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]

[Shermana]

That was my fault for calling it a "pretty good definition."

So you also disagree that the definition of a "New species" is something that cannot mate with fertile offspring with its "old self"? Did the definition change since I went to school or something?

So if anyone can provide any evidence that any "New species" have actually been identified, that'd be great. And it's especially difficult to identify "new species" that are asexual altogether.

Calling a strain of bacteria a "New species" is a prime example of my point...

I challenge anyone to prove that strains of bacteria can be classified as a "new species".

[Bust Nak]

So you also disagree that the definition of a "New species" is something that cannot mate with fertile offspring with its "old self"? Did the definition change since I went to school or something?

Note the difference between "cannot interbreed with the 'old species'" and "can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring with the 'old species'" re: hybrids such as offsprings between horses and donkeys.

So if anyone can provide any evidence that any "New species" have actually been identified, that'd be great. And it's especially difficult to identify "new species" that are asexual altogether.

Calling a strain of bacteria a "New species" is a prime example of my point...

I challenge anyone to prove that strains of bacteria can be classified as a "new species".

So you know of the difficulties in the fitting organism into a neat catalog of species and insist on us giving you examples of exactly that? Well clearly the above definition for species won't work with organism that are asexual. So as with "type" and "kind," how different is different enough for you?

And I think I specifically asked for a case, with a quote, that says that they can no longer mate.

And I think we answered that one with "breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground."

[Shermana]

Note the difference between "cannot interbreed with the 'old species'" and "can interbreed but not produce fertile offspring with the 'old species'" re: hybrids such as offsprings between horses and donkeys.

I really need to be more specific when I say "interbreed", I'm implying for generations that can keep on going. I don't think the Mule is good evidence for Macro-level Speciation.

So you know of the difficulties in the fitting organism into a neat catalog of species and insist on us giving you examples of exactly that? Well clearly the above definition for species won't work with organism that are asexual. So as with "type" and "kind," how different is different enough for you?

So what would be the defining criteria then for a "new" species of asexual organism? Are you implying that it's purely relative and thus anyone can toss around the word "Speciation" at will without a concrete definition?

And I think we answered that one with "breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground.

Oh you did? Quote from it then. We need to see absolute 0% compatability. Not 5%. Not 1%. 0%. Total impossibility.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning



Please review our Rules.

[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]

Please do not comment on your own perception of the lack of intelligence of the other debaters. Name calling, as well, is not part of civil debate. Show us why you feel that Carl Linnaeus was wrong, but please refrain from calling him a fool.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

I really need to be more specific when I say "interbreed", I'm implying for generations that can keep on going. I don't think the Mule is good evidence for Macro-level Speciation.

Well, horses and donkeys cannot not go on for generations and keep of going, so they would fit that definition of being seperate species, no? If you think they share common ancestor then how is this not "a change at or above the species level?"

So what would be the defining criteria then for a "new" species of asexual organism? Are you implying that it's purely relative and thus anyone can toss around the word "Speciation" at will without a concrete definition?

There is no definition of species that satisify all biologist/taxonomists. However where "species" is being discussed in science, concrete (but somewhat arbitrary)
definition can be found. Counting the differences in gene sequence for example.

Oh you did? Quote from it then. We need to see absolute 0% compatability. Not 5%. Not 1%. 0%. Total impossibility.

What's the matter with "breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground?" "The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct" not good enough? How about "none of the crosses between surface males and autogenous females resulted in any offspring ... When Oval males were crossed with one female from the Euston population a viable egg raft was produced; however, the F1 population failed to produce an F2 generation?"

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n ... 4120a.html

[McCulloch]

Since when did an ape, a chimpanzee, or any of those types of animals become HUMAN?
[...]
He [Carl Linnaeus] decided--based upon his personal opinions--that humans and apes are related.
[...]

It was not personal opinion but biological similarity. Humans are animals. We are alive and we are certainly not plants. Humans are vertebrates, we are animals which have a backbone. Humans are mammals; we have hair, warm blood and nurse our young. Humans are one of the Great Apes along with Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Orangutangs. We are primates with large brains (relative to the other primates) and little or no tail.

According to the Genesis account, humans are distinct from animals.

Yes, the writers of Genesis do claim, based on no evidence and contrary to biology, that humans were created separately from the other animals. Why should I accept their opinion on this matter?

But I don't expect an atheist/evolutionist to accept what Almighty God says.

To my knowledge, I have never rejected anything that Almighty God has said. I do, however, regularly ignore the self-appointed spokesmen for the god: the writers of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Popes, Mohammed, various Gurus, evangelists and others. As far as I can tell, Almighty God has himself been very quiet, so there is nothing for me to ignore.

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.

Imperfect humans is all that we have got. Which imperfect humans do you think we should listen to? Solomon, David, Moses, Jeremiah, Saul of Tarsus, John, James, Peter or Darwin, Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, Hawking, Kepler and Maxwell?

[Janx]

So you know of the difficulties in the fitting organism into a neat catalog of species and insist on us giving you examples of exactly that? Well clearly the above definition for species won't work with organism that are asexual. So as with "type" and "kind," how different is different enough for you?

So what would be the defining criteria then for a "new" species of asexual organism? Are you implying that it's purely relative and thus anyone can toss around the word "Speciation" at will without a concrete definition?

Why do the goalposts of new species matter to you so much? There is an observed phenomenon where life evolves from one form into another. We have to call it something and attempt to catalog the changes. This isn't easy as you clearly understand because life is diverse to say the least.

Do you think that evolution will stop happening if we give up on trying to define individual forms of life and constant change?

[Shermana]

Why do the goalposts of new species matter to you so much?

\

Because like I earlier said, people try to say that Macro-evolution has already been observed, when it clearly hasn't, and it seems that there is in fact wordplay going on to try to act as if Macro-evolution is happening when it is in fact MICRO-evolution being portrayed as Macro.

There is an observed phenomenon where life evolves from one form into another.

And there you go, a perfect example of my point. What's been observed is only Micro, not Macro. Therefore, there is nothing proving the Darwinistic model. To say otherwise would be a false assertion. And that's the issue of what the "goalposts" of speciation are.

We have to call it something and attempt to catalog the changes. This isn't easy as you clearly understand because life is diverse to say the least.

But the problem is, what's been observed is not evidence of the Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian model. It's evidence of the LAMARCKAIN model. Epigenetics at best. Once again, Lamarck was right.

Do you think that evolution will stop happening if we give up on trying to define individual forms of life and constant change?

Do I think MICRO-evolution will stop happening? Not at all. In fact, I'm a firm believer in Neo-Lamarckianism.

[Shermana]

Well, horses and donkeys cannot not go on for generations and keep of going, so they would fit that definition of being seperate species, no? If you think they share common ancestor then how is this not "a change at or above the species level?"

What you're hitting upon may be an example of Epigenetics. Once again for the record, I completely believe in Neo-Lamarckianism and Epigenetics. That said, the idea that the horse and donkey came from a common ancestor is not necessarily out of my range. HOWEVER

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 41,00.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1289946/

There is not a 0% fertility rate nonetheless. There are some cases of fertile mules. Thus, with even a few minor cases, they are not technically evidence of completely different "species". In Neo-Lamarckianism (Lamarck seemed to be a Creationist btw) and Epigenetics, there exists the possibility of new forms of the same original form. The problem however, is getting a fish to eventually become a monkey, rather than new kinds of the same fish.

There is no definition of species that satisify all biologist/taxonomists.

And there lies the problem when a Macro-evolutionist attempts to state that Macro-evolution has occured, when it hasn't.

However where "species" is being discussed in science, concrete (but somewhat arbitrary)
definition can be found. Counting the differences in gene sequence for example.

Still nonetheless, we have yet to see evidence that a species can become something radically different, like developing bipedalism, it's ALL speculation, and there's no evidence to say that it's even possible. There IS evidence that there may be limits to what can "evolve" within the initial structure.

What's the matter with "breeding experiments show compatibility between the Underground populations but not with those breeding above ground?" "The surface and subterranean populations were genetically distinct" not good enough?

I was looking more into this, there may be a basic problem they may not even be the same type of Mosquitoes to begin with. I have yet to find anything that these didn't exist 170 years ago rather than being DISCOVERED. Where is the proof that they are new? From what I'm reading it says they are not new at all.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _70770157/

If that's the case, the whole experiment is off. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems they are different kinds to begin with. I will continue to research more about this.

How about "none of the crosses between surface males and autogenous females resulted in any offspring ... When Oval males were crossed with one female from the Euston population a viable egg raft was produced; however, the F1 population failed to produce an F2 generation?"

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n ... 4120a.html

[/quote]

I am reading some more things about it, can you prove that it's an entirely new breed of Mosquito as opposed to a RECENTLY DISCOVERED one?

[Janx]

Do I think MICRO-evolution will stop happening? Not at all. In fact, I'm a firm believer in Neo-Lamarckianism.

Okay, do you know of any limitations that will prevent one form of life from continuing to evolve until it becomes a different class of life? For example, are you aware of any factors that would have stopped populations of reptiles from "micro-evolving" into birds?

And there you go, a perfect example of my point. What's been observed is only Micro, not Macro. Therefore, there is nothing proving the Darwinistic model. To say otherwise would be a false assertion. And that's the issue of what the "goalposts" of speciation are.

You can call it "micro" or even "goobledygook" for all I care. The fact is that life evolves. If you want to call our fossil and genetic record of whales evolving from land dwelling animals to the creatures we see today "micro-evolution" I'm fine with that. It makes you completely impotent to participate in scientific discussions on the subject but at least we are on the same page.