whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 11:05:27 AM

Title: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 11:05:27 AM
I am starting this thread in response to an article that was posted in another thread.

Here is the article:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/can_science_support_creationism

Here is the thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26310.0.html


In particular, I am interested in examining this section of the article:

For macroevolution, Intelligent Design and Evolution are quite different.

Evolution’s Hypothesis – Small, step-wise changes over great periods of time will result in the entirely of biological diversity, including the development of animals versus plants and the different, large grouping within each of these kingdoms. (And this also includes the fungi and other kingdoms of organisms on Earth.)

Prediction – In the fossil record, a continuum of organisms, including forms intermediate between large divisions of organisms may be found.

Intelligent Design’s Hypothesis – The large groups of organisms are differentiated by irreducibly complex structures and are thus completely distinct.

Predictions – No intermediate forms are possible in the fossil record.

To test either of these hypotheses, one need to dig (literally) into the fossil record.

What does the fossil record say? There are abundant transitional forms, including the transitional form between fish and amphibians. But there is yet argument (though not in the paleontological community) about whether these are truly transitional forms.



The author states that:  “to test either of these hypotheses, one need to dig (literally) into the fossil record.”


This got me thinking.........

I agree that digging into the fossil record will offer clues about the past, but where I see a problem is when a scientific claim is made that digging into the fossil record qualifies as factual evidence of evolution. In other words, what experimentation has been done to confirm that the conclusions drawn from examining  the  fossils are the result of evolution?


It is required that....

Once predictions are made, they can be sought by experiments. If the test results contradict the predictions, the hypotheses which entailed them are called into question and become less tenable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments

So, my question is: what experiments have been done to test the hypothesis that the changes in the fossil record are the result of an evolutionary mechanism?




Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: jaimehlers on February 28, 2014, 11:24:22 AM
Experiments are a subset of tests; indeed, the word experiment is defined as a scientific test.  So the real question is, what kind of testing do scientists do on fossilized remains to check whether they're the results of evolutionary changes.

One test is to determine roughly how old the remains are.  Another is to determine their taxonomy (characteristics shared between organisms).  A third is to test to see how similar their DNA is (and yes, even fossils have DNA (http://www.livescience.com/23861-fossil-dna-half-life.html); it's apparently possible to recover at least some DNA from fossils that are several million years old).  There are probably others as well, but I'm not as knowledgeable about them.

Here's some sources for evidence relating to common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/evidence.htm (http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/evidence.htm)
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11771 (http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11771)
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: median on February 28, 2014, 11:27:27 AM
"No intermediate forms are possible in the fossil record." is not a prediction. It is an assertion based on incredulity.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 11:59:57 AM
Experiments are a subset of tests; indeed, the word experiment is defined as a scientific test.  So the real question is, what kind of testing do scientists do on fossilized remains to check whether they're the results of evolutionary changes.

One test is to determine roughly how old the remains are.  Another is to determine their taxonomy (characteristics shared between organisms).  A third is to test to see how similar their DNA is (and yes, even fossils have DNA (http://www.livescience.com/23861-fossil-dna-half-life.html); it's apparently possible to recover at least some DNA from fossils that are several million years old).  There are probably others as well, but I'm not as knowledgeable about them.

Let me clarify.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable. Experimentation is required to demonstrate that the hypothesized prediction is repeatable and can confirm or falsify the hypothesis. What experimentation has been done to demonstrate that observations made in the fossil record are the result of an evolutionary mechanism?

For example: there is a claim made that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards. What experimentation can be done to confirm this?
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 12:11:14 PM
"No intermediate forms are possible in the fossil record." is not a prediction. It is an assertion based on incredulity.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am making no such claim.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: screwtape on February 28, 2014, 12:15:23 PM
In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable.

yes.

Experimentation is required

yes, but no.

What experimentation has been done to demonstrate that observations made in the fossil record are the result of an evolutionary mechanism?

That's not how it works.  You have a hypothesis.  It should make predictions.  To test the hypothesis, you write down the predictions before looking at the test.  You have someone else collect the data.  Then you compare.  If the predictions match the data, your hypothesis works. 

With evolution, it makes many, many predictions.  One of them is this: as oganisms evolve, some will die out.  They will be present further down in the geological column, but not further up.  New organisms will not be present further down, but will be further up.  To test that - or to experiment - one looks at what fossils are found where.  Older, extinct species - like dinosaurs - are not present beyond a certain point.  Check. Newer species - like , people or modern rabbits - are not found mixed in with dinosaurs.  check.  Test (experiment) confirmed. 

There are other more extensive tests that can be done with genetics, if you look them up.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Dante on February 28, 2014, 12:18:02 PM
For example: there is a claim made that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards. What experimentation can be done to confirm this?

DNA testing, for one, to find out how closely related they might be. And/or finding fossils of transitional species, i.e. a snake-like specimen with vestigal appendages, much like our own coccyx.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs)

edit: added link
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 12:43:23 PM
Experimentation is required

yes, but no.

Why "no,"


Quote
That's not how it works.  You have a hypothesis.  It should make predictions.  To test the hypothesis, you write down the predictions before looking at the test.  You have someone else collect the data.  Then you compare.  If the predictions match the data, your hypothesis works. 

With evolution, it makes many, many predictions.  One of them is this: as oganisms evolve, some will die out.  They will be present further down in the geological column, but not further up.  New organisms will not be present further down, but will be further up.  To test that - or to experiment - one looks at what fossils are found where.  Older, extinct species - like dinosaurs - are not present beyond a certain point.  Check. Newer species - like , people or modern rabbits - are not found mixed in with dinosaurs.  check.  Test (experiment) confirmed. 

There are other more extensive tests that can be done with genetics, if you look them up.

Your analogy leads to a mere assumption that microevolution produces macroevolution.

In order to claim that a snake evolved from a lizard based on the observations made in the fossil record, the scientific method requires that you produce experiments to demonstrate that an evolutionary mechanism is capable of doing what is claimed. Otherwise the claim that snakes evolved from lizards is an assumption. You need to be able to show that this transition is possible through experimentation so that it can repeated and either confirmed or falsified.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 12:46:23 PM
For example: there is a claim made that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards. What experimentation can be done to confirm this?

DNA testing, for one, to find out how closely related they might be. And/or finding fossils of transitional species, i.e. a snake-like specimen with vestigal appendages, much like our own coccyx.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs)

edit: added link

Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing  that result.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 01:05:41 PM
So far the trap bait that this thread is trying to lay is that an "experiment" is the only way to test a hypothesis. And the only way to test the theory of evolution is to reproduce it's results in an "experiment".

So for per his example: You can't recreate the evolution of snakes from reptiles in a lab. Therefore the theory of evolution can't be tested. Therefore it is not valid.

This is riddled with logical fallacies. Demanding experimental evidence that completely reproduces millions of years of biology is in essence a Strawman argument. And the point of this argument is to also draw attention away from the inability to make predictions that support ID theory, thus shifting the burden of proof.

Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Dante on February 28, 2014, 01:06:54 PM

Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility extraordinarily high probability that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is not required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing that result, because we know genetic mutations can do that.

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 01:18:54 PM
So far the trap bait that this thread is trying to lay is that an "experiment" is the only way to test a hypothesis. And the only way to test the theory of evolution is to reproduce it's results in an "experiment".

So for per his example: You can't recreate the evolution of snakes from reptiles in a lab. Therefore the theory of evolution can't be tested. Therefore it is not valid.

This is riddled with logical fallacies. Demanding experimental evidence that completely reproduces millions of years of biology is in essence a Strawman argument. And the point of this argument is to also draw attention away from the inability to make predictions that support ID theory, thus shifting the burden of proof.

I am simply asking, per the scientific method, for someone to demonstrate how perceived similarities can be posited as evolution when there is no way to demonstrate that through experimentation.

Pulling fossils out of the ground and saying “hey, they’re similar, evolution did that” is using the observation as the evidence. You first need to demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the snakes-from-lizard transition before you can claim that evolution is responsible. If you are unable to do that, then you are just begging the question.

Quote
This is riddled with logical fallacies.

Name them, please.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 01:29:03 PM
Several things to keep in mind.

First of all, we have enough DNA evidence to show evolution to be true, even if we didn't have a single fossil to look at.

The fossil record supports evolution, in that it is the only explanation that science can find that accounts for the diversity, the differences in fossils from different periods, the ability to predict which types of fossils will be found in what rocks, and too the fossil record is consistent with plate tectonics and the timeline offered by both.

The fossil record is consistent with biological discoveries (DNA, current speciation, evolution of characteristics in various animals), geology (and no, science does not do a circular reasoning thingy where they date the rocks by the fossils and then date the fossils by the rocks, as often claimed by fundamentalists), it is consistent with the many applicable varieties of radiometric dating, and the fossil record is consistent with the finding of chemistry, climatology, geography and oceanography. To name but a few.

We can track the evolution of dinosaurs along side the evolution of plants. Early plant eating dinosaurs could only eat soft plants, because their mouths had not yet evolved to eat harder materials. But that is about all there was. Soft plants. But as some plants evolved wood structures, so too evolved the plant eating dinosaurs, whose mouths became stronger and better able to eat harder plant foods. And the fossil recored has many an example of plants and animals evolving along side each other as they evolved. Of course, that is mostly animals evolving to eat new types of plants, but the evolved together, not out of sync. And all of this has been studied enough that we can say with confidence that newly discovered fossil beds will reveal a similarly consistent history.

Note that there are no big, meat eating dinosaur fossils in rocks from the Cambian period, where there nothing big and meaty to eat had evolved yet. There is a reason for that.

Gigantic new fossil beds were just discovered in Canada. People who doubt this story should run out there, dig up some stuff in the wrong place, and prove the whole theory wrong. Except they won't be able to, because none of the billions of fossils found have been in inexplicable locations. We can predict, based on the geology, exactly what kinds of fossils will be found, how old they are, and we can also say with certainty what sorts of fossils will not be found in those new formations. If we can do that, isn't is possible that maybe we're right about something?

Note that while DNA in fossils is rare, we can sample the DNA from bugs trapped in flowing sap from many millions of years ago, and what we find is consistent with evolution. Note that when we say we have fossils of insects from the Paleozoic Era, we can say with confidence that we will never find a bird in the same rock layers, because birds hadn't evolved yet. if ID'ers could go out and find just one fossilized bird in rocks identified by scientists as being from the Pennsylvanian period, you guys would win. Evolution would be disproved. Because the timeline revealed by the fossil record, DNA histories, geology, etc. would no longer be reliable.

And again these findings are consistent with other discoveries made across scientific disciplines.

In short, if one looks only at the evidence, there is no other conclusion that can be reached. There are of course squabbles about some of the details, but the general concept of evolution is so obvious now that to claim that it couldn't have happened requires a lot of blindness to the facts.

And note that though I just used the phrase "no other conclusion can be reached", science is still exploring, and it is not impossible that they could find something brand new that they didn't know about in science that indeed disproved evolution as we know it. And if they do, they'll mention it. Yes, it would be controversial for awhile, but if true, we'd eventually figure it out and have a new model of reality for you to diss. Unless your god showed up in the process.

And your question about microevolution/macroevolution. That is an invention of ID'ers, and not relevant to science. A whole bunch of little evolutionary changes will eventually add up to big ones. It is basic math. What reason to organisms have to never change? If DNA is what we use to pass traits on generation to generation, and the process is not foolproof, and if we have enough millions of years to play with, why would everything be the same over time scales that large.

And if things change enough, why would they still be able to mate with much different cousins? If some of the changes involved changes in diploid count or reproductive structures, then we have the definition of a new species.

There is plenty online for you to read about the snake/lizard thing. The question that science is trying to answer now is where that change took place, in the water or on land. There are arguments for both. But the questions isn't whether or not it happened. It is only where.

I know the whole thing sounds fantastic. But if that is where all the evidence takes us, then evolution appears to be true. It didn't happen because we could wrap our minds around it. It happened, and it is our job to decide when and how. Or to find another explanation for all the variety that we've found. And believing in a God create a world where, at present, over 99.9% of all the species that ever existed are extinct, would seem a bit futile. Given what would obviously be some sort of incompetence on his part.

If you are going to get all hung up on one thing again, in this case the proof that fossils demonstrate evolution that you are demanding, while you simultaneously assume it to not be true, this thread isn't going to work either. If you can present an alternative as to how there were, when your god made the place, close to 9 trillion species, but now there are less than .1% left, we'll listen. Until then, its looking like they all evolved here.

ID has the hard job here, not us. We've got too much evidence to back up the scientific POV. And none to back up yours. You should stop arguing with us and go find something that counters scientific claims.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 01:29:13 PM

Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility extraordinarily high probability that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is not required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing that result, because we know genetic mutations can do that.

Fixed it for you.

Please show me an experiment that demonstrates there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing a snakes-from-lizards transition.

There is a difference between high probability and fact and if you are going to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, then you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing those results..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed.

You cannot simply "assume" that  snakes evolved from lizards based on observations in the fossil record and similarities in DNA. That is not scientific. It must be demonstrated using the scientific method.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 01:37:30 PM


Quote
This is riddled with logical fallacies.

Name them, please.

Read again, I did.

Strawman - misrepresenting the problem to make it easier to argue.

Shifting the Burden of Proof - propping up the strawman "snake evolution can't be repeated in a lab, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not true" (paraphrased) does nothing to suggest that ID adequately explains the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago. Which is really the argument you need to be making.

So how does ID explain the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago? Or crocodilians 85 million years ago? Or turtles 220 million years ago? Or Reptiles themselves 340 million years ago?

What is the proposed mechanism for ID to cause this to happen? What predictions would you make based on this hypothesis?


Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: screwtape on February 28, 2014, 01:39:38 PM
Why "no,"

I suspect what you mean by "experiment" is not what scientists mean.


Your analogy leads to a mere assumption that microevolution produces macroevolution.

It's not an analogy.  It is exactly how it works.  And it is not an assumption.  It is part of the hypothesis and it is testable, as explained. 

In order to claim that a snake evolved from a lizard...

That was not what the OP was and not what I was responding to.  Let's settle the original questions and claims before moving on, yes?


the scientific method requires ...

As I said, you seem to have something else in mind when you say "experiment".  Also, you seem to jettison prior points that have been addressed.  This makes answering your questions feel like a pointless waste of time and effort. 


Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing  that result.

Except that those remnants are predicted by evolutionary theory.  That they are there confirms a test - an experiment, if you rather - that affirms and does not falsify evolution.  This is the kind of transitional form you creationists have such a hard-on over.  Yet when we show them to you, you lose your shit and come up with 101 excuses as to why it doesn't count or counts against us.

You seem to save up all your skepticism for evolution.  How's about instead you spread a little onto the ridiculous claims of women being turned into salt, talking snakes and mules, and city walls being knocked down by some Bronze Age doofus tooting a horn?  How about you turn your skepticism toward that shit for a change?

As for your reply to Brad, if you don't up your game, I'm going to lock this thread.

Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 01:45:16 PM

Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility extraordinarily high probability that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is not required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing that result, because we know genetic mutations can do that.

Fixed it for you.

Please show me an experiment that demonstrates there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing a snakes-from-lizards transition.

There is a difference between high probability and fact and if you are going to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, then you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing those results..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed.

You cannot simply "assume" that  snakes evolved from lizards based on observations in the fossil record and similarities in DNA. That is not scientific. It must be demonstrated using the scientific method.

You are asking the wrong question. You seem to be insisting that we should be able to toss a couple of things in a test tube and show our results. Not all science is like that. We have no ability to compress time and create results that took millions of years in two weeks.

I started a thread yesterday in the Science section that talked about research into evolution using bacteria. Over 59,000 generations some of the bacteria evolved the ability to live off of another food source, one that the original bacteria could not eat. That took over 20 years. And no changes were encountered for the first 20,000 generations. But the change did take place. And while they have not yet confirmed that the new bacteria is a new species, common sense tells us that if bacteria 1 can only eat food A, and bacteria 2 and eat both food foods A and B, and then we run short on food A, that bacteria 2 will be more likely to survive eating plentiful supplies of food B, and more changes will happen in the next 59,000 iterations of that bacteria, and eventually bacteria's 1 and 2 will be too different to mate. And clearly be two species.

Snakes have had 59,000 generations too. In fact, since the earliest lizards, they have had over 32 billion generations to evolve without legs. Why would every species stay the same over 320 million years if every single one had DNA that could be altered every single generation?

Personally, I'd be more surprised if they didn't change. But like you, my opinion is irrelevant. But it appears they they have indeed changed over time.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Dante on February 28, 2014, 01:46:53 PM

Similarities (including DNA similarities) between fossils can point to the possibility extraordinarily high probability that snakes may have evolved from lizards, but experimentation is not required in order to demonstrate that there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing that result, because we know genetic mutations can do that.

Fixed it for you.

Please show me an experiment that demonstrates there is an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing a snakes-from-lizards transition.

There is a difference between high probability and fact and if you are going to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a theory and a fact, then you need to adhere to the scientific method and demonstrate that there exists an evolutionary mechanism capable of producing those results..... and, in order to do that, you must perform experiments that are measurable and  repeatable so that the hypothesis can either be falsified or confirmed.

You cannot simply "assume" that  snakes evolved from lizards based on observations in the fossil record and similarities in DNA. That is not scientific. It must be demonstrated using the scientific method.

Look man, if you wish to remain incredulous and oblivious, that's your prerogative. I don't really care. But, you are so wrong about so many things here, including how science works, I don't think it a fruitful use of my time and energy to explain something so obvious and proven to one that will not accept it because it goes against his preconceived misconceptions about how the world works. Others have already tried, and obviously failed, to enlighten you from your burden of ignorance.

Enjoy your nescience.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 01:47:43 PM
First of all, we have enough DNA evidence to show evolution to be true, even if we didn't have a single fossil to look at.

You can deduce that if you’d like but in order for it to be scientific, it needs to be demonstrated using the scientific method otherwise you are just making assumptions.


Quote
In short, if one looks only at the evidence, there is no other conclusion that can be reached. There are of course squabbles about some of the details, but the general concept of evolution is so obvious now that to claim that it couldn't have happened requires a lot of blindness to the facts.


Assumptions do not equal science. Unless you can support your conclusions with science, you are claiming that something is science when it is not. Where are the experiments to demonstrate that snakes CAN evolve from lizards?


Quote
And your question about microevolution/macroevolution. That is an invention of ID'ers, and not relevant to science.


The author of the article I referenced in the OP makes a distinction between macroevolution and microevolution in order to frame her analogy.


Quote
There is plenty online for you to read about the snake/lizard thing. The question that science is trying to answer now is where that change took place, in the water or on land. There are arguments for both. But the questions isn't whether or not it happened. It is only where.


Actually, it is more of a question of “how”, not where….and until there is scientific evidence to support an evolutionary mechanism capable of produce this transition, you are simply assuming that it happened.


While I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your thoughts on the OP, a wall of words is not making your argument very scientific.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
Read again, I did.

Strawman - misrepresenting the problem to make it easier to argue.


Simply claiming a strawman by asserting misrepresentation is no evidence of a strawman.. What is the misrepresentation?


Quote
Shifting the Burden of Proof - propping up the strawman "snake evolution can't be repeated in a lab, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not true" (paraphrased) does nothing to suggest that ID adequately explains the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago. Which is really the argument you need to be making.

So how does ID explain the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago? Or crocodilians 85 million years ago? Or turtles 220 million years ago? Or Reptiles themselves 340 million years ago?

What is the proposed mechanism for ID to cause this to happen? What predictions would you make based on this hypothesis?


Your assessment of my argument is incorrect. I have not stated in this thread that snake evolution is not true. I have said that snake evolution is an assumption and unscientific because it cannot be confirmed or falsified using the scientific method.

This is NOT an argument for or against Intelligent Design and I have said nothing to suggest that it is…so, please don’t poison the well.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:06:33 PM
You are asking the wrong question. You seem to be insisting that we should be able to toss a couple of things in a test tube and show our results.

No. I am simply asking that the evidence be based on the scientific evidence. Where is the scientific evidence (based on observable, repeatable, and falsifiable experiments) to demonstrate that an evolutionary mechanism can produce a snakes-from-lizards transition.

Quote
Not all science is like that. We have no ability to compress time and create results that took millions of years in two weeks.

Then, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there is nothing empirical about your claim that snakes evolved from lizards. You are simply assuming that whatever similarities exist were caused by evolution but you cannot demonstrate that. That makes the claim unscientific.


Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:08:14 PM
Look man, if you wish to remain incredulous and oblivious, that's your prerogative. I don't really care. But, you are so wrong about so many things here, including how science works, I don't think it a fruitful use of my time and energy to explain something so obvious and proven to one that will not accept it because it goes against his preconceived misconceptions about how the world works. Others have already tried, and obviously failed, to enlighten you from your burden of ignorance.

Enjoy your nescience.

I will take that as an admission that you are unable to demonstrate a snakes-from-lizards transition and that it is, therefore, unscientific to claim that it occurred.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 02:13:43 PM
This whole conversation would be a lot of easier if you would just admit, up front, that you don't want an answer.

We can manually manipulate genes and bring about changes in offspring using drysophila or other little critters.

Every single instance of reproduction has genetic variation. It is impossible for the DNA of the parents to be transmitted whole and completely intact to the offspring. DNA is not that accurate, And some of those changes will result in big enough changes in the child to give it a new advantage. Not always after after one change, but perhaps after several generations and several more positive changes.

But most changes will be detrimental. And oft times, the offspring won't even survive. However, those changes that make for a better critter, if passed on and further adjusted, will eventually create a new species.

I know you don't like it. I know you want proof that meets your desperate standards. I know you won't look in the right places. But at least I haven't stood around and just stared at the train wreck that is your thought process.



Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:18:53 PM
This whole conversation would be a lot of easier if you would just admit, up front, that you don't want an answer.

We can manually manipulate genes and bring about changes in offspring using drysophila or other little critters.

Every single instance of reproduction has genetic variation. It is impossible for the DNA of the parents to be transmitted whole and completely intact to the offspring. DNA is not that accurate, And some of those changes will result in big enough changes in the child to give it a new advantage. Not always after after one change, but perhaps after several generations and several more positive changes.

But most changes will be detrimental. And oft times, the offspring won't even survive. However, those changes that make for a better critter, if passed on and further adjusted, will eventually create a new species.

I know you don't like it. I know you want proof that meets your desperate standards. I know you won't look in the right places. But at least I haven't stood around and just stared at the train wreck that is your thought process.

It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using  the observation as your evidence and that is not science.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Ataraxia on February 28, 2014, 02:24:31 PM
Macroevolution is an observable fact. Speciation happens:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 02:33:32 PM
This whole conversation would be a lot of easier if you would just admit, up front, that you don't want an answer.

We can manually manipulate genes and bring about changes in offspring using drysophila or other little critters.

Every single instance of reproduction has genetic variation. It is impossible for the DNA of the parents to be transmitted whole and completely intact to the offspring. DNA is not that accurate, And some of those changes will result in big enough changes in the child to give it a new advantage. Not always after after one change, but perhaps after several generations and several more positive changes.

But most changes will be detrimental. And oft times, the offspring won't even survive. However, those changes that make for a better critter, if passed on and further adjusted, will eventually create a new species.

I know you don't like it. I know you want proof that meets your desperate standards. I know you won't look in the right places. But at least I haven't stood around and just stared at the train wreck that is your thought process.

It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using  the observation as your evidence and that is not science.

No, observation is science. When combined with other data.

It is possible for DNA to change across generations. It is possible for physical changes to occur because of said change. It is possible for some of those changes to be advantageous. (Most of them are not, but the law of averages applies. Sometimes they will be.) We can observe DNA directly. We can see the differences between generations. We can tell what those differences do. We can find the mechanism for natural change in DNA, and we note that it at times causes changes in offspring.

All we have to go on is billions of pieces of evidence, all of which is consistent with the above.

But that's not enough for you. And if it is not, we can't help you. Your voluntary stay in the dark ages will just have to continue. We tried.

Because it is very much a matter of whether or not you like it. And you don't. And that is about all it takes for you to negate it. That plus haughty questions for which no answer will ever be good enough.

Which is a great combination. That you apparently evolved to value. At least appreciate that part.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:35:12 PM
Macroevolution is an observable fact. Speciation happens:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

- NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change.
 
- The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where 
  a "species" is defined according to the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated
  population." Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via
  hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change.
 
- Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated
  population of animals--however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned
  in the FAQ.

- Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals--e.g. the establishment of a
   completely reproductively isolated population--is given in the FAQ.
http://www.discovery.org/f/8411
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 02:37:37 PM
Read again, I did.

Strawman - misrepresenting the problem to make it easier to argue.


Simply claiming a strawman by asserting misrepresentation is no evidence of a strawman.. What is the misrepresentation?



You are insisting that the only way to "test" the theory of evolution is to recreate it in lab experiment. That is a strawman.

Shifting the Burden of Proof - propping up the strawman "snake evolution can't be repeated in a lab, therefore it is not testable, therefore it is not true" (paraphrased) does nothing to suggest that ID adequately explains the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago. Which is really the argument you need to be making.

So how does ID explain the appearance of snakes in the fossil record 112 million years ago? Or crocodilians 85 million years ago? Or turtles 220 million years ago? Or Reptiles themselves 340 million years ago?

What is the proposed mechanism for ID to cause this to happen? What predictions would you make based on this hypothesis?


Your assessment of my argument is incorrect. I have not stated in this thread that snake evolution is not true. I have said that snake evolution is an assumption and unscientific because it cannot be confirmed or falsified using the scientific method.

This is NOT an argument for or against Intelligent Design and I have said nothing to suggest that it is…so, please don’t poison the well.

Snake evolution could most certainly can be falsified. Modern snake fossils in the Devonian would falsify our hypothesis that snakes evolved from reptilian ancestors. Minimal DNA similarities between snakes and other modern reptiles (supposed descendants from a common ancestor) would falsify it.

Science is not rendered "unscientific" by your biased reductive application of it's methods.

Snakes have evolved. For a billions of years there were no snakes on Earth. Then a 110 or so million years ago there were a few snakes. Then 60 million years ago there were lots of snakes of many different kinds. Now there are snakes on every continent except Antarctica, and the are not the same as the snakes 60, or 110 million years ago.

That's evolution.

So how did it happen? Snakes have DNA that can be changed. Modern snake DNA is very similar among other snakes, it is less similar to modern lizards and even less similar to modern turtles and crocdilians. It is even less similar to modern mammals.

DNA differences makes a species distinct.
DNA can change with each generation.
Species have changed over time.
DNA changes over time is a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the mechanism of species change over time. (Evolution of species)
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:43:40 PM
No, observation is science. When combined with other data.

It is possible for DNA to change across generations. It is possible for physical changes to occur because of said change. It is possible for some of those changes to be advantageous. (Most of them are not, but the law of averages applies. Sometimes they will be.) We can observe DNA directly. We can see the differences between generations. We can tell what those differences do. We can find the mechanism for natural change in DNA, and we note that it at times causes changes in offspring.

All we have to go on is billions of pieces of evidence, all of which is consistent with the above.

But that's not enough for you. And if it is not, we can't help you. Your voluntary stay in the dark ages will just have to continue. We tried.

Because it is very much a matter of whether or not you like it. And you don't. And that is about all it takes for you to negate it. That plus haughty questions for which no answer will ever be good enough.

Which is a great combination. That you apparently evolved to value. At least appreciate that part.

Yes, observation is science but observation alone is not science.

I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Dante on February 28, 2014, 02:50:13 PM
I will take that as an admission that you are unable to demonstrate a snakes-from-lizards transition and that it is, therefore, unscientific to claim that it occurred.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs

Why does this snake have a vestigal limb? Did your god do that too? Puposefully fucked up this snake?
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 02:55:38 PM
Yes, observation is science but observation alone is not science.

I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.

So in order to use the scientific method we must make no assumptions? Not true. If it were so, then the only things we could approach scientifically would be things we knew perfectly. ie. Nothing.

Science only requires that we are willing to change our assumptions if the are falsified by future data. I.e. Snakes in the Devonian
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 02:58:50 PM
So how did it happen? Snakes have DNA that can be changed. Modern snake DNA is very similar among other snakes, it is less similar to modern lizards and even less similar to modern turtles and crocdilians. It is even less similar to modern mammals.

DNA differences makes a species distinct.
DNA can change with each generation.
Species have changed over time.
DNA changes over time is a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the mechanism of species change over time. (Evolution of species)

Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 03:07:21 PM
Yes, observation is science but observation alone is not science.

I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.

So in order to use the scientific method we must make no assumptions? Not true. If it were so, then the only things we could approach scientifically would be things we knew perfectly. ie. Nothing.

Science only requires that we are willing to change our assumptions if the are falsified by future data. I.e. Snakes in the Devonian

Of course you can make assumptions. That's not my contention. My contention is that you need to be able to test those assumptions using the scientific method.

Regardless of how much the natural world "suggests" that snakes evolved from lizards, the absence of a proper scientific analysis (using the scientific method) renders whatever you deduce from the "suggestions" as nothing more than an assumption. Now, it may be a very very strong assumption but it is an assumption just the same….and whatever conclusion you draw cannot be deemed scientific.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Foxy Freedom on February 28, 2014, 03:09:37 PM
Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?

When some of your vestigial organs start causing you pain, we will remind you that they don't exist, so you cannot have an operation to save your life because that would not be scientific.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 03:13:45 PM
So how did it happen? Snakes have DNA that can be changed. Modern snake DNA is very similar among other snakes, it is less similar to modern lizards and even less similar to modern turtles and crocdilians. It is even less similar to modern mammals.

DNA differences makes a species distinct.
DNA can change with each generation.
Species have changed over time.
DNA changes over time is a falsifiable hypothesis to explain the mechanism of species change over time. (Evolution of species)

Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?

Yes.

I predict that the snake species of planet Earth 10 million years in the future will be different from the current species of snakes. New species will be present and many current species will be extinct.

If we record the genome of snake species at intervals over that time period we will be able to demonstrate key genetic changes that resulted in the differentiation of these future snakes from their current Earth ancestors.

I further predict that these changes will be less obvious at shorter time intervals, such as 10, 100 and 1000 years. But at 100,000 and 1,000,000 they will be more obvious.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 03:18:34 PM
BS

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?

Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

It would help to know if you understand anything about the scientific claims.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Jag on February 28, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
BS

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?

Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

It would help to know if you understand anything about the scientific claims.

I think (I may be wrong) the problem is in the part I bolded above. Evolution denying theists, particularly those who draw the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, seem to misunderstand what the ToE is saying about how an entity evolves - and they're not interested enough to find out for themselves. If they actually cared, they'd use the technology they use to argue with us about it and try to find out what the ToE actualy says; there are thousands of good science sites, and we provide plenty of links to factual information about it. Instead you get bullcrap excuses about why they can't possibly take the time to explain their understanding of it, because they'd far rather waste time continuing to post nonsense and demand that we explain it to them - go figure.

If they gave a damn about understanding it, they'd go educate themselves. They don't, on either count.

If the theist in question is a YEC there's no point in discussing anything about evolution with them.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 03:32:40 PM
I will take that as an admission that you are unable to demonstrate a snakes-from-lizards transition and that it is, therefore, unscientific to claim that it occurred.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs

Why does this snake have a vestigal limb? Did your god do that too? Puposefully fucked up this snake?

This has no bearing on the topic being discussed. Please start another thread if you would an explanation. I prefer to avoid having this thread go off in a bunch of different directions.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Ataraxia on February 28, 2014, 03:39:05 PM
Oh shit, we haven't produced an experiment in the lab to show a planet forming through gravitational processes! That theory of gravity is like, just so unscientific, man.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: nogodsforme on February 28, 2014, 03:49:19 PM
So, BibleStudent, you think that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for evolution. However, every other field of science supports evolution, from geology to immunology. Are these other fields also without scientific, empirical evidence?

Why do you think all other sciences support evolution if it is completely wrong? Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy among working scientists to cover up the fact that evolution is false?  Are people just making up stuff and somehow other scientists accept it and even give prizes for this fake science? What do you honestly think is happening?

You say you want to see an experiment that shows actual evolution from a lizard to a snake. Well, so does every biologist on the planet, but guess what? It may never be possible to do that particular experiment. Does that mean that all the other evidence for evolution has been invalidated?[1]

Evolution has passed every challenge that science can throw at it. If it had failed even one of the thousands of tests, experiments, whatever you want to call them,[2],  then scientists would have long ago abandoned it and we would not even be having this conversation. Evolution would have been thrown into the dustbin of history along with phrenology, alchemy and astrology-- stuff that used to be considered scientific until falsified.

Why do you think that scientists have been unable to falsify evolution, if it is indeed false? When you cannot falsify something, in science you act as though it is true and go on from there. If when you act as though the thing is true and your applications work as if the thing is true, again, you continue to act as though it is true. And so on. After 150 years of acting as though evolution was true, and no signs of it being false, it does not even matter if nobody has yet designed the exact experiment demonstrating evolutionary mechanisms happening in real time. Evolution works, whether someone is ever able to do that experiment or not.

I hope that you realize that science is a piecemeal enterprise where there is never a complete answer to a question. But when you have a theory that gives enough of the pieces to make predictions that are accurate, and to develop new fields of science based on the theory, wouldn't that indicate that the theory was fact?

I am really interested in this discussion, because as a college professor, I increasingly encounter students with this anti-evolution perspective. The anti-evolution stuff seems pretty new, like only 20 years old. My colleagues in other fields are dealing with it as well.[3]

When I was studying earth science years ago, we students rarely challenged the professors on things that were considered settled by the mountains of evidence, like the age of the earth and the theory of evolution.

What is strange is that nowadays the evidence is so overwhelming compared to 100, 50 or even 25 years ago, that in order to maintain the anti-evolution stance, there has to be some real...I don't even know what to call it. Willful blindness? I am not going to be negative or snarky here, because I want to understand where our anti-evolution students are coming, so we can better reach them with real science.
 1. Seems to me that you are like a kid who refuses to believe that nasty raw eggs, dry sugar, liquid milk and mushy butter could somehow add up to a delicious birthday cake. If you just look at the ingredients and then at the finished cake without accepting that chemical reactions, time and heat are involved then of course it looks impossible, like maybe it had to be magic.
 2. if the DNA of chimps was more similar to reptiles than humans, for example, or if dinosaurs were found to have eaten meat from cows and horses
 3. Just this week a fellow instructor said she was so exhausted by dealing with the anti-science minority who continuously derail her classroom lectures that she was seriously thinking of quitting.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 03:49:52 PM
BS

Are you under the impression that science is saying that snakes evolved from lizards because there was some foresight involved. That nature wanted to make legless lizards and that science thinks that the change was deliberate?

No. I am not saying that and I am not sure why you suspect that I am?


Quote
Or do you recognize that the change you are so hung up on was, via scientific claims on such things, an accidental byproduct of DNA changes, not an intent?


If snakes evolved from lizards, then what is the evolutionary mechanism that performed the transition and can you demonstrate via the scientific method that the hypothesis is correct?

And, by the way, I am using snakes-from-lizards as an example. I am not challenging claims about this specific alleged transition….I am challenging the claim that such an alleged transition is a scientifically based claim. 

You can’t dig a hole and allow a presupposition to conclude that whatever similarities might exist in the fossils are automatically the result of evolution. You need to be able to, first, demonstrate scientifically that evolution is the cause for the observations before you can claim that evolution is responsible. Otherwise, it is science….it is speculation and assumption.


Quote
Even if you don't agree, do you understand that science is making no claims that the change was deliberate, but rather, was the byproduct of random mutations?

Sure….but, at this point, it would be more accurate to say that ‘snakes-from-lizards’ change was the alleged byproduct of random mutations. The hypothesis for this claim has not ever been adequately tested in a scientific manner.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Foxy Freedom on February 28, 2014, 03:50:06 PM
It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using  the observation as your evidence and that is not science.

Is observation not science? What about astronomy? What about black holes? What about planets and environments? What about the weather? What is most of science, if not observation?

You are refusing to accept just some part of science because of your delusions?

Why do you do this? Remember that the ape in the mirror is not as clever as he might think. He is just an ape after all.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 03:58:26 PM
Like I said, your standards are too strange to be met. No, we cannot take a lizard and make its legs go away, but we could probably figure out which genes make legs, modify them so they don't work, and presto, a legless lizard. That would be mean and you wouldn't like it anyway.

We can track the changes in fossils over millions of years, but that isn't good enough for you. We can detail the mechanisms of DNA changes, but that isn't good enough for you. We can show that evolution has had billions of years to create our current life forms, but that isn't enough for you. We can show you DNA comparisons between snakes and lizards and show how similar they are, but that isn't good enough for you. We can create evolutionary changes artificially in a lab environment, but that isn't good enough for you. We can find the similarities in the genetics of all living things, but that isn't good enough for you. We can show you what appear to be close relationships between differing species (snake and lizards) and show you species that don't look at all alike and show how their DNA is very different, and that isn't good enough for you.

And you can't show us anything but an alleged god, who made, as per evidence we do have, billions of life forms that couldn't survive living on his perfect planet. You haven't got any evidence whatsoever except one book, which you're reading things into, and that isn't good enough for us.

So, we're at a standstill.

Can we talk about the weather or something. It sucks here in Montana today. And most everywhere else too. Lets just complain about that. It doesn't have DNA.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 04:05:07 PM
You say you want to see an experiment that shows actual evolution from a lizard to a snake. Well, so does every biologist on the planet, but guess what? It may never be possible to do that particular experiment. Does that mean that all the other evidence for evolution has been invalidated?

No. It just means that the ToE is misleading people by claiming that it is a theory and a fact when a substantial part of it is not based on scientific evidence. Macroevolution is an assumption and unscientific because the scientific method has not been used to verify whether an evolutionary mechanism is capable of producing a snakes-from-lizards type transition.


Quote
Seems to me that you are like a kid who refuses to believe that nasty raw eggs, dry sugar, liquid milk and mushy butter could somehow add up to a delicious birthday cake. If you just look at the ingredients and then at the finished cake without accepting that chemical reactions, time and heat are involved then of course it looks impossible, like maybe it had to be magic.

In this thread, I am not claiming that evolution is false. Instead, I am demonstrating that macroevolution from microevolution is an unscientific conclusion.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
It really is not a matter of whether I like it or not. This is a very specific point about whether similarities in the fossil record can be scientifically shown to have resulted from a biological evolutionary pathway. Because, if it can’t, then you are merely making an assumption that evolution is responsible. You are, in effect, using  the observation as your evidence and that is not science.

Is observation not science? What about astronomy? What about black holes? What about planets and environments? What about the weather? What is most of science, if not observation?

You are refusing to accept just some part of science because of your delusions?

Why do you do this? Remember that the ape in the mirror is not as clever as he might think. He is just an ape after all.

All you have to do is show me how a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition has been tested using the scientific method. The evolutionary pathway responsible for this transition needs to be tested in an observable, measurable, and falsifiable way. Absent that, any claims that snakes evolved from lizards is a mere assumption and unscientific.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Foxy Freedom on February 28, 2014, 04:11:22 PM
In this thread, I am not claiming that evolution is false. Instead, I am demonstrating that macroevolution from microevolution is an unscientific conclusion.

I bet you have never demonstrated anything in your life. What makes you think think you have the ability to challenge the experts on this?
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: BibleStudent on February 28, 2014, 04:13:47 PM
Like I said, your standards are too strange to be met.

My standards are scientific. If you can demonstrate that my standards are not scientific then my standards are not "strange."


Quote
No, we cannot take a lizard and make its legs go away,

Then any claims that it occurred is based on an assumption that has no scientific value.


Quote
Can we talk about the weather or something. It sucks here in Montana today. And most everywhere else too. Lets just complain about that. It doesn't have DNA.

Yeah, it sucks where I'm at, too....but TGIF !!!!
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: Brad the Bold on February 28, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
In this thread, I am not claiming that evolution is false. Instead, I am demonstrating that macroevolution from microevolution is an unscientific conclusion.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

Respondents have shown that the ToE (which encompasses your false dichotomy of micro vs macro-evolution)

-Corresponds to the observed evidence
-Can be used to make predictions
-Has made predictions that have been validated
-Has no alternatives that better fit the observed evidence or make valid predictions not made by the ToE.

SCIENCE



Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: ParkingPlaces on February 28, 2014, 04:19:57 PM
Like I said, lets stick to the weather. Scientists think they have plenty of scientific information that makes evolution valid. That it doesn't meet your standards puts an end to the entire endeavor, I guess. We'll all just stop, go back in time, start hitting our women with clubs and chalk it all up to some mysterious deity that otherwise never shows.

If it means no more reality TV, I'm all for it.
Title: Re: Unscientific Macroevolutionary Conclusions
Post by: screwtape on February 28, 2014, 04:22:44 PM
Are you able to demonstrate that your hypothesis is accurate using the scientific method?

I warned you in my post that you chose to ignore.  You are not going to continue to abuse this forum by deliberately ignoring and mischaracterizing actual science.