Author Topic: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science  (Read 1693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2014, 03:50:12 PM »
Microevolution vs Macro evolution.

Have you seen enough pennies to make a million dollars? Therefore enough pennies cannot make up a million dollars. Ignore the fact that the US mint estimates there is $20 million dollars of pennies in circulation.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6491
  • Darwins +844/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2014, 04:22:01 PM »
If pennies can make dollars, then why are there still pennies? Huh? Why haven't all the pennies become dollars? Answer that, atheist smart guy. :?

Besides that, I have never personally counted to 20 million. I have never seen anyone do that, either. Therefore it cannot be done. Scientists claim that there are computers that can count that high, but you know how scientists get paid all that money to make sh!t up so they can deny god. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2014, 06:06:32 PM »
You say it takes a long time to be observed. How long is this time period?
The time needed to measure speciation depends on the length of the generations being observed.  I'm not sure how many generations it would take to observe speciation, since I'm not a biologist, but the answer is probably "a long time".  Hundreds or thousands of years in relative isolation would probably do it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
The paleontological record does not show evolution, in my opinion. It just shows dead animal remains. Some were different than others. My belief is that they went extinct and God created them separately. Your belief is that they evolved into each other. Both are based on faith. We have no problem admitting our side takes faith. But, evolutionists hate that word.
You do not get to dictate that another person's opinion is based on faith because of your uninformed opinion on a subject.  Especially when that opinion flies in the face of all the evidence we have.  You have to arbitrarily declare that fossils are all unrelated dead animal remains in order to justify your opinion that evolution is based on faith, and to justify your own faith-based opinion that 'God' magically created all the millions of different species through the entire history of life on this planet, and that none of them - not a single one - could possibly have evolved into any other one.

Put that way, can you perhaps see why you're making no headway here?  All you're trying to do with this topic is the tiresome old attempt to equivocate evolution and your religious beliefs as being equally "faith-based", yet doing so requires you to make assumptions which simply aren't warranted so you can exclude the evidence which supports evolutionary theory.  When you have to be that intellectually dishonest with yourself in order to hold an opinion, then you need to seriously reconsider just why you're so insistent on holding it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
It is a part of evolution. it is not biological evolution. It is cosmological evolution. Yet, the word "evolution" applies to both.
Do not waste my time with inane semantical games like this.  There is no similarity between biological evolution and cosmological evolution; if you are not capable of recognizing the distinction between the two, then you don't have any business declaring that macroevolution is not scientific.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Like I said, that is nothing but words on paper. How does this webpage show us billions of years ago? Simply saying, "Billions of years ago, x, y, and z happened" does nothing to show x, y, and z actually happened.
And here we see another example of you arbitrarily declaring that something is only words.  Well, if that's your attitude, I don't really understand why you're wasting your time here - because it's clear that you're too invested in your belief to think rationally about any alternatives.  Instead, you come up with this nonsensical argument that you have to personally witness something in order for it to have any chance to be true, except of course what's written in the Bible, since it's what you already believe.

If you have to be that dishonest with yourself in order to hold a belief, then you really need to take a long, hard look at yourself and the reasons you insist on holding it.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Are you saying that you have faith that science will answer these questions? This is the form of "nature of the gaps." You can't assume science will have the answers. That's not scientific thinking. Sientific thinking is just saying, "We have no answer." Saying "We have no answer YET" implies omniscience.
The only thing you're doing here is demonstrating just how low you're willing to go, and how utterly dishonest you have to be in an argument.

Since when is scientific thinking saying "we have no answer"?  Do you even understand science in the first place?  Science isn't about determining causes or finding answers; those are just side effects to science's true purpose, which is to figure things out.  Science doesn't ever assume that there's an answer; it looks at phenomena and observations, including observations of things which happened a long time ago, and finds an explanation consistent with those things that makes as few assumptions as feasible.

So, no, my saying "we have no answer yet" does not imply omniscience.  It's an expression of the confidence I have in science, because we've figured a lot of things out using it.  It's true that there's no guarantee that we'll be able to figure any particular thing out, but so what?  Far better than simply assuming that there's no point in trying to figure things out if it conflicts with an existing belief, as you so clearly do.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6343
  • Darwins +744/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2014, 07:27:16 PM »
Great reply, jaimehlers. +1 and all that stuff.

Skep, if scientists can, after they figure out the age of the rock via radiometric dating and other clues, tell you whether or not it would be possible to find a stegosaurus fossil and not T. Rex fossils, or vice versa, and they are ALWAYS RIGHT, how are they wrong? The two animals lived at very different times in the past, and they are never buried side by side in a fossil bed. When paleontologists were looking for the link between sea creatures and land animals, they looked at fossils and decided that they needed to find rocks that were ten million years older. They located some, and poof, they found the link they were looking for. The predicted it, it happened, how could they have been right if they were wrong in the first place?

Ten million years is 1600 times longer than you event think the earth existed, but it is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to how long the universe or our planet has existed. But you can't think in terms of numbers with more zeros than you have fingers on one hand. Apparently even five are too hard to comprehend.

You are stuck using a few of the old creationist standby's, like "why can't you show us missing links? (which we can but you won't accept the answer) or "it's just a theory", which you say in such a way as to make theories sound child-like. The theory of relativity is just a theory, but if you use a GPS device, the only reason it works is because that theory is taken into consideration when determining the what time it is from a satellites point of view vs. the time on earth. If we didn't have that theory of relativity, we would not be able to use GPS devices. Even though "it's just a theory".

So until you can come up with something new, which is based on actual information, you need to shut up. You've offered nothing but your questions to this conversation, and you don't really want answers, so even your questions are irrelevant. You aren't seeking the truth, you are seeking an excuse to keep believing the unbelievable, which is more important to you than anything reality can toss in your direction.

At least when I'm wrong about something, I'm wise enough to make sure it caused by my human foibles, not voluntary ignorance. Doing it both ways makes you somewhat useless in most endeavors.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12024
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2014, 11:06:20 PM »
You know what I can't believe? You people are still feeding this idiot the same repetitious words since he joined. He is a wall, and it has a lot of head wounds on it.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2014, 11:30:46 PM »
You know what I can't believe? You people are still feeding this idiot the same repetitious words since he joined. He is a wall, and it has a lot of head wounds on it.
Because it might sink in one of these years.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1272
  • Darwins +383/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2014, 03:35:21 AM »
God could have easily created different hominids that all went extinct, yet didn't become human.

How do you know this?  Were you there?  The Book of Genesis (and let's face it, Creationism begins and ends with the BoG; if the Bible started with Exodus, you guys wouldn't give a tinker's cuss about scientific theories about human or cosmic origins) says that Adam named all of the other creatures and could not find a fully suitable companion.  From this, we can anticipate that if Creationism was true, it would be unlikely for there to be other hominids in the fossil record, with unlikelihood increasing as they become more and more similar to modern humans.  IOW, maybe you can squeak Australopithecus into your world-view, but Neantertals,  Homo Erectus and Homo Egaster (makers of tools, possible users of fire, yet obviously not modern humans) not so much.

Nothing in the Bible would lead, say, Paul's disciple Timothy to suspect that Yahweh created other hominids.  For you to say "God could have [insert spurious activity that would "just happen" to make a biblical Cosmos look just like an atheist Cosmos in some way]" is goalpost-moving.  You're not fooling anyone, except yourself.  Why do it?

Edit: Grammar fix.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2014, 03:37:15 AM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2014, 06:31:03 AM »
You know nothing of Science.

Did you really just say "because I don't see it, it doesn't happen"?

True that science does rely on observation in replication, but evolution is studied like history is studied; observations pieced together and created a theory that fit the evidence, NOT evidence that fit the theory.

If a murder went down somewhere, how would you know what happened? You weren't there to see it.

But science has ways in forensics, UV blood detection, DNA sampling, and facial and muscular recontruction. None of this requires replication. You can replicate, just have to get a volunteer, and kill them the way that the evidence suggests, and bam, you have your replication.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12024
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2014, 11:01:24 AM »
You know what I can't believe? You people are still feeding this idiot the same repetitious words since he joined. He is a wall, and it has a lot of head wounds on it.
Because it might sink in one of these years.

No, it won't.

Would it for you for his nonsense?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2014, 05:33:22 PM »
I think the burden of proof relies on those to connect micro-evolution with the introduction of new species and previously non-existent genetic information.

I mean, I don't think that the explanation "Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period of time" is valid based purely on its own claim.

Do we actually know how dinosaurs grew feathers? Without just saying "evolution did it"? Like the actual process that had to happen? I don't think its reasonable to view changes in degree and changes within a species and claim that macro-evolution is just the same thing and to just leave it at that.

Are there any current examples of micro-evolution that, given enough time going in the same general direction, would eventually lead to the introduction of fundamentally new structures, organs and/or processes within an organism? Have we even observed the shred of the beginning of a macro-evolutionary change? Can a bird really evolve into a different animal by taking the organs and body parts that it already has and simply making them bigger, smaller, thicker, thinner, brighter, darker, longer, shorter, more numerous, less numerous, more resistant to X, less resistant to X, etc.? Can a bird's beak really evolve into the exact same thing as a human mouth by simply getting stubbier, softer and applying various color changes? Isn't that what micro-evolution is? A change in degree? Could a single celled organism really eventually evolve into an elephant by taking the structures and processes that it already has and just changing the degree, ie: shorter/longer/bigger/smaller/thicker/thinner/brighter/darker flagella? Does a nucleus eventually evolve into a human brain through mere changes in degree?

Do we have any examples of micro-evolution that doesn't just use pre-existing (as in already existing in the world, contrary to being completely new) processes/structures/organs/etc.?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 05:41:04 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2014, 05:51:44 PM »
I think the burden of proof relies on those to connect micro-evolution with the introduction of new species and previously non-existent genetic information.

Or, you know, on the ones who made up the term to explain the difference.

I mean, I don't think that the explanation "Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period of time" is valid based purely on its own claim.

See above.

Do we actually know how dinosaurs grew feathers? Without just saying "evolution did it"? Like the actual process that had to happen?

Do we actually know how YHWH created the Universe? Without just saying "he just did"? Like the actual process that had to happen?

I don't think its reasonable to view changes in degree and changes within a species and claim that macro-evolution is just the same thing and to just leave it at that.

So we can't look at what you (creationists) first defined as "macro-evolution" to prove that "macro-evolution" exists? Pray tell, what is the acceptable definition of "macro-evolution"?

Are there any current examples of micro-evolution that, given enough time going in the same general direction, would eventually lead to the introduction of fundamentally new structures, organs and/or processes within an organism?
<snip>

As luck would have it, I was on RationalWiki just a few minutes ago.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
That was an experiment done with the intent of disproving evolution. It ended up doing the exact opposite.
Read it, learn it, and educate yourself before asking more questions like that.

Do we have any examples of micro-evolution that doesn't just use pre-existing (as in already existing in the world, contrary to being completely new) processes/structures/organs/etc.?

Well, there's those oranges that are formed without seeds. Quite delectable, from what I hear. Then there's the Lenski affair I mentioned above. I don't think there's any species on Earth that can digest citrate (as in: use it for sustenance/food, rather than as a part of some other chemical interaction). Well, except E. Coli.
Good enough for you? I'm betting "no". Do you want to watch a bird species turn into something that's not a bird with your very eyes, for example? First you'd need to define "bird" in clear, concise terms. Then you'd need to live about several dozen million years and be able to memorize everything about the bird every half a million years or so.

EDIT: Keeping it non-insulting. My apologies, Spinner198.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 06:11:30 PM by One Above All »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #40 on: June 16, 2014, 06:25:55 PM »
"Or, you know, on the ones who made up the term to explain the difference."

There is a difference between micro and macro, one happens within a species and one changes one species into another. There are noticeable differences, and you cannot simply offer "They are the same thing" as an explanation as to how macro-evolution occurs. It is not based on evidence nor observation, rather it is based on pure theory crafting. You cannot propose such an unscientific response as the explanation of such obvious differences.

"Do we actually know how YHWH created the Universe? Without just saying "he just did"? Like the actual process that had to happen?"

You are claiming that understanding something that should be scientific, predictable and perfectly explainable requires the same level of understanding that would be required of us to understand how a supernatural creator would create the universe out of nothing.

The explanation of how dino's evolved feathers should be knowable by us if it truly was something that actually happened within nature. You are merely bringing up a red herring in the form of a category error.

"So we can't look at what you (creatards) first defined as "macro-evolution" to prove that "macro-evolution" exists? Pray tell, what is the acceptable definition of "macro-evolution"?"


Compared to micro-evolution? In pseudo-layman's terms: Micro is changes occurring within a species. Macro is changes that cause one species to change into a new species.

Whatever you want to call it. The process by which bird's get bigger beaks, by changing degree, could not possibly have been the same process that caused all known species to change from a single celled organism.

"As luck would have it, I was on RationalWiki just a few minutes ago.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair
That was an experiment done with the intent of disproving evolution. It ended up doing the exact opposite.
Read it, learn it, and educate yourself before asking more questions like that."


Is that the one where the E. coli could function on citrate in an environment low on oxygen? Where it then mutated to be able to use said function in regular oxygen levels?

"Under anoxic conditions in the presence of an oxidizable cosubstrate such as glucose or glycerol, Escherichia coliconverts citrate to acetate and succinate." - (http://jb.asm.org/content/180/16/4160.abstract?ijkey=bf8bce7d660f51255465124829ce304e23898005&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Said quote being referenced by Blount, Borland and Lenski in this article (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full) at the line "This transporter may previously have transported citrate under anoxic conditions (43) or, alternatively, it may have transported another substrate in the presence of oxygen."

Isn't that a mutation taking advantage of a previously existing system? Correct me if I am wrong.

"Well, there's those oranges that are formed without seeds. Quite delectable, from what I hear. Then there's the Lenski affair I mentioned above. I don't think there's any species on Earth that can digest citrate (as in: use it for sustenance/food, rather than as a part of some other chemical interaction). Well, except E. Coli.
Good enough for you? I'm betting "no". Do you want to watch a bird species turn into something that's not a bird with your very eyes, for example? First you'd need to define "bird" in clear, concise terms. Then you'd need to live about several dozen million years and be able to memorize everything about the bird every half a million years or so."


Seedless fruit sounds like a loss of information. I don't see how a fruit growing without seeds to disperse would classify as an introduction of new information or processes/structures that were not used before.

Observing 'evolution' over millions of years would be impossible, but as I said earlier, we should be able to observe mutations that could eventually lead to fundamentally new structures/processes if macro-evolution was correct. But there are no legitimate examples of a mutation that causes the introduction of new information, as it would be impossible even in theory, for a mutation to create completely new information rather than merely altering old information in various ways.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 06:50:35 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #41 on: June 16, 2014, 06:30:40 PM »
<snip>

*sigh*... I hoped I wouldn't have to do this again.
How much is 1 + 1?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #42 on: June 16, 2014, 06:57:35 PM »
<snip>

*sigh*... I hoped I wouldn't have to do this again.
How much is 1 + 1?

Are you attempting to equate truth by definition (ie: mathematics) that is predictable by nature (logic, not natural science, only able to be limited by the shortcomings of our own intelligence) to scientific claims that require evidence and proper science in order to be accepted as truth?

Saying "Microevolution, therefore macroevolution" is like saying "1, therefore 2". It's a nonsensical statement that has no foundation and is not explained.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #43 on: June 16, 2014, 07:00:20 PM »
<snip>

Answer the question instead of assuming the point I want to make. How much is 1 + 1?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #44 on: June 16, 2014, 07:13:57 PM »
<snip>

Answer the question instead of assuming the point I want to make. How much is 1 + 1?
1 + 1 = 2

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #45 on: June 16, 2014, 07:18:24 PM »
1 + 1 = 2

Very good. How much is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
(There will only be one more math-related question after this, promise)
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #46 on: June 16, 2014, 07:25:49 PM »
1 + 1 = 2

Very good. How much is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
(There will only be one more math-related question after this, promise)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #47 on: June 16, 2014, 07:27:35 PM »
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5

Again, very good. Final math-related question. How much is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #48 on: June 16, 2014, 07:28:17 PM »
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5

Again, very good. Final math-related question. How much is 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #49 on: June 16, 2014, 07:38:02 PM »
Spinner - How many small changes does it take to make a big change? The cumulative effect of small evolutionary changes has to go somewhere. In order to falsify big changes, all you would need to do is show the precise mechanism that stops micro-evolution. What is that mechanism? If an animal's ears were once very small, like a mouse, at what point in the growth of its ears over time constitute calling it a rabbit instead of a mouse?

An analogy...if you start adding small amounts of red dye to a flask of yellow dye, when does it become orange?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4829
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #50 on: June 16, 2014, 07:41:21 PM »
I think the burden of proof relies on those to connect micro-evolution with the introduction of new species and previously non-existent genetic information.
Funny thing, that.  The theory of evolution (as opposed to the purely artificial concepts of micro/macro evolution) already does quite an effective job of explaining and connecting how species change with how they diverge into new species.  At least, assuming one isn't bound and determined not to see it.

Quote from: Spinner198
I mean, I don't think that the explanation "Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a longer period of time" is valid based purely on its own claim.
If it were just a claim, then it wouldn't be.  But the problem for people like you is that it's a claim that's supported by pretty much every bit of evidence we've been able to unearth.

Quote from: Spinner198
Do we actually know how dinosaurs grew feathers?
The same way birds do, I imagine, since it's becoming more and more clear that birds are the distant descendants of the dinosaurs that weren't wiped out all those millions of years ago.  The similarities are just what we'd expect of extremely distant descendants of something that lived that long ago.

Quote from: Spinner198
Without just saying "evolution did it"? Like the actual process that had to happen? I don't think its reasonable to view changes in degree and changes within a species and claim that macro-evolution is just the same thing and to just leave it at that.
And I don't think it's reasonable to get overly pedantic about something and say, "if you can't explain the exact process, how do you know evolution is responsible?"  That's just ignorance masquerading as inquiry - a way to exploit the fact that we don't have total, 100% knowledge about something to justify claiming that something had to have made all organisms pretty much the way they are now.  What we do know is that evolution explains the divergence of species far too well to just dismiss without active contradictions that would disqualify it.

Quote from: Spinner198
Are there any current examples of micro-evolution that, given enough time going in the same general direction, would eventually lead to the introduction of fundamentally new structures, organs and/or processes within an organism? Have we even observed the shred of the beginning of a macro-evolutionary change?
Maybe if you stopped obsessing about the individual trees, you might be able to pay attention to the great big forest.  Any individual change can serve as the basis for further changes, so long as it doesn't actively kill off an organism.

Quote from: Spinner198
Can a bird really evolve into a different animal by taking the organs and body parts that it already has and simply making them bigger, smaller, thicker, thinner, brighter, darker, longer, shorter, more numerous, less numerous, more resistant to X, less resistant to X, etc.? Can a bird's beak really evolve into the exact same thing as a human mouth by simply getting stubbier, softer and applying various color changes?
Will it evolve into a different animal, like a horse or a pig?  No.  But that's not what evolution is about in the first place.  Evolution is about divergence - organisms diverging into different species which are still related.  So no, a bird's beak probably won't become the same thing as a human's mouth.  But so what?  There's at least one mammal species which has a bill, specifically the duck-billed platypus, and most likely others.  So if some mammals can develop a bill (which is fundamentally the same thing as a beak), I see no reason that some birds couldn't lose their beaks, or develop teeth inside their beaks, or other things.

If humans went to a thousand different planets and developed a thousand different ways, their descendants a million years into the future would still fundamentally be humans.  They would just have different characteristics based on their environments.  If humans after a million years of evolution on a watery planet had mostly fins and flukes, instead of arms and legs, they would still be descended from humans; same goes for other genetic changes.

Quote from: Spinner198
Isn't that what micro-evolution is? A change in degree?
That's exactly right; that's why this attempt to distinguish between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is pretty much entirely false.  They're both the same thing; it's just that "micro-evolution" is evolution over a short period of time, while macro-evolution is evolution over a long period of time.

Quote from: Spinner198
Could a single celled organism really eventually evolve into an elephant by taking the structures and processes that it already has and just changing the degree, ie: shorter/longer/bigger/smaller/thicker/thinner/brighter/darker flagella? Does a nucleus eventually evolve into a human brain through mere changes in degree?
It would take a long time, and more importantly, an ecosystem which didn't already have something fulfilling the role of "large grazing herbivore".  Mammals wouldn't have evolved the way they did if the dinosaurs hadn't mostly died off, after all.  But trying to draw a distinction between changes, as if a couple of genetic changes is fundamentally different from a thousand or a million, is a pretty dishonest way of looking at things.

Quote from: Spinner198
Do we have any examples of micro-evolution that doesn't just use pre-existing (as in already existing in the world, contrary to being completely new) processes/structures/organs/etc.?
Seeing as all evolutionary changes ultimately spring from DNA, which is the ultimate in "preexisting" when it comes to biology, most likely not.  But that won't help your argument  That aside, we're still just scratching the surface of what biology is apparently capable of; trying to use our lack of knowledge to justify a preexisting belief that organisms couldn't have evolved from very simple origins is one of the most ignorant arguments it's possible for people to come up with.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 07:43:04 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #51 on: June 16, 2014, 07:42:04 PM »
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10

Now, tell me, why is it that "micro evolutionary changes" (1), added for millions upon millions of years, can't go beyond "1"? That's what you're saying, which is what you don't seem to realize. "Macro evolution" is simply the end result of many small changes.
Remember your definition (by which I mean the one you accepted, or at least implied accepting) of "species" in another thread? Do you know how species reproduce sexually? Put very, very simply, cells undergo meiosis a few times. This means that all they have to work with is the DNA of the parent. Tell me, what happens if the DNA of the gametes is off by a sufficient percentage (several "micro evolutionary differences" worth)? They won't be able to breed.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2014, 07:53:59 PM »
Spinner - How many small changes does it take to make a big change? The cumulative effect of small evolutionary changes has to go somewhere. In order to falsify big changes, all you would need to do is show the precise mechanism that stops micro-evolution. What is that mechanism? If an animal's ears were once very small, like a mouse, at what point in the growth of its ears over time constitute calling it a rabbit instead of a mouse?

An analogy...if you start adding small amounts of red dye to a flask of yellow dye, when does it become orange?

The problem lies in the assumption that small changes of one type can be the cause of large changes of a completely different type. I answered a similar question in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26903.msg618479.html#msg618479)

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10

Now, tell me, why is it that "micro evolutionary changes" (1), added for millions upon millions of years, can't go beyond "1"? That's what you're saying, which is what you don't seem to realize. "Macro evolution" is simply the end result of many small changes.
Remember your definition (by which I mean the one you accepted, or at least implied accepting) of "species" in another thread? Do you know how species reproduce sexually? Put very, very simply, cells undergo meiosis a few times. This means that all they have to work with is the DNA of the parent. Tell me, what happens if the DNA of the gametes is off by a sufficient percentage (several "micro evolutionary differences" worth)? They won't be able to breed.
I already said that mere definitions cannot dictate reality. Exceptions of that definition exist after all.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 07:56:07 PM by Spinner198 »

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #53 on: June 16, 2014, 08:05:18 PM »
I already said that mere definitions cannot dictate reality. Exceptions of that definition exist after all.

As usual, no surprise, a creationist focuses on the minute issues instead of the main stuff. Did you even read my post in its entirety? Don't make me go back to having "Read my posts in full" in my sig.

Remember your definition (by which I mean the one you accepted, or at least implied accepting) of "species" in another thread? Do you know how species reproduce sexually? Put very, very simply, cells undergo meiosis a few times. This means that all they have to work with is the DNA of the parent. Tell me, what happens if the DNA of the gametes is off by a sufficient percentage (several "micro evolutionary differences" worth)? They won't be able to breed.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #54 on: June 16, 2014, 08:23:12 PM »
As usual, no surprise, a creationist focuses on the minute issues instead of the main stuff. Did you even read my post in its entirety? Don't make me go back to having "Read my posts in full" in my sig.

Like I said, I don't see the definition of species being "Can breed with each other, but not with any other species" as sufficient in being the sole determinant in deciding which species an animal belongs to and whether or not it is the same species as that of its parents.

Is a human unable to reproduce a different species?

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10920
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #55 on: June 16, 2014, 08:25:35 PM »
Like I said, I don't see the definition of species being "Can breed with each other, but not with any other species" as sufficient in being the sole determinant in deciding which species an animal belongs to and whether or not it is the same species as that of its parents.

Then you were being disingenuous when you posted the definition, since I asked you to define "species". This implies a definition that you accept; not one that you can just say "Well, that's not my definition!" in order to weasel out of any problems you might encounter.

I'm done with this and the other thread we were engaging in. I don't have the patience right now to deal with intellectually dishonest people.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2014, 08:32:27 PM »

The problem lies in the assumption that small changes of one type can be the cause of large changes of a completely different type. I answered a similar question in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26903.msg618479.html#msg618479)


The problem is with your grasp of the concept. No one is saying small changes of one type versus large changes of another type. I specifically talked about the size of a small mammals ears growing large over time (mouse to rabbit isn't real, just used for analogy).

It is easy to see the advantage of larger ears, and it is just as easy to imagine that the animal with the larger ears was able to avoid being eaten, and thus produced more of that advantage over time. Cheetahs run faster, and thus catch more food. Birds of prey have incredibly good long distance vision to see small rodents from high above, etc., etc.

Again, if small changes are acceptable, then how many small changes does it take to call it a large change? And why is it so difficult for you to grasp the possibility? What possible reason could you have to argue against the obvious idea of small changes over time adding up to large changes?

Remember, with enough change, and with isolation, what started as one species changes enough to call it something new, even if it still resembles it's ancestor. But once isolated, and given whatever environmental pressures it is under, more changes can pile up over time. The theory is absolutely amazing if you give it a moments thought outside of whatever is stopping you from acknowledging it.

Offline Spinner198

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • Darwins +0/-3
Re: Why Macroevolution Is Not Science
« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2014, 08:35:59 PM »
Like I said, I don't see the definition of species being "Can breed with each other, but not with any other species" as sufficient in being the sole determinant in deciding which species an animal belongs to and whether or not it is the same species as that of its parents.

Then you were being disingenuous when you posted the definition, since I asked you to define "species". This implies a definition that you accept; not one that you can just say "Well, that's not my definition!" in order to weasel out of any problems you might encounter.

I'm done with this and the other thread we were engaging in. I don't have the patience right now to deal with intellectually dishonest people.
I didn't say that that was what I believed, I said that's what dictionary.com said it was, and I found shortcomings in that definition.

Asking me to define species might as well be asking me what I believe caused the creation of the universe. Our beliefs on the subject are different, and it is not ridiculous that the beliefs of an evolutionist be incompatible with a certain theory within creationism, as well as vice versa.

I believe that species are determined by their primary characteristics, and yes somewhere along the line does enter the phrase "Because God did it.". However, when the naturalistic explanation is prone to exceptions, I don't really see why it should be the definitive definition in my books. Why don't you explain to me your definition of species? Since that is what you are discussing; your beliefs concerning the natural history of life.


The problem lies in the assumption that small changes of one type can be the cause of large changes of a completely different type. I answered a similar question in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26903.msg618479.html#msg618479)


The problem is with your grasp of the concept. No one is saying small changes of one type versus large changes of another type. I specifically talked about the size of a small mammals ears growing large over time (mouse to rabbit isn't real, just used for analogy).

It is easy to see the advantage of larger ears, and it is just as easy to imagine that the animal with the larger ears was able to avoid being eaten, and thus produced more of that advantage over time. Cheetahs run faster, and thus catch more food. Birds of prey have incredibly good long distance vision to see small rodents from high above, etc., etc.

Again, if small changes are acceptable, then how many small changes does it take to call it a large change? And why is it so difficult for you to grasp the possibility? What possible reason could you have to argue against the obvious idea of small changes over time adding up to large changes?

Remember, with enough change, and with isolation, what started as one species changes enough to call it something new, even if it still resembles it's ancestor. But once isolated, and given whatever environmental pressures it is under, more changes can pile up over time. The theory is absolutely amazing if you give it a moments thought outside of whatever is stopping you from acknowledging it.

Right, and I asked a question earlier:

"Can a bird really evolve into a different animal by taking the organs and body parts that it already has and simply making them bigger, smaller, thicker, thinner, brighter, darker, longer, shorter, more numerous, less numerous, more resistant to X, less resistant to X, etc.? "

I don't believe that the original lifeform had ears, so it couldn't just cause the ears to get bigger until the ears were the size of a mouses. You can theorize about changes occurring to cause something to change into an ear, but that only exists within pure theory crafting and not within observations or reality.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 08:46:27 PM by Spinner198 »