[_ Old Earth _] Micro vs. Macro Evolution.

[Jimbob]

Define science then we will move on to what is scientific and what not !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes i also agree, We are not saying it is random but a intelligent desing , Do you know Who ordered that?, BTW i would not prefer to call it as 'natural selection'

Yet there is evidence for natural selection, it has been observed, but none for intelligent design. http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/In ... sign.shtml

We are not denying Micro evolution

That's a meaningless distinction created by creationists. Not to mention that you just denied the process of natural selection in your last point, which you just then contradicted yourself by accepting 'micro-evolution' which is based on this very process.

Well I can help you, A guy go by the name 'Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky'
who conducted the experiment on fruit flies , it is still carried out by many evolunanists! , If you don't know i can help you out !

The experiments you describe are not accurate representations of evolutionary models. After looking up the experiment you just cited, not only is it quite old, but it is not at all like you described. It was based on patterns of natural selection, not attempting to give fruit flies mutations randomly.

If you really want to know the myth of Macro evolution, Read the following article

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...tp://www.creationtheory.org/Database/Article5

In fact, even though I posess no scientific degrees of my own, I can already find a major flaw in that article you cited just by reading the first paragraph! They cite the second law of thermodynamics, however, if you look this principle up, you will see that it only applies to closed systems, which living organisms and the Earth are certainly not. I would suggest you not rely on false, pseudoscientific sources like this for your arguments.

 

[Jimbob]

A simple way of saying what is scientific is that it must go through the scientific method and be falsifiable.

Then define scientific method!

But people are building straw men saying that evolution says it is random.

Yes Evolution assumes that the instructions (of Micro evolution) arrived by random accident called Big Bang!

Could it have been aliens? Zeus? No one? Either way, this has nothing to do with science.

But you do 'believe' even if it is NOT scientific right?

Micro evolution was just another example of creationists making up a distinction to move the goal posts.

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. So when a person agrees with micro evolution that person is agreeing with macro evolution.

Read my post about fruit Flies

So you would rather someone get scientific information from a site that is not scientific?

If you choose to call bunch of people with PhD’s from reputed universities as fools then I cannot help it. How about talkorgins is it scientific?

Yes Evolution assumes that the instructions (of Micro evolution) arrived by random accident called Big Bang!

I suggest you read up on these topics. The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, in fact, time scales place it at around 11.5 billion years before life even appeared on the Earth. Also, it was not a 'random accident'.

If you choose to call bunch of people with PhD’s from reputed universities as fools then I cannot help it. How about talkorgins is it scientific?

Reputed Universities? I would suggest you do some more checking. They are just creationist diploma mills. In fact, the person who wrote the article you stated has a degree from Knox Theological Seminary, which is a theological institute which is not accredited by any of the confirmed CHEA accrediting agencies. In other words, his credentials are bogus.

 

[Vanaka]

In case you didn't know, evolution isn't about one single organism changing to another organism, it's about a population of organisms that slowly changes over multiple generations until it has evolved into a new form.

So ancient apes didn't lose their hair and turn into humans, they reproduced over many generations, and due to natural selection combined with mutations, their physiological features slowly changed, until they became protohuman hominids, and eventually modern humans.

*BLEEP* we're sorry but you have made 0% sense,please learn to use more of your brain :P


I know,I stated what goes on with macro Evolution,Mr woodpecker in story two's Genes was evolving multiple Genes,wich casued the end :P


in story one,only one/or the required Genes ADAPTED to make Roadrunner JR's(again not wooddigger) tounge longer,so he could reach the worms deeper in the tree,sure his beak may be a bit diffrent,but prehaps that is so his longer tounge can fit in it?


oh and to the other guy,please define "Natrul Selection"
afterall if us Creationist's are so stupid then prehaps you should fill us in :P

 

[Guest]

*BLEEP* we're sorry but you have made 0% sense,please learn to use more of your brain

It made sense for those who can and want to understand it.

oh and to the other guy,please define "Natrul Selection"
afterall if us Creationist's are so stupid then prehaps you should fill us in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

 

[Vanaka]

*BLEEP* we're sorry but you have made 0% sense,please learn to use more of your brain

It made sense for those who can and want to understand it.

[quote:ed630]oh and to the other guy,please define "Natrul Selection"
afterall if us Creationist's are so stupid then prehaps you should fill us in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection[/quote:ed630]




ok then fill me in :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

'


ok heres some obvious Questions that you've probably have never thought of :-D


when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"


ahhhh nothing like a good argument :D

 

[ThinkerMan]

when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"

I like my wife's butt. I don't like all women's butts, but I like hers. I also like other things about her. I can't completely explain why I am attracted to her moreso than others, but I am.

As a result, I decided to marry her. In a few years, we will have children and I will pass my DNA on. Her DNA will also be passed along.

I have selected her. Not others. We will have kids. I will not have kids with others. There you are.....selection.

If you don't like my "wife/butt" argument....just look at other species. They select their mates based on a variety of circumstances, most of which improve the chances of passing along their DNA. The weak ones don't mate, and their genetics are lost. Thinning the herd, as it were.

But even more importantly, the real natural selection occurs when the environment changes or interacts with an organism. For example, you have two identical bugs, except one has a mutation that makes its wings too weak to fly. They both live on a very windy small island. The bugs that can fly are more often swept out to sea by the wind and die. The bugs that can't fly well are more apt to survive, and thus pass along their genetics and have their species survive. Those blown out to sea, they are much more likely to go extinct. Who wins? Those without the wings in this situation.

By the way, the above example (from me, someone who accepts evolutionary theory!) is an example from Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. So if you disagree, take it up with them.

 

[Vanaka]

when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"

I like my wife's butt. I don't like all women's butts, but I like hers. I also like other things about her. I can't completely explain why I am attracted to her moreso than others, but I am.

As a result, I decided to marry her. In a few years, we will have children and I will pass my DNA on. Her DNA will also be passed along.

I have selected her. Not others. We will have kids. I will not have kids with others. There you are.....selection.

If you don't like my "wife/butt" argument....just look at other species. They select their mates based on a variety of circumstances, most of which improve the chances of passing along their DNA. The weak ones don't mate, and their genetics are lost. Thinning the herd, as it were.

But even more importantly, the real natural selection occurs when the environment changes or interacts with an organism. For example, you have two identical bugs, except one has a mutation that makes its wings too weak to fly. They both live on a very windy small island. The bugs that can fly are more often swept out to sea by the wind and die. The bugs that can't fly well are more apt to survive, and thus pass along their genetics and have their species survive. Those blown out to sea, they are much more likely to go extinct. Who wins? Those without the wings in this situation.

By the way, the above example (from me, someone who accepts evolutionary theory!) is an example from Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. So if you disagree, take it up with them.

I very much doubt your Wife's butt has any relevance at all on this topic....butI feel sorry for your Wife because,its probably only a matter of time before you meet another Woman,who's butt you like better...(this is werid......)and will,since nothing stops you..afterall your just an animal,leave her.....poor lady.......,but anyway,your kids...their still Humans.


anyway,

intersting that you try to make the speckled moths relevant again :roll:
what you just stated is very similer(please excuse my bad spelling)to adaptation,however,one problem,the bug didnt get BETTER,why do you think it had those wings? to escape its enemys hmmm?in what you just said both of them die.....and so:who wins? the animal that got a meal off those wingless bugs :D ,anyway(yes I like to use anyway alot) ther is another problem with your story,it would seem the bugs lived there for awile, you would thing they could cope with it,but anyway lets put the template of MY story on this,the bugs all live happily ever after :-D,oh and there is still the

when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"

one last thing:what is your foundation?

 

[PHIL121]

Ahh...the 'ol Macro vs. Micro evolution debate.

Micro-evolution (changes within the species) is quite well-documented. Moths in England during the Industrial Revolution did become darker. Flies become immune to DDT. Bacteria like influenza mutate into more virulent strains.

Yet, Macro-evolution is merely what some scientists infer from looking at the fossil record. And often, new fossils overturn what they have previously concluded. The evolution of the horse taught in textbooks 30 years ago when I was a kid is a bunch bull-dung. And the transitory species that Darwin HIMSELF said were necessary to support the theory have never been found. Yet, the 'modern' evolutionist, especially if he's a tenured professor, still tells the 'empiror' his 'clothes' look just fine.

 

[Quath]

Yet, Macro-evolution is merely what some scientists infer from looking at the fossil record. And often, new fossils overturn what they have previously concluded. The evolution of the horse taught in textbooks 30 years ago when I was a kid is a bunch bull-dung. And the transitory species that Darwin HIMSELF said were necessary to support the theory have never been found. Yet, the 'modern' evolutionist, especially if he's a tenured professor, still tells the 'empiror' his 'clothes' look just fine.

I think you should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html for an explanation of horse fossils. Creationists tend to use extremely old data or to ignore recent information in their quest to push their adgenda.

Remember that "species" is a human term. There is no biological definition. For example, say you define "species" as animals that can not mate with each other. Yet there ae salamanders that have the property that salamander A can mate with B. Be can mate with C. D with D. D with E and E with F and F with A. Yet A can not mate with D. Is A in the same species as D? By our definition it is not. yet if you say that A is in the same species as B and B is in the same species as C. And C is inthe same species as D, then A and D are the same species.

It just shows that "species" do not exist except in a way we use it to help label stuff. There is no macroevolution because there is no real species.

Quath

 

[Vanaka]

when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"

I like my wife's butt. I don't like all women's butts, but I like hers. I also like other things about her. I can't completely explain why I am attracted to her moreso than others, but I am.

As a result, I decided to marry her. In a few years, we will have children and I will pass my DNA on. Her DNA will also be passed along.

I have selected her. Not others. We will have kids. I will not have kids with others. There you are.....selection.

If you don't like my "wife/butt" argument....just look at other species. They select their mates based on a variety of circumstances, most of which improve the chances of passing along their DNA. The weak ones don't mate, and their genetics are lost. Thinning the herd, as it were.

But even more importantly, the real natural selection occurs when the environment changes or interacts with an organism. For example, you have two identical bugs, except one has a mutation that makes its wings too weak to fly. They both live on a very windy small island. The bugs that can fly are more often swept out to sea by the wind and die. The bugs that can't fly well are more apt to survive, and thus pass along their genetics and have their species survive. Those blown out to sea, they are much more likely to go extinct. Who wins? Those without the wings in this situation.

By the way, the above example (from me, someone who accepts evolutionary theory!) is an example from Answers in Genesis, a creationist website. So if you disagree, take it up with them.

I very much doubt your Wife's butt has any relevance at all on this topic....but I feel sorry for your Wife because,its probably only a matter of time before you meet another Woman,who's butt you like better...(this is werid......)and will,since nothing stops you..afterall your just an animal,leave her.....poor lady.......,but anyway,your kids...their still Humans...and prehaps..somday fatherless ones...


anyway,

intersting that you try to make the speckled moths relevant again :roll:
what you just stated is very similer(please excuse my bad spelling)to adaptation,however,one problem,the bug didnt get BETTER,why do you think it had those wings? to escape its enemys hmmm?in what you just said both of them die.....and so:who wins? the animal that got a meal off those wingless bugs :D ,anyway(yes I like to use anyway alot) ther is another problem with your story,it would seem the bugs lived there for awile, you would think they could cope with it,but anyway lets put the template of MY story on this,the bugs all live happily ever after :-D,oh and there is still the

when,where,how,why,and do you have any proof of this "Natrul selection"

one last thing:what is your foundation?

 

[ThinkerMan]

I very much doubt your Wife's butt has any relevance at all on this topic....but I feel sorry for your Wife because,its probably only a matter of time before you meet another Woman,who's butt you like better...(this is werid......)and will,since nothing stops you..afterall your just an animal,leave her.....poor lady.......,but anyway,your kids...their still Humans...and prehaps..somday fatherless ones...

I was showing it as an example of how we choose our mates. I did not say it was the only reason for why I love her, but certainly one as to why I am attracted to her.

Also, thanks for the inference that I will soon cheat on my wife and leave my children fatherless. What a pleasant thing to say.

Many animals are monogomous. We can be too.

intersting that you try to make the speckled moths relevant again

I did not bring up the speckled moth. There are a lot of bugs. Millions in fact. I was discussing a different bug.

what you just stated is very similer(please excuse my bad spelling)to adaptation,however,one problem,the bug didnt get BETTER,why do you think it had those wings? to escape its enemys hmmm?in what you just said both of them die.....and so:who wins? the animal that got a meal off those wingless bugs ,anyway(yes I like to use anyway alot) ther is another problem with your story,it would seem the bugs lived there for awile, you would think they could cope with it,but anyway lets put the template of MY story on this,the bugs all live happily ever after ,oh and there is still the

They DID get "better". Since the ones with wings died, then it certainly can be said to be better not to have wings.

I did not say the wingless bugs died. I stated under this scenario that they survived ("apt to survive", is how I put it exactly). You are assuming that these wingless bugs have natural predators they cannot evade (assumption #1) and that the risk associated with walking on the windy island is greater than the risk of being swept out to sea by the wind(Assumption #2).

BTW, it IS similar to adaptation. If you do not believe in natural selection, then how do you achieve the "microevolutionary" changes YECs say have occured (and continue to occur).

one last thing:what is your foundation?

I believe in this building it is concrete and steel.

Are you asking my moral foundation? Or the foundations for why I believe that the Theory of Evolution is a valid theory?

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[PHIL121]

Yet, Macro-evolution is merely what some scientists infer from looking at the fossil record. And often, new fossils overturn what they have previously concluded. The evolution of the horse taught in textbooks 30 years ago when I was a kid is a bunch bull-dung. And the transitory species that Darwin HIMSELF said were necessary to support the theory have never been found. Yet, the 'modern' evolutionist, especially if he's a tenured professor, still tells the 'empiror' his 'clothes' look just fine.

I think you should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html for an explanation of horse fossils. Creationists tend to use extremely old data or to ignore recent information in their quest to push their adgenda.

I did check it out, and it only goes to prove my point. In school I was taught the horse evolved in a linear manner, eo-hippus to the modern horse. Now look at the "family tree" on that website. It has more "branches" that the First National Bank! Instead of going back and re-evaluting the theory, evolutions just make up more and more convuluted hypotheses to fit the current theory. It's more like Catholic theology than it is science.

Remember that "species" is a human term. There is no biological definition. Quath

Actually, there is a biological definition. Two different species can't mate and produce a viable offspring.

 

[Quath]

I did check it out, and it only goes to prove my point. In school I was taught the horse evolved in a linear manner, eo-hippus to the modern horse. Now look at the "family tree" on that website. It has more "branches" that the First National Bank! Instead of going back and re-evaluting the theory, evolutions just make up more and more convuluted hypotheses to fit the current theory. It's more like Catholic theology than it is science.

Branches is what the evidence shows. The more fossils we get, the more variety we see. When the theory was new, there not many fossils to go on. What you are trying to do is say that old science is bad and not look at what science has explained since then. That is like saying that Newton didn't allow for relavity therefore we should conclude all of physics is bad.

Actually, there is a biological definition. Two different species can't mate and produce a viable offspring.

I mentioned this in another thread. There are some salamders that have the property that Salamander A can mate with B. B can mate with C. C with D. D with E. E with F, and F with A. So most people would call them one species. However, A can not mate with D. So they would say A and D were different species. So which is it, are they the same or different? Biology doesn't care too much about how we classify stuff. So the label of species doesn't matter. It is a human way of classifying things.

Quath

 

[PHIL121]

Branches is what the evidence shows. The more fossils we get, the more variety we see. When the theory was new, there not many fossils to go on. What you are trying to do is say that old science is bad and not look at what science has explained since then. That is like saying that Newton didn't allow for relavity therefore we should conclude all of physics is bad.

But branches GO AGAINST what Darwin predicted the fossil record should show. He predicted numerous transitory species. Instead, there are a bunch off-shoots and dead-ends. Not what Darwin predicted should be there. To use your own anology, Einstein provided three proofs for relatively that were confirmed.

There are some salamders that have the property that Salamander A can mate with B. B can mate with C. C with D. D with E. E with F, and F with A. So most people would call them one species. However, A can not mate with D. So they would say A and D were different species.

Do have a link or something corncerning these salamanders? I've never heard of such a thing.

 

[sheseala]

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/eeb/academics/ar ... e_1997.pdf
Actual paper, lots of jargon, but good pictures.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
This link has a summary, along with other examples or ring species.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html
A bit more on the salamanders.

 

[Quath]

But branches GO AGAINST what Darwin predicted the fossil record should show. He predicted numerous transitory species. Instead, there are a bunch off-shoots and dead-ends. Not what Darwin predicted should be there. To use your own anology, Einstein provided three proofs for relatively that were confirmed.

Branches do not go against evolution. Basically, something branches and those branches compete with the fittest branch surviving. Branches say that there is more than one solution to the fittest problem. For humans, one branch left the trees and one became more adapt at the trees. Evolution describes this easily.

But there should be many transitiory states. The problem is that fossils are rare so it takes time to find these. Many of these have been found.

Darwin has also had much science support his theory. Human fossils, similarities of human DNA to chimp DNA in the "junk regions" and bacterial antiobotic immunity all demonstrate his theory.

Do have a link or something corncerning these salamanders? I've never heard of such a thing.

I would like to thank sheseala for finding the links. I just heard about it from a friend that read a Dawkins book. He was telling me about the ring species.

Quath

 

[Quath]

Double post.

 

[PHIL121]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 52_05.html
A bit more on the salamanders.

That link was most informative.

Interesting how they still don't classify the isolated subspecies as a separate species.

 

[sheseala]

I don't think they can unless the middle group dies. There's geneflow between the two yet because of that, but it's slow.