Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)

DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.
"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor .
"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage
"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal?

3. When people in the scientific community speak about "new species," are they referring to one type of animal evolving into an entirely different type of animal? Or are they referring to variation within the exact same type of animal?[/font]

[Janx]

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]

Excellent, so you believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form and you probably know that these changes are coded in genes which can be passed on to offspring.

So what's stopping you from believing that after several such adaptations a lifeform becomes different enough from it's original form to qualify as different species? What do you believe happens to life when it comes to to that precipice of becoming a new species? Does it just stop and turn off it's adaptation mechanism?

The fossil records show no evidence of one type of animal evolving into a completely different type of animal.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.

- How about the fossil history of man, of whales, of birds, etc. What are they evidence for?

[Alter2Ego]

[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]

Excellent, so you believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form and you probably know that these changes are coded in genes which can be passed on to offspring.

So what's stopping you from believing that after several such adaptations a lifeform becomes different enough from it's original form to qualify as different species? What do you believe happens to life when it comes to to that precipice of becoming a new species? Does it just stop and turn off it's adaptation mechanism?

The fossil records show no evidence of one type of animal evolving into a completely different type of animal.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.

- How about the fossil history of man, of whales, of birds, etc. What are they evidence for?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:

At no time did I say I "believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form." Don't get it twisted by trying to put words in my mouth. No where did I say or even hint that adaptation results in an entirely new creature. I made it clear that people and other life forms adapt to environmental changes--by giving you logical examples of people who are starving.

Look at the North Koreans who are starving and compare them with the South Koreans who are well fed. These people are all related; yet, the North Koreans are much smaller people because of their poor nutrition. That's called "adaptation." The North Koreans did not stop being people as a result of their poor nutrition, nor did they stop being Koreans. They are simply smaller versions of the South Koreans.

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

[Janx]

At no time did I say I "believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form."

Hi Alter2Ego,
Quotes from you:

• ...you will see examples of adaptation among people...

  Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be.

  That's an example of adaptation. This is what happens when animals are exposed to certain environmental changes. Their bodies adapt.

Do you retract these statements?

Don't get it twisted by trying to put words in my mouth. No where did I say or even hint that adaptation results in an entirely new creature.

I never put such words in your mouth sir.

I made it clear that people and other life forms adapt to environmental changes.

Yes you did. So I ask you again:

If you believe that life adapts; that life changes form, appearance, and behavior to adapt to environmental changes why do you believe these changes stop before they alter a living thing into another species?

Further, what do you make of the fossil records of apes, cetacea, and birds? Why do animal species keep dying out and being replaced with species of slight variation that gradually progress into forms we see at present day?

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

What makes me happy is educating myself and trying to understand the world around me. Clearly you have information which makes you believe that the Theory of Evolution is false. I am merely seeking to understand your facts.

Cheers.

[Autodidact]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alter2Ego]

At no time did I say I "believe that life adapts, that it can change it's appearance and form."

Hi Alter2Ego,
Quotes from you:

• ...you will see examples of adaptation among people...

  Animals and people can adapt to their environment by growing smaller or larger, as the case may be.

  That's an example of adaptation. This is what happens when animals are exposed to certain environmental changes. Their bodies adapt.

Do you retract these statements?

Don't get it twisted by trying to put words in my mouth. No where did I say or even hint that adaptation results in an entirely new creature.

I never put such words in your mouth sir.

I made it clear that people and other life forms adapt to environmental changes.

Yes you did. So I ask you again:

If you believe that life adapts; that life changes form, appearance, and behavior to adapt to environmental changes why do you believe these changes stop before they alter a living thing into another species?

Further, what do you make of the fossil records of apes, cetacea, and birds? Why do animal species keep dying out and being replaced with species of slight variation that gradually progress into forms we see at present day?

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

What makes me happy is educating myself and trying to understand the world around me. Clearly you have information which makes you believe that the Theory of Evolution is false. I am merely seeking to understand your facts.

Cheers.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:

I made it clear that adaptation is not a change of appearance. I clarified it by saying that South Koreans still look like human beings and they still look like Koreans--despite being smaller versions of North Koreans. A smaller sized person hasn't changed his/her human appearance and begins looking like say, a dog or a horse. That's what I meant by my statements regarding "adaptation." Adapting to a smaller body to cope with the lack of food or gaining weight from eating too much does not make people stop looking like human beings. Their appearance is still the appearance of a human person.

The only time appearances are changed is as a result of VARIATION. For instance, one can look at a Doberman dog and a Pit Bull dog and tell by their appearance that they are two different "variations" aka "species" of dogs. But they will always remain dogs and will never change into say, a horse--which is what the macro-evolution says actually happened. According to the macro-evolution theory proposed by Charles Darwin and modern-day evolutionists, all animals in existence came from one single animal.

Likewise the facial appearance of an African person is different from the facial appearance of a Caucasian or a Japanese person, because now we're talking about VARIATION among humans.[/font]

[Autodidact]

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

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

[Janx]

I made it clear that adaptation is not a change of appearance. I clarified it by saying that South Koreans still look like human beings and they still look like Koreans--despite being smaller versions of North Koreans.

Hi Alter2Ego,

• change/CHÄ�nj/
  Noun: The act or instance of making or becoming different.
  
  ap·pear·ance/əˈpi(ə)rəns/
  Noun: The way that someone or something looks.

- South Koreans are human beings but you have granted that they look different from other human beings.

- You have granted that they look different because they have adapted from environment pressures.

- You have granted that animal follow a similar process.

- You accept the definition of "species" as stated in your OP

So for the third time:

• If change in appearance through adaptation happens, such as what you described in human and other animals, what will stop this this change from continuing to happen until it results in a different species?

That's what I meant by my statements regarding "adaptation." Adapting to a smaller body to cope with the lack of food or gaining weight from eating too much does not make people stop looking like human beings. Their appearance is still the appearance of a human person.

The only time appearances are changed is as a result of VARIATION. For instance, one can look at a Doberman dog and a Pit Bull dog and tell by their appearance that they are two different "variations" aka "species" of dogs. But they will always remain dogs and will never change into say, a horse--which is what the macro-evolution says actually happened. According to the macro-evolution theory proposed by Charles Darwin and modern-day evolutionists, all animals in existence came from one single animal.

Alter2Ego it appears to me that you are making up your own definition of "species". Do you withdraw the definition you have provided in the OP? If not, we can continue.

According to the definitions of "species" in your OP a pit bull and doberman are not two different species of Dog.

Variation in more or less distinctive form and lack of ability to breed with other species results in a different species.

Thus, we can breed a dog to look like a panda bear but it will not becomes a species of panda. However if, due to genetic diversity, this breed of dog becomes incapable of interbreeding with other dogs we have created a new species. It will be neither dog, nor panda but it's own unique species. It will still belong to the genus Canius rather than Ailuropoda even though it may look more like a panda than a wolf.

Do you agree with this?

[Alter2Ego]

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

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

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

[Autodidact]

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

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

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

There is no such thing as two species of dogs. They are breeds, not species. If you want to make up definitions for words, please share them with us, so we can have some idea what you're trying to say.

You are using the word "species" incorrectly. Two different breeds of dog belong to the same, not different, species.

This is an extremely simple concept to grasp. If you cannot grasp it, you may not be capable of understanding ToE either.

that "species" merely means variation of the exact same creature--in this case, two species of dogs.

This sentence is so confused it literally does not make sense. It's not even wrong. It's like saying, "Jesus is not God, because purple cannot ignite." It makes no sense.

Maybe it would help if you defined your terms. What do you think a species is? What about a "type?"

[Alter2Ego]

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

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

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

There is no such thing as two species of dogs. They are breeds, not species. If you want to make up definitions for words, please share them with us, so we can have some idea what you're trying to say.

You are using the word "species" incorrectly. Two different breeds of dog belong to the same, not different, species.

This is an extremely simple concept to grasp. If you cannot grasp it, you may not be capable of understanding ToE either.

that "species" merely means variation of the exact same creature--in this case, two species of dogs.

This sentence is so confused it literally does not make sense. It's not even wrong. It's like saying, "Jesus is not God, because purple cannot ignite." It makes no sense.

Maybe it would help if you defined your terms. What do you think a species is? What about a "type?"

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

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



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

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

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