Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?

[Alter2Ego]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

[Autodidact]

You just don't get it; do you? In my opening post, I gave the definition of "species" based upon the definition that Ernst Mayr and SOME pro-evolution scientists prefer. I did that so I could attack the definition and expose it as deceptive.

Oh, I see. How odd. So you presented the definition not because you agree with it, but because you don't. Uh, o.k. I don't really see how you can attack a definition, but if you have an alternative definition you would like to propose, please do so. I think you might have more success if you actually learned something about Biology, but that's just a suggestion. What definition do you think Biology should adopt, and why?

The now deceased Ernst Mayr was pro-evolution, and so he gave a definition that suited him and certain ones in the pro-evolution scientific community.

Otherwise known as "biologists."

But what you and other pro-evolution laypersons fail to realize is that the word "species" is used interchangeably by pro-evolutionists to deceive. Animals that they claim are different species are actually variations of the same creature that are capable of interbreeding.

You're saying that Biologists, for some reason, lie. They know that they are really one species, but lie and call them two?

The creatures just don't want to interbreed with certain variations of their own kind. It's not that they're incapable of interbreeding. And that's where the deception begins.

We are all breaking up with laughter at this point. Yes, the world's Biologists are all in on a giant conspiracy to delude the world into thinking there are fewer species than there are.

That's hilarious. So you've got a bunch of fruit flies, and they all get together and say, "we could breed with that other group of fruit flies, but we just don't feel like it. Really, we're all one species, but we like to pretend we're not." Right.

Think of it: How could scientists in the pro-evolution community have possibly tested 35,000 different species of fish to tell which ones can't interbreed? If you believe they did, then you're in bad shape. Not only that, pro-evolution scientists change the meaning of the word "species" whenever it suits their purposes, as confirmed by biologist John Endler who wrote:

I bet if you think really hard, you can figure out the answer to this.

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

That's right, there is more than one definition of species. It's not a secret, there are entire books written on the subject. I thought we were using your definition, but apparently not?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 71:

>Snipping has occurred, but I'm willing to address such if asked...

Exactly. Now if you take a look on my "Dissent against Darwin" thread, you'll see a few accusations of "Dishonest tactics" and such against Creationists. What do you think of that? Do you think its a legitimate accusation?

No. While I did single a post out for mention, I didn't care for the last bit of it.

I accept that you do not agree with the conclusions regarding macroevolutionary theory, and that you have reasons you consider just as compelling as I consider my reasons for accepting such.

Yes indeed.

I'll take that to mean that you accept the I've come to accept the general terms of the ToE for reasons I consider legitimate, and not through nefarity on my part - while of course leaving you to think I've come about my conclusions in error.

>on whales<
There's debate whether they are really rudimentary legs.

I can grant there is disagreement, while of course contending that the morphology and location suggest such, especially when consired along with similar rudiments in snakes. Can I prove beyond any doubt they were once legs? No. On that the "antis" have me. I contend the logical conclusion should hold.

I showed in another thread that the "fins" in the Rhodocetus were in fact planted and attempted to be passed off as authentic. (I hope you accept that fossil fraud does in fact occur).

I accept that fossil fraud, as well as misinterpretation, has and is apt to continue to occur, though such occurrence of course doesn't mean all such fossils suffer such a condition.

On the fins issue, lacking the specifics of your argument, I'll continue to accept they are of the finular variety. Here we also have circumstantial evidence in existence now, in the form of various mammals, in various stages of "morphing", such as the pinnipeds.

The Pelvis in whales is another commonly cited element, but it's used for mating. As well, I think that since DNA has a common "source code", that it's possible for "Freaks" to occur.

This doesn't mean they couldn't have been adapted to the purpose.

I submit the following image, taken from the Answers in Genesis website (from a google image search), for your consideration. Obviously I must first ask if you accept the image as an accurate representation of these bones, and their placement...


I will contend these are indeed vestigial limbs, based on their location, morphologies, and fossil evidence (not here submitted) that leads us to a reasonable and logical conclusion that a terrestrial mammal has morphed into an aquatic one.

Well, I do in fact believe that those who try to fudge the line between Macro and Micro and say there's no real difference are being "dishonest'. Now we have an example of someone calling Creationists using "dishonest tactics" just for listing a bunch of scientists who disagree with the Darwinian perspective, do you think that's right?

No, I don't think it's right to throw out a charge of dishonesty simply because one can or even thinks it has occurred.

That said, there is evidence, in the form of cdesign propeonentsists who have been less than clear about what they're getting at. I agree that such should really only be considered in light of the argument (design vs evolution), and that their reasons for doing so need not be considered nefarious.

On "fudging the line", I try to be clear that we can't prove macroevolution occurs, so much as that it is the best, most supportable explanation. On that note, we are likely never going to see a "radical" change in species, owing to the time scales involved. However, we also can't point to an item x and say that's what is causing gravity. I mean, we can present an argument that says things with mass have a gravitational pull, but can I, JoeyKnothead, say with certainty there ain't a sentient entity (to include any religious connotations) that ain't pushing or pulling me down when I fall out of a tree? Of course not. What I do see though is that here I am on this thing with mass, and danged if it don't hurt when I lose my grip.

I don't see why the Theist perspective on Atheists "doing no good" has bearing on the actual facts in question though. Theists slander quite often, but you have to admit that Atheists are guilty quite often as well.

Oh yeah, to include myself. I engage in this part of the conversation as a bit of self therapy, as well as to discourage such in others.

Trust me, I know very well about so-called "Christians" (and Jews, and Muslims, and Scientologists, and Hindus, etc.) being very "dishonest" and refusing to debate fairly and refusing to address evidence and facts and going by their tradition alone. I have been called many bad things by Theists and Atheists alike.

Yep. And while I can't prove it, surely we can all agree there's an atheist here or there that ain't as honest as we'd hope.

I 'preciate that you're not trying to defend a position so much as explain it. I think it speaks well of your honesty and integrity. Maybe I need to get onto my bunch more, and if you see me doing so, it'll encourage you to get onto your bunch.

Where you consider a change "radical", I consider it change.

The question is how radical the change.

What I'm getting at is that in accepting the evidence for microevolution, the only "radical" change, to me, is when a species is compared to a far distant ancestor. So, "microbe to man" evolution is not "radical" to me, but a mere expression of how small "nonradical" changes can add up, given sufficient time and conditions.

I have no reason to not believe that you've held flying squirrels. The question is, whether "micro-evolution" could eventually lead up to such a mechanism which enables such precision-gliding, and the Bat is a whole another story.

I can dig that. Where I see a glider, it's a matter of "putting two and two together" for me to conclude such condition most likely occurred in bats.

I 'pologize if the "two and two" deal seems insulting, but I'm not implying that disagreement here is due to any lack of considered thought. It just seems the best way to phrase it for my perspective.

And I personally have tried to think about just how the bat could get its wings, and to be honest, it makes no sense. So we're on a similar ledge there.

I can dig it. Let's add to the mix that bat wings are an extension of their hands, accepting the scientific consensus. Where in the world could a hand become a wing?


Of course this doesn't mean that frogs woke up and decided to be bats. What it does though is help us form an understanding about how such may occur in species who engage in similar gliding practices.

That's fine, where I have my issue is when people say there's no line between Micro and Macro, and saying that we've actually observed Macro in action when in fact we haven't really. Or when people say there's no "species problem". It basically boils down to trying to hide the chinks in the armor by saying they aren't there.

Plenty fair. Lacking specifics of the "species problem", I'd mention that the line does get fuzzy, but explanations thereof need not be dishonest.

Well I do see it in terms of gaps. Basically, every Bat-evolution paper you'll read comes down to "We'll never really know"...ummm why?

On this issue I consider circumstantial evidence, as mentioned above, to guide my conclusions.

Considering the "fossilogical frailty" of bats, we can only work with the reasonable and logical.

And I don't think those who want to believe in a gradual transition are being dishonest. But when I see people saying there's no "micro" and "macro" as if it's just a guaranteed thing that happens or that it's been observed in action, I have to call shenanigans.

I can dig it. Hopefully our discussion has shed some light on how these conclusions may come about.

I also think the relative subjectiveness of the terms can cause problems.

If you say that it's a definite proven fact that there's no line between macro and micro, I'd have to say yes. If you say that we've seen actual speciation in which new "species" which are incapable of mating with their "former selves" has been seen, I have to say yes.

I can dig that. I contend conclusions regarding "macro" should be most considered as "best explanations". While I do consider "macro" to be fact, I'd have a hard time showing I speak truth when I say it is.

And that's an issue I deal with quite often, being called 'dishonest' for merely disagreeing, when it should be applied is the question. Maybe one day you can tell me your game tactics to get the ladies. They can be pretty gullible....

Funny thing, I most often see "dishonest" being used dishonestly

Thing is, find me a beneficial mutation that doesn't come with a deleterious disadvantage tacked on.

I s'pose I can't. What I can say is that a mutation that is beneficial must have some effect that supersedes the negative, otherwise it'd be called a "detriment".

Yes, it's important because one of my points of contention is that there's just not enough time. Even in many millions of years.

I'm not the best guy to argue about how long these changes take to occur. I contend the conclusion that primates have evolved from a previous ancestor is the most reasoned explanation for what we see, whether these changes occurred overnight, or over millions of years.

I can totally see WHY someone would conclude that. But I also see enough differences (and the time issue) to say that it simply wouldn't work. One of my biggest issues is when the development of arched feet and loss of tails came about...just doesn't make sense, attributing it to walking on terrain takes some massive gaps to accept, like how exactly the muscles themselves would develop, the bipedal-running foot's a very intricate marvel, so many specific bones and muscles, you know how long that would take?

That ain't the half of it. Include the idea that our spines are not as well suited to bipedalism, even with adaptations, and we're gonna have that much more trouble explaining it.

There's evidence though of bipedalism in monkeys and other apes, so again, I consider it in terms of small changes producing large changes. Can I prove this beyond any reasonable doubt? Nope. The only thing I can do is point out this or that bit of evidence and show how it may attribute to our developing bipedalism.

[Autodidact]

What on earth is a "macro-evolutionist?"

Someone who believes in Macro-evolution of course.

Well, scientific theories are not really something you believe in. You either accept them or not. 99% of Biologists accept ToE, so I'm guessing you are referring to Biologists, and other people who accept prevailing scientific theories.

Did you mean maybe "Evolutionary Biologist?

"

Those may or may not be included.

They are.

So what you're saying is that Biologists don't understand Biology, and you do?

T have actually met some Biologists that didn't think certain concepts existed that I showed them were written in books, such as in Micro-evolution of Brine shrimp. But yes, I'd say that there are in fact many "Biologists" who don't truly understand what exactly they're backing, and though they may understand the Micro-parts, it's when they tie it to the theoretical parts where they show some bias preceding their expertise. I know some Biologists personally, "Evolutionary Biologists" are mainly specialized in the Micro aspect.

Wow. Just wow. You're expecting be to believe that some random guy on the internet knows more about Biology than the consensus of leading Biologists, all the university biology departments on the planet, the National Academies of Science, and every organization of Biologists in the coutry. I find that doubtful.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "radical DNA change."

Start with the bat wing. And before you present articles like this:

I'm not following you. What about the bat wing? How does the bat wing involve a "radical DNA change?"

We know that mutations happen, we know how they happen, at what rate, and what kinds.

Yes, mutations happen. And they are pretty much all either deleterious, neutral, or with SOME benefit but a drawback attached. Prove otherwise.

Science isn't about proof.

The homology of the bat wing to your hand is one of millions of pieces of evidence that support ToE.

So that's another stamp on the wall of people who dodge the Bat Wing issue. Thank you. The wall's getting full.

What is the "bat wing issue?"

What radical transitions? ToE doesn't posit any radical transitions.

Many would disagree with that.

http://integral-options.blogspot.com/20 ... ology.html

Interesting new research, but unless you consider lack of feathers on the head to be a "radical transition?"

This is false.

Please prove otherwise.

If you think there is not enough time to account for evolution to explain the various species on earth, can you show your math? Because evolutionary biologists have done the math, and find find that there is plenty of time.

How about you show yours. How many years have mammals existed, and how many years do you think it would take for the many gradual changes which we see.

Hey, you're trying to overthrow one of the most widely accepted theories in the history of science, you're asserting it can't work. And you don't even have math to support you?

You are alleging that there are many Biologists, who are not creationists, and who oppose ToE? Really? Can you name, say 100 of them? Because I don't think there are a half dozen of them.

See my latest thread topic on Scientific Dissent against Darwinism.

No, I'll just wait for you to list 100 Biologists who are not creationists and who dispute ToE. I'm looking forward to reading your list of names. Personally, I can think of...maybe two? I doubt there are ten.

[Artie]

Micro-evolution, adaptation, tomato, tom-ah-to.

Either way, Lamarck was right.

http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf

Rather than merely linking a 35 page paper, could you perhaps state your argument for this novel position?

Recent experiments have shown compelling evidence for the inheritance of acquired characters in bacteria. I strongly suggest you read this article, it is very informative.

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]MITHRAE

You didn't answer my closing question: Are you proposing some form of theistic evolution or a staggered process of creation over hundreds of millions of years? Or do you deny the whole validity of radiometric and stratigraphic dating methods also? If the latter, then I can understand your need to describe every non-biblical effort to understand our world as 'insanity,' but obviously you'll need to do more than throw insults around to impress folk in these parts.

ALTER2EGO
I am strictly a theist. Macro-Evolution theory is just that—THEORY aka a group of hypotheses that have been disproven by the fossil record.

FYI: None of the dating methods are accurate; they are simply educated guesses. As stated by author Emily Manthei:

"In 1990, the New York Times published an article revealing that Columbia University researchers using the uranium-thorium dating method to confirm radiocarbon dating had found huge discrepancies between the radiocarbon dates and the uranium-thorium dates, calling into question the validity of radiocarbon dating. More recently, a group of Christian scientists tested substances thought to be millions of years old, like coal and diamonds, only to find traces of radiocarbon, which would make them much younger according to the radiocarbon method."

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

MITHRAE

For the record though, the idea of black skin as the mark of a slave was very much tied up in the biblical curse of Ham; not so much a novel idea of these supposed 'heroes' who I can't even remember, as one of a few nasty stains on the heritage of your otherwise quite respectable religion

ALTER2EGO
That's what you get for relying solely on Wikipedia as a reference source. Just about anybody can post what they want on Wikipedia--including people that are not credentialed. Inaccuracies are known to show up on Wikipedia as a result. Suffice it to say, your assertion that: "the idea of black skin as the mark of a slave was very much tied up in the biblical curse of Ham" is completely false. No such idea is to be found anywhere in the Bible. For more on this, see the opening post on my thread entitled: "FALSE RELIGION & AFRICAN SLAVERY: What's The Connection?" To get there easily, you may use the following weblink.[/font]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 502#437502

[Autodidact]

I am strictly a theist. Macro-Evolution theory is just that—THEORY aka a group of hypotheses that have been disproven by the fossil record.

We just went over this. A theory is a set of hypotheses that have been supported by the evidence. Are you rejecting this definition of theory as well? If so, you're getting awfully hard to talk with, speaking your own private language as you do.

FYI: None of the dating methods are accurate; they are simply educated guesses. As stated by author Emily Manthei:[/color]

"In 1990, the New York Times published an article revealing that Columbia University researchers using the uranium-thorium dating method to confirm radiocarbon dating had found huge discrepancies between the radiocarbon dates and the uranium-thorium dates, calling into question the validity of radiocarbon dating. More recently, a group of Christian scientists tested substances thought to be millions of years old, like coal and diamonds, only to find traces of radiocarbon, which would make them much younger according to the radiocarbon method."[/size]

So a movie director says the Times published an article about a research article? Why not just provide the article, unless you like playing telephone?

I think I'll take my physics from the physicists, rather than the movie directors.

So, you reject Biology and physics so far, and I'm guessing also geology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology and anthropology? But you just love science?

Tell you what, if you want to argue that radiometric dating doesn't work, and take on the world's physicists as well as the world's biologists, let's start a thread for that.

[Alter2Ego]

Well we are getting somewhere Alter2Ego,

This would indicate you believe that Chimp and Human are the same species. They are after all just variations of the same animal.

If not please provide me with a definition that allows for distinction between the two.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- JANX:

Either your reading and comprehension skills are slow on the uptake or you're able to read minds, because in just about everything you post to me, you ignore what I write and come up with your interpretation of what I'm supposedly thinking. You are so skilled at reading minds that you know that I "believe that Chimp and Human are the same species." Tell me what else you know about how I think, based upon your mind-reading skills. This is becoming interesting.

BTW: Since when did an ape, a chimpanzee, or any of those types of animals become HUMAN? I can't help you if you insist on becoming a disciple of the idiot Carl Linnaeus. He was the fool that developed a Taxonomy Table upon which he decided--based upon his personal opinions--that humans and apes are related. Not surprisingly, being that he was European, he gave black people the lowest rank among humans on his Taxonomy Table.


According to the Genesis account, humans are distinct from animals. But I don't expect an atheist/evolutionist to accept what Almighty God says. I expect them to do exactly what you're doing: ignore God's inspired words and follow after the flawed thinking of imperfect humans like Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin.[/font]

[Autodidact]

@Alter: Can you please define "type" as you are using it? Remember, not an example, and without using the word in the definition. Thanks.

[Artie]

According to the Genesis account, humans are distinct from animals. But I don't expect an atheist/evolutionist to accept what Almighty God says. I expect them to do exactly what you're doing: ignore God's inspired words and follow after the flawed thinking of imperfect humans like Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin.[/color][/size][/font]

"Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... genes.html. How can you possibly say that we are "distinct from animals" when we share 96 percent of the genome with a great ape?

[Autodidact]

Micro-evolution, adaptation, tomato, tom-ah-to.

Either way, Lamarck was right.

http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf

Rather than merely linking a 35 page paper, could you perhaps state your argument for this novel position?

Recent experiments have shown compelling evidence for the inheritance of acquired characters in bacteria. I strongly suggest you read this article, it is very informative.

Interesting. Not being a Biologist myself, I usually wait for new discoveries to filter into the mainstream before spending a lot of time on them. It is very interesting, though.