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]

[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).

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?

[font=Verdana]GOAT:
Care to withdraw your claim?

ALTER2EGO:
Withdraw my claim that there are no fossils showing one type of animal evolving into a completely different type of animal? I think not. Look at what I posted and then tell me where what I said is inaccurate. Here is my actual quotation:

MY PREVIOUS QUOTE:

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).

ALTER2EGO:
You giving the full Steven Stanley and Niles Eldredge quotations doesn't help the case for macro-evolution--which is the topic of this thread--because both Stanley and Eldredge are talking about "species" transition (micro-evolution). "Species" refers to variations of the exact same type of animal (a Doberman dog, a German Shepherd dog, a Collie dog, etc.) rather than one animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale changing into a bear).

Macro-evolution is a myth. There are no fossils showing this ever occurred.[/font]

[TheJackelantern]

Alter2Ego wrote:
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).

Actually, different species are nothing more than carbon based organism.. However, you are wrong.. Whales, and even manatees are perfect examples. ... Btw, evolution doesn't state that another animal will evolve into a Cat.. That's pretty ignorant of what evolution actually states btw.

ALTER2EGO:
You giving the full Steven Stanley and Niles Eldredge quotations doesn't help the case for macro-evolution--which is the topic of this thread--because both Stanley and Eldredge are talking about "species" transition (micro-evolution). "Species" refers to variations of the exact same type of animal (a Doberman dog, a German Shepherd dog, a Collie dog, etc.) rather than one animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale changing into a bear).

Again this tells me you are entirely uneducated in what evolution is.

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.)

Evolution does not mean to become progressively better... It deals with adaptation to environment, and it often fails. .. Saying decedents were better adapted is nonsense, and it's meaningless.. This again shows that you have no actual understanding of evolution.

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.)

Yep, and you were never born and don't exist because you can't provide us a bridge-less gap in your photo album.

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.)

This of course ignores actually having to address the examples provided. Seems someone else here has a dilemma.

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.)

Problem is that it has... However, we also have genetics and several examples of evolving living organisms to which include going from unicellular to multi-cellular.

than variations within the exact same type of animal (eg. different species of cats or different species of fish).

Tell us what's the difference between a lizard, salamander, snake, eel, and an amphibian in regards to "animal type".. Perhaps you can give us a clear cut understanding of how you classify "animal types" ..

[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).

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.

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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT
I completely explained the Theory of Evolution in my opening post. I gave Charles Darwin's definition, and I gave the modern-day definition. I also gave the definition of the word "species," the definition of "macro-evolution," and the definition of "micro-evolution." It's not my problem that you didn't read and comprehend my opening post. I suggest you go back and read it again, real... slowly....

If you can grasp the official definition of "species" in my opening post, perhaps then you will begin to realize that Raup, Eldredge, Stanley and others are merely referring to transition at the species level. Species refers to variations within the exact same type of animal (species of dogs, species of cats, species of birds, etc.). If you won't accept the definition I gave for "species" in my opening post, you can look it up on any of the online dictionaries.

Neither Edlredge, Stanley, Mayrs, or any other paleontologist or geneticist can present evidence of macro-evolution (one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal such as a squirrel changing into a bat) because such evidence does not exist. That's why they focus on micro-evolution aka variation or species of the exact same type of animal.


BTW: Your statement that: "Further, anything about the fossil record stated in 1976 would omit approximately 90% of that record, so would be of no value" is erroneous and misleading. Nothing has changed in terms of macro-evolution since Charles Darwin (and others before him) dreamed it up. That's the reason why macro-evolution remains in the realm of THEORY. But for the sake of argument, here are more recent quotations from paleontologists.


1. "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)


2. "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)


3. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).[/font]

[Goat]

[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]

I see, .. an analysis of evidence is now called 'Speculation'. We have physical evidence of fossils that man has changed over time , and used to have a much smaller brain case. we have the genetic analysis , including an analysis of the ERV events that chimps and humans share a common ancestor from about 5 million years ago.. and yet that is hand waved away as 'speculation'

And, what is the proposed alternative to the vast amount of data we do have? Let me guess what you use. A set of 'Scripture' written by man 2600 years ago, that is mistranslated and misrepresented by modern Christians.

I don't see the evidence anywhere near being equivalent for the propositions.

Evolution wins out, hands down..

I wonder if you could figure out which of these skulls are human without using a cheat sheet?

[Autodidact]

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.

You don't understand the theory. You are refuting a theory that does not exist, which may be why you also don't understand all the evidence that supports it. The fact that you never see a whale evolving into a bear is because ToE is correct. Until you understand this, you will never be able to refute it, because you are responding to a non-existent theory.

As previously stated, humans have always been exactly what they presently are--humans.

Now please read your sentence over and really think. Of course humans have always been humans. If something is found that is not human, it's not a human! Duh!. However, there also exists another species, now extinct, from which those humans evolved.

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.

There is no such thing as a lower life form. Again, it is obvious to anyone who has studied any Biology that you have not.

Just think, you're planning to refute one of the most firmly grounded, well-supported and broadly accepted theories in the history of science, without even understanding what it says. Do you think that's going to work?

Which of these skulls belong to humans, which to pre-human hominids?

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[/color][/size]

Please tell me you're joking. If not, you're exposing yourself to ridicule. I beg of you, for your sake, so you don't embarrass yourself, before trying to overturn 150 years of science, learn some basics about what science is.

Answers in Genesis is a Christian, creationist, website that tries to refute evolution. It contains a list of arguments so stupid that even creationists shouldn't use them.

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalidated aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)

1. Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory� has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)

You're not damaging evolution in any way, you're only exposing your ignorance to public view.

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

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]

If you can master all these colors and formatting, I'm sure you can also master the quote function. Would you like a lesson?

[Autodidact]

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.)

Yes, I'm sure all the Biologists in the world are really engaged in nothing but a vast conspiracy to mislead the lay public; that's their goal.

So your position is that new species do arise, but they're restricted to something called a "type" or "kind?" Would you be so kind as to define this term for us? Thank you. A definition is not an example, and should not contain the word being defined, don't you agree?

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.

It's like reading gibberish. So you're saying that when scientists refer to species, in reality they mean species? How odd.

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.

So you were not aware that all of these breeds are in fact the same species?

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.

This sentence is actually gibberish. It is literally nonsense. No animal ever evolves, period. Again, until you actually take the time to learn what ToE says, there is no hope of you refuting it. You are literally talking about a non-existent theory. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is out of ignorance and misinformation on your part, rather than outright lying. For that reason, I am offering to explain to you what ToE actually says, if you are interested.

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.)

That's right. That quote is exactly correct--because ToE is correct. Until you understand this, you are simply embarrassing yourself.

As I told you, quote-mining is a form of lying. Do you see why, or do you need me to explain it to you? Now, since you continue to engage in this form of dishonesty, how do you think it is helping your cause? Anyone who knows anything about it can see right through it. Are you perhaps appealing to those who know even less than you?

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.)

Tell you what. Get out your copy of Animal Species and Evolution, since I'm sure you have one, and tell us what was in the ellipsis, and what came immediately after this quote.

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.)

That's right. Dr. Gould is absolutely right and, as a result, as he spent his life discovering and exploring, ToE is completely correct. If you don't understand this, you need to learn something about Biology, in order to discuss it intelligently. If you do, then you are being deliberately dishonest. Which is it?

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]

See above. Every time you do this, you make us question either your honesty or your knowledge.

[Autodidact]

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.

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.[/size]

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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- AUTODIDACT
I completely explained the Theory of Evolution in my opening post. I gave Charles Darwin's definition, and I gave the modern-day definition. I also gave the definition of the word "species," the definition of "macro-evolution," and the definition of "micro-evolution." It's not my problem that you didn't read and comprehend my opening post. I suggest you go back and read it again, real... slowly....

A definition is not an explanation. You have absolutely no idea what ToE is or says, as your posts clearly demonstrate. OR, you do understand it, and prefer to mischaracterize it. If the former, it can be helped, if you are willing to learn. If the latter, then fixing the problem would require more than mere education.

Are you interested in learning what ToE actually says, or not?

If you can grasp the official definition of "species" in my opening post, perhaps then you will begin to realize that Raup, Eldredge, Stanley and others are merely referring to transition at the species level. Species refers to variations within the exact same type of animal (species of dogs, species of cats, species of birds, etc.). If you won't accept the definition I gave for "species" in my opening post, you can look it up on any of the online dictionaries.

Yes, I understand what a species is. What is your point? However, you do not understand what Drs. Raup, Eldredge and Stanley are saying. You are misunderstanding them, probably because you have never actually read them.

Neither Edlredge, Stanley, Mayrs, or any other paleontologist or geneticist can present evidence of macro-evolution (one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal such as a squirrel changing into a bat) because such evidence does not exist. That's why they focus on micro-evolution aka variation or species of the exact same type of animal

. You don't understand how macro-evolution works. ToE clearly states that one animal never, ever, changes into another.

BTW: Your statement that: "Further, anything about the fossil record stated in 1976 would omit approximately 90% of that record, so would be of no value" is erroneous and misleading. Nothing has changed in terms of macro-evolution since Charles Darwin (and others before him) dreamed it up. That's the reason why macro-evolution remains in the realm of THEORY. But for the sake of argument, here are more recent quotations from paleontologists.

You are completely and totally wrong. You know nothing about the subject. You are embarrassing yourself.

90% of the fossils ever discovered have been uncovered in the last few decases.

ToE has changed, been refined, corrected, expanded and made more accurate over the decades, like any scientific theory. Drs Eldredge, Gould, Mayr and many others whose words you twist and distort have contributed to that success.

1. "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

Quote mining is lying.

2. "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

Quote mining is lying.

3. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).[/font]

Quote mining is lying.

So, to summarize, what you have posted is a collection of lies.

[Alter2Ego]

I see, .. an analysis of evidence is now called 'Speculation'. We have physical evidence of fossils that man has changed over time , and used to have a much smaller brain case. we have the genetic analysis , including an analysis of the ERV events that chimps and humans share a common ancestor from about 5 million years ago.. and yet that is hand waved away as 'speculation'

And, what is the proposed alternative to the vast amount of data we do have? Let me guess what you use. A set of 'Scripture' written by man 2600 years ago, that is mistranslated and misrepresented by modern Christians.

I don't see the evidence anywhere near being equivalent for the propositions.

Evolution wins out, hands down..

I wonder if you could figure out which of these skulls are human without using a cheat sheet?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GOAT:

You can persist in your delusion about humans changing over time, which deceitful evolutionists in the scientific community refer to as "micro-evolution" but in reality is nothing more than variation of the exact same creature. Variation is not evolution. Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be. But that's not evolution. It's simply adaptation.

The topic of this thread is macro-evolution, which means change from one type of animal to an entirely different animal. That is the myth that Charles Darwin proposed when he said all animals in existence evolved from a single animal. This myth is still proposed today by modern evolutionists in the scientific community. In other to deceive laypersons, they refer to variation within the exact same animal or among humans by given the trick-phrase "micro-evolution." And instead of using the term "variation," they say "species"--to deceive uninformed people into believing that animals evolve. A species is simply a variation of the exact same animal (eg. species of dogs are Doberman, Rottweiler, Greyhound, Collie, etc.). As stated by one thinking person:

"By using the concept of macro-evolution, evolutionist biologists seek to give the impression that is variations can give rise to brand new living species—and even genera—over the course of time. Indeed, many people who lack a sound knowledge of the subject are taken in by the superficial idea that micro-evolution can become macro-evolution in the long term. One can see many examples of this thinking. Some amateur evolutionists suggest that since the average height of human beings has increased by 2 centimeters (0.78 of an inch) over just the last century, that means that all kinds of evolution can occur over millions of years. But the fact is, as we have already seen, all variations such as increases in stature take place within specific genetic bounds and have nothing to do with evolution." (Source: The Error of Evolution, by Harun Yahya)[/font]

[Janx]

You can persist in your delusion about humans changing over time, which deceitful evolutionists in the scientific community refer to as "micro-evolution" but in reality is nothing more than variation of the exact same creature. Variation is not evolution. Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be. But that's not evolution. It's simply adaptation.

You say there is adaptation. Yet claim this is not change.

You say there is variation. Yet claim the example are exact same creature.

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

[Alter2Ego]

You can persist in your delusion about humans changing over time, which deceitful evolutionists in the scientific community refer to as "micro-evolution" but in reality is nothing more than variation of the exact same creature. Variation is not evolution. Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be. But that's not evolution. It's simply adaptation.

Janx
You say there is adaptation. Yet claim this is not change.

You say there is variation. Yet claim the example are exact same creature.

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

[font=Verdana] ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:

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

A person who goes on a water fast can survive up to 40 days without food, because the body adjusts itself by slowing down the heartbeat and lowering the blood pressure. That's an example of adaptation. This is what happens when animals are exposed to certain environmental changes. Their bodies adapt.

Variation is simply different versions of the exact same creature. There are various species/variations of dogs (Doberman, Rottweiler, Collie, Pit Bull, German Sheperd, etc.). They are all still dogs and can therefore interbreed because they are simply different "species" of the same type of animal.

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."

The mythical macro-evolution claim is that animals evolve into entirely different TYPEs of animals (eg. a squirrel changes to a bat or a whale changes to a Bear--which are actual Charles Darwin claims). Macro-evolution is a myth. It has never occurred. The fossil records show no evidence of one type of animal evolving into a completely different type of animal. All that's been found in the fossils are examples of "species" aka variations of the exact same animals.

What is it about this don't you understand?[/font]