Buffalo NY).
[/quote]

Note this Image:

TOKYO Nov 5, 2006 (AP), Japanese scientists reported a bottlenose dolphin, has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind limbs. The dolphin was captured alive in western Japan on Oct. 28, by Fishermen. "I believe the fins may be remains from the time when dolphins' ancient ancestors lived on land," said Seiji Osumi, of Tokyo's Institute of Cetacean Research. The hind fins are much smaller than the front fins and are about the size of human hands, protruding near the tail. The dolphin measured approx 9 feet in length.

Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs, Evidence Ocean Mammals Lived on Land
A Dolphin with Hind Limbs, Science Blogs
Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs, Associated Press

Basic Creationists rebuttal is "Their extra fins".. As if that would make their argument any better :/ Especially when such extra fins provide no functional purpose to a dolphin.. But in all cases where we find evolution, creationists like to play the "it's still the same body type", it's still a dolphin!!.. Same argument even when confronted with such Atavism:

Atavism is the tendency to revert to ancestral type. In biology, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback, such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations before.[2] Atavisms can occur in several ways. One way is when genes for previously existing phenotypical features are preserved in DNA, and these become expressed through a mutation that either knock out the overriding genes for the new traits or make the old traits override the new one.

[youtube][/youtube]

Examples:

Whale pelvis and thigh bones:



Another example:

[/youtube]

[Autodidact]

I answered this question at least twice before. When I say "TYPE" I am referring to, for instance, every single "variation" or "species" of dogs (Rottweilers, Greyhounds, Pit Bulls, German Sheperds, etc.).

REmember, not an example, a definition. Try again. Here it looks as if you mean the scientific equivalent of species, since all dogs belong to a single species. Is a "type" the same as a species?

How do we tell whether any given two organisms are the same or a different "type?"

I use the words "variation" and "species" interchangeably because that's what scientists in the evolution community do. They assign the word "species" to every single dog, using the argument that because all "variations" of dogs can interbreed, they are therefore restricted to one species.

No,m they don't. This is incorrect. This has been explained to you. Scientists do not regard each breed of dog as a different species, as you have admitted in this thread.

These same dishonest people then turn around and refer to the 35,000 "variations" of fish as 35,000 different "species" even when they're still talking about the same TYPE of creature. Their argument is that the fish are not all able to interbreed; therefore, they are all different species. Ask them if they tested all 35,000 variations of fish to see which ones can and cannot interbreed. You will get no answer.

But if you took any two of them and put them together, they would not in fact be able to breed. Because they are not the same species.

The fact that evolutionists are not consistent with what's meant by "species" has been confirmed by biologist John Endler who said they use "different species concepts for different purposes" and that "different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species." To quote him:[/color]

Yes, there is more than one species concept, as we have discussed. However, I am comfortable using Mayr's biological species concept, and will stick to that definition of "species." As of yet you have not actually defined "type."

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species."

Exactly.

This is what I've been saying since I started this thread: the word "species" is a trick-phrase used by evolutionists in the scientific community to mislead laypersons into believing evolution actually has occurred. When they speak of "species transition," they are actually referring to variations of the exact same type of creature. But they don't want laypersons to realize this.

Ah, the conspiracy theory of science. Interesting. However, until you tell us what a "type" is, it's also gibberish. Here's what we know: using the biological species concept, we have observed new species arise both in the field and in the lab. Fact. I realize you don't like that definition, for some reason I can't imagine, but when we talk about species, that is what we are referring to.

Look at the definition of "macro-evolution" again on my opening post. Also look at what Charles Darwin wrote and compare it with the modern-day official definition of Evolution Theory. The premise of evolution theory is that every creature in existence came from one single organism. Meanwhile, the fossils (bones of long dead animals) does not show a single instance of one type of creature evolving into an entirely different type of creature.[/size][/font]

[/quote] That's right! Every organism is descended from a single common ancestor, and one type of creature never evolves into an entirely different type of creature. Want to solve this puzzle? Learn how evolution actually works. I'm here to teach you, whenever you're ready.

[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.

[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.