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 the OP:

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?

Plenty. You can find a rudimentary femur (leg bone) in some snakes and whales. This alone should be compelling evidence to suggest they derived from legged ancestors. Phyletic gradualism at its finest.

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?

Who needs fossils when we have living examples like whales and snakes? But yes, there is compelling evidence of transitional phases within the fossil record. Of course convincing the "all at oncers" is a task for Job, where as one gap in the record is filled, many see two more gaps.

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?

Both.

Anagenesis is the gradual change into a new species while the old version is "phased out", with no increase in biodiversity. Cladogenesis is the splintering of a species into two or more forms, increasing biodiversity.

Then under cladogenesis there is allopatric speciation, where a group splinters off and becomes isolated, such as, but not limited to, when islands are colonized. Here the original on the mainland may remain the same, owing to its relatively unchanging ecosystem, where often the "distant" (allopatric means 'in another location') species changes relatively rapidly into a new species. This is the more commonly found version of speciation in vertabrates.

As well, there's sympatric ('same location') speciation, where the two branches remain in relatively close contact, but for whatever reason remain reproductively isolated.

[Goat]

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?

Why, yes, yes there is. However, Charles Darwin didn't say ALL animals came form the same ancestor, he didn't have the information to come to the more expansive conclusion. We do now, in the form of GENETICS and analyzing the DNA.

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?

Why yes, yes they do. Not only that, we can actually show how one class of animal changed over time, and the morphology changes that occurred between one point in time to another point in time. By use of fossils, we can even examine the development of the inner ear from a jaw bone, and show one to one correspondence of bone structure not only in various extinct species, but withing crenelated species.

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?[/size][/font]

Well, it could be a plant or bacteria you know... and basically it is not that much different from the 'parent' species. Over time, the two species will get less and less alike (a few dozen speciation vents), but that happens over a long period of time. For example.. the common ancestor of both the chimp and the human was a great ape, and both chimps and humans would be considered 'great apes', but I don't think anybody would say we are the same as Chimps. We are a variation of the same type of animal (a great ape). .. and further back in time, we are both a variation of a primate, which would include the monkey family and lemurs., and we all are variations of mammals, which include cats, dogs and rats.

[scourge99]

DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes.
Here is fossil evidence of human evolution:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... nteractive

Fossil evidence is but one line of independent evidence that supports human evolution. Other lines of evidence are DNA, morphology, as well as dating techniques.

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?

Biologist do NOT use the term "type" to describe evolution. The term "species" is used. The term "type" is often used by anti-science religious apologists who have invented inaccurate and vague terminology in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. If you ever hear an apologist use the term "type" when describing the theory of evolution then you can either assume they are ignorant about evolution or intentionally dishonest.

So your question is flawed.

A better question would be:
Do fossils exist that show an evolutionary transition of one species of animal to different species of animal?

The formation of a fossil is an extremely unlikely event. Even more unlikely is the preservation and discovery of a complete fossil.

The link above provides evidence of humanoid fossils. Some of them are descendents of one another. They show a gradual transition from one species to 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?

When scientists speak about new species they are talking about a group of organisms that is distinct in one or more of the following: DNA, morphology, ecological niche.

As explained above, the term "type" is not used except colloquially.

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]GOAT

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?

Why, yes, yes there is. However, Charles Darwin didn't say ALL animals came form the same ancestor, he didn't have the information to come to the more expansive conclusion. We do now, in the form of GENETICS and analyzing the DNA.

ALTER2EGO:
There is no scientific evidence showing one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal. What evolutionists scientists refer as "different species" are nothing more than variations within the exact same type of animal (eg. different species of cats or different species of fish).

I can't see how you could have read my opening post and still insist: "Charles Darwin didn't say ALL animals came form the same ancestor". That's exactly what he said. I quoted him verbatim from his book Origin of Species and highlighted the relevant portions of his text in red--for all to see. I suggest you go back and read my opening post. You will find what Charles Darwin said towards the bottom of my post.

[center]********************[/center]
GOAT:

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?

Why yes, yes they do. Not only that, we can actually show how one class of animal changed over time, and the morphology changes that occurred between one point in time to another point in time. By use of fossils, we can even examine the development of the inner ear from a jaw bone, and show one to one correspondence of bone structure not only in various extinct species, but withing crenelated species.

ALTER2EGO:
There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)"[/font]

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]GOAT

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?

Why, yes, yes there is. However, Charles Darwin didn't say ALL animals came form the same ancestor, he didn't have the information to come to the more expansive conclusion. We do now, in the form of GENETICS and analyzing the DNA.

ALTER2EGO:
There is no scientific evidence showing one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal. What evolutionists scientists refer as "different species" are nothing more than variations within the exact same type of animal (eg. different species of cats or different species of fish).

I can't see how you could have read my opening post and still insist: "Charles Darwin didn't say ALL animals came form the same ancestor". That's exactly what he said. I quoted him verbatim from his book Origin of Species and highlighted the relevant portions of his text in red--for all to see. I suggest you go back and read my opening post. You will find what Charles Darwin said towards the bottom of my post.

[center]********************[/center]
GOAT:

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?

Why yes, yes they do. Not only that, we can actually show how one class of animal changed over time, and the morphology changes that occurred between one point in time to another point in time. By use of fossils, we can even examine the development of the inner ear from a jaw bone, and show one to one correspondence of bone structure not only in various extinct species, but withing crenelated species.

ALTER2EGO:
There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)"[/font]

Oh boy, quote mining... also known as 'MISREPRESENTATION' or. .. more bluntly 'LYING'. Let's look at the the 'Quote Mine' project.. First.. Steve Stanley

From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_qu ... sil_record

Evolutionist Steven Stanley on no gradual transitions in the fossil record

In an effort to advance its claim that the fossil record provides evidence against evolution, the Jehovah's Witnesses' publication Life--How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?, hereinafter referred to as Life, notes:

The failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." (p. 21)

In fact Stanley is explaining Ernest Mayr's modern punctuational view of evolution. The quote in context in the original source reads:

The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found. The other aspect of this argument is that the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another did not reflect a poor record for large, well-established species, but the slow evolution of such species: full-fledged species are not the entities that undergo the majority of major evolutionary changes.[1]

Although Stanley does speak of inadequacies of the fossil record, he offers an explanation as well as noting its strong points. This is not mentioned by Life.

Life continues quoting Stanley:

He said: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution]."

Life substituted "slow evolution" for "gradualism" as it appeared originally,[2] thereby changing the sentence to appear to be a criticism of all evolution.

Then, with Niles Eldredge.. from the same link

Eldredge on the pattern in the fossil record

To further support the claim that the fossil record does not support evolution, Life notes:

Niles Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (p. 21)

This quote also comes from the Rensberger article. Despite the implication by Life, the article later explains that Eldredge (and Gould) did in fact see a pattern left in the fossil record:

As they see it, species remain largely stable for long periods and then suddenly change dramatically. The transition happens so fast, they suggest, that the chance of intermediate forms being fossilized and found is nil.[46]

Care to withdraw your claim?

[Mr.Badham]

Macro evolution is Micro evolution. It's the same as saying a long walk is a bunch of short walks put together. You can't take a thousand steps without taking one step.

As for the fossil record, I defy anyone to go out and find a full squirrel skeleton from say, 1959. Should be easy right. They had squirrels in 1959 didn't they? Probably millions of them, so just go out into the forest and pick one up, and prove it's from 1959.

Wait, would that be hard to do? Are bones a good source of calcium? Do other animals eat bones? But doesn't every living thing that dies turn into a fossil, and hasn't all the fossils been discovered and catalogued by now?

What? Bones have to be covered... by clay in a riverbed, or volcanic ash, or who knows what to become a fossil? But that means that only animals in those particular areas at a very short period in time could become fossils, otherwise their bones would be eaten or scattered or pulverized.

All you have to do is find a full squirrel skeleton from 1959. That's it. That's all I'm asking.

[Autodidact]

There is no scientific evidence showing one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal. What evolutionists scientists refer as "different species" are nothing more than variations within the exact same type of animal (eg. different species of cats or different species of fish).

Paragraphs like this are so confused, betray such an utter ignorance of basic terminology, that it's hard to even respond to. What is a "type of animal?" Can you define your terms at all? You are absolutely right, just as Theory of Evolution(ToE) predicts, new species always emerge gradually from existing species.

The fact that you seem to think this is somehow not consistent with ToE indicates that you don't what ToE actually says.

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?[/b][/color][/size]

Why yes, yes they do. Not only that, we can actually show how one class of animal changed over time, and the morphology changes that occurred between one point in time to another point in time. By use of fossils, we can even examine the development of the inner ear from a jaw bone, and show one to one correspondence of bone structure not only in various extinct species, but withing crenelated species.

ALTER2EGO:
There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

Since you have no idea what ToE is, it's impossible to respond to your bizarre claims. Let me know if you ever want to learn what it says, so we can then discuss whether it's valid or not. Right now you are arguing against a non-existent theory. This is understandable, as you apparently have never taken a Biology class or read a book about Evolutionary Biology.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

There is a word for what you are doing here. It is called quote-mining. And quote-mining is a kind of lying. If you want to have any credibility here at DC & R, I strongly advise you to stop.

Since you have no idea what ToE is, it's hard to explain to you what Dr. Raup was saying. I assure that he was not saying that ToE is incorrect, and twisting his words to make it appear that way is why it's a form of lying.

What Dr. Raup is saying is that the fossil record is not smooth and uniform, but jerky and uneven. Not that there isn't one, or that it doesn't support ToE, but that new species emerge not always at the same pace, but sometimes slower, sometimes faster. That is all.

Further, anything about the fossil record stated in 1976 would omit approximately 90% of that record, so would be of no value.

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Same as above. You are doing nothing to enhance your credibility or reputation for intellectual integrity.

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)"[/font]

And tell us, Alter, since you are so familiar with Dr. Eldredge's work, exactly what pattern does he believe does exist? Or doesn't that matter to you?

So far we have the staples of creationist argument:
ignorance regarding the theory you are trying to refute, and blatant quote-mining.

Would you like to learn what ToE actually says, or do you prefer to argue against a theory that has never existed?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]SCOURGE99

DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes.
Here is fossil evidence of human evolution:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... nteractive

Fossil evidence is but one line of independent evidence that supports human evolution. Other lines of evidence are DNA, morphology, as well as dating techniques.

ALTER2EGO:
There is no evidence showing humans evolving from animals. Humans have always been humans. By evidence I mean fossils/bones showing one life form evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear--one of Charle's Darwin's mythical claims). This is what the term "macro-evolution" means--change that is above the species level.

As previously stated, humans have always been exactly what they presently are--humans. If there were evidence showing humans changing from lower life forms to what they are today, it would have been found in the fossils--bones of long-dead animal. That's the reason why one often hears the term "the missing link" with reference to the undiscovered bones that connect one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal.

Sending me to a website where all they're doing is speculating and giving opinions--but have not produced fossil or genetic material to prove their position--accomplishes nothing on the side of evolution. Let me remind you that evolution is still confined to the realm of THEORY more than 150 years after Charles Darwin published his book Origin of Species

[center]********************[/center]

SCOURGE99

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?

When scientists speak about new species they are talking about a group of organisms that is distinct in one or more of the following: DNA, morphology, ecological niche.

As explained above, the term "type" is not used except colloquially.

ALTER2EGO:
I used the word "type" on purpose. You will understand why I used the word "type" after you read my next post directed to you, which comes immediately after this one. [/font]

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]SCOURGE99

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?

Biologist do NOT use the term "type" to describe evolution. The term "species" is used. The term "type" is often used by anti-science religious apologists who have invented inaccurate and vague terminology in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. If you ever hear an apologist use the term "type" when describing the theory of evolution then you can either assume they are ignorant about evolution or intentionally dishonest.

So your question is flawed.

A better question would be:
Do fossils exist that show an evolutionary transition of one species of animal to different species of animal?

The formation of a fossil is an extremely unlikely event. Even more unlikely is the preservation and discovery of a complete fossil.

The link above provides evidence of humanoid fossils. Some of them are descendents of one another. They show a gradual transition from one species to another.

ALTER2EGO:
My question is not flawed. What most people don't understand is that the evolutionists in the scientific community use the term "species" in an attempt at misleading lay persons into believing they're talking about animals changing into other things. Species is simply scientific lingo for VARIATION within the same animal group (eg. different species of birds, different species of horses, different species of fish, etc.)

So when evolutionists in the scientific community speak about "species transition," they are merely talking about adaptation or variation of the exact same animal (eg. they are merely talking about different species of dogs or different species of cats, etc.). That's the reason why I use the term "TYPE" of animal, so people will understand that I'm talking about completely different KINDS animals. Let me clarify.

Different types or kinds of animals are as follows: dogs, cats, horses, birds.

Different species refers variations of the exact same animal: Doberman dogs, greyhound dogs, German Shepard dogs, Rottweiler Dogs, etc.

The link you gave provides no evidence of "humanoid" fossils. That's what the owner of that website is saying. The fact is that all credentialed paleontologists have admitted there is no fossil evidence showing one type of animal evolving into anything other than what it originally was. Below are examples.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2. "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)


3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


4. "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)[/font]