Evolution

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/160#post_3376647
Another case of mixed definitions. Creationists are not irrational if you use the definition that it means a lack of understanding (granted there are quite a few people who do not understand evolution-but not all and that's what is important and just as many people who believe in evolution do not understand it, so we're even on that ground). I think that's what you are thinking when I refer to someone as being irrational. I was not meaning to insult.
What I was expressing was the definition of complete belief without proof. Creationists believe in something and then some try to find evidence for it whereas scientists find evidence first and believe later. That's why it isn't science and there is nothing wrong with that.
Wow, you have drunk the proverbial coolaid. Maybe you should take a step back and realize you're being fed a load of crap.
 

slouiscar

Member
Evolution is a fact, intelligent design is faith, as evidence is not likely to exist or be discovered to prove it as fact. That does not imply that the two are mutually exclusive. The notion that one disproves the other is an ideological false choice.
One can look at available evidence and then formulate theory and still believe that there is a higher power influencing outcomes. Or, one could instead place their faith in the belief that outcomes resulted from vast expanses of time filled with chance mutation and selection. (or ancient aliens, etc.)
I am not convinced that either is provable. How do you find evidence that the introduction of a trait was random? Individuals will decide, was it random or design? That choice is based in faith regardless of the individual's preferred belief.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/160#post_3376741
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein
Again, I'm not talking about faith. I'm talking about fact-fitting. Fact-fitting does not follow rational thinking. There is nothing wrong with that.
You have changed what you are talking about so many times now..........................You are worse than a politician.
Oh, and I meant, who are you explaining what a creationist is, to? No one mentioned creationists.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by slouiscar http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376762
Evolution is a fact, intelligent design is faith, as evidence is not likely to exist or be discovered to prove it as fact. That does not imply that the two are mutually exclusive. The notion that one disproves the other is an ideological false choice.
One can look at available evidence and then formulate theory and still believe that there is a higher power influencing outcomes. Or, one could instead place their faith in the belief that outcomes resulted from vast expanses of time filled with chance mutation and selection. (or ancient aliens, etc.)
I am not convinced that either is provable. How do you find evidence that the introduction of a trait was random? Individuals will decide, was it random or design? That choice is based in faith regardless of the individual's preferred belief.
Micro or Macro Evolution is fact? If you state both, please show me the science, as I know only one has been proven.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376776
Micro or Macro Evolution is fact? If you state both, please show me the science, as I know only one has been proven.
Appearance of new species has been observed under laboratory conditions many times, and in the wild as well. There is no known barrier between the small changes that some term "microevolution", and the accumulation of those changes into so-called "macroevolution". This is a false distinction that has the virtue (if you are an evolution denier) that the goalpost can be continually moved as new evidence proves a previous assertion to be wrong. If the appearance of a new species of mosquito demonstrates speciation through natural selection, then just insist that the differences in the new species is insufficient, and is no more than "microevolution:".
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376792
Appearance of new species has been observed under laboratory conditions many times, and in the wild as well. There is no known barrier between the small changes that some term "microevolution", and the accumulation of those changes into so-called "macroevolution". This is a false distinction that has the virtue (if you are an evolution denier) that the goalpost can be continually moved as new evidence proves a previous assertion to be wrong. If the appearance of a new species of mosquito demonstrates speciation through natural selection, then just insist that the differences in the new species is insufficient, and is no more than "microevolution:".
Making the assumption we know what is on the planet, and a new species is a proof of evolution is pretty dang arrogant...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Appearance of new species has been observed under laboratory conditions many times, and in the wild as well.  There is no known barrier between the small changes that some term "microevolution", and the accumulation of those changes into so-called "macroevolution".  This is a false distinction that has the virtue (if you are an evolution denier) that the goalpost can be continually moved as new evidence proves a previous assertion to be wrong.  If the appearance of a new species of mosquito demonstrates speciation through natural selection, then just insist that the differences in the new species is insufficient, and is no more than "microevolution:".
 
If that mosquito gives offspring or morphs into a bird...then let me know. Till then, it is no different than a human born with 3 arms........still human....but with a new arm.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Is a mutation a form of evolution? Don't viruses have the ability to do this or is this idea still theory?
 

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376776
Micro or Macro Evolution is fact? If you state both, please show me the science, as I know only one has been proven.
Darwin cited evidence for “micro-evolution.” The discovery of 14 different finches on the Galapagos, derived from a common ancestor, was the primary evidence cited for micro-evolution. The birds were each very different, yet closely related.
"From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or “macro-evolution.” He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms."
From this summary I take micro to be supported by facts... while macro is extrapolated, hypothesis... a proposed explanation for an observation. One that resulted in the ongoing grail quest for missing macro evolutionary links.
That aside, the purpose of my post was to ask the question, can evidence be found to prove that the introduction of new traits are the result of random gene mutation over eons? If there is no evidence are we then left to decide, is it faith in randomness, or faith in a higher power?
 

darthtang aw

Active Member


Did you know that we discovered whales have inactive genes for growing legs?

Did you know humans have an inactive gene for synthesising vitamin c.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376804
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376792
Appearance of new species has been observed under laboratory conditions many times, and in the wild as well. There is no known barrier between the small changes that some term "microevolution", and the accumulation of those changes into so-called "macroevolution". This is a false distinction that has the virtue (if you are an evolution denier) that the goalpost can be continually moved as new evidence proves a previous assertion to be wrong. If the appearance of a new species of mosquito demonstrates speciation through natural selection, then just insist that the differences in the new species is insufficient, and is no more than "microevolution:".
If that mosquito gives offspring or morphs into a bird...then let me know. Till then, it is no different than a human born with 3 arms........still human....but with a new arm.
If that mosquito gives offspring or morphs into a bird I will let the world know that evolution is incorrect (and will become quite famous in the process). The sudden appearance of a new species is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. Read about "ring species" to see how evolution predicts change.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by slouiscar http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3376812
Darwin cited evidence for “micro-evolution.” The discovery of 14 different finches on the Galapagos, derived from a common ancestor, was the primary evidence cited for micro-evolution. The birds were each very different, yet closely related.
"From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or “macro-evolution.” He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms."
From this summary I take micro to be supported by facts... while macro is extrapolated, hypothesis... a proposed explanation for an observation. One that resulted in the ongoing grail quest for missing macro evolutionary links.
That aside, the purpose of my post was to ask the question, can evidence be found to prove that the introduction of new traits are the result of random gene mutation over eons? If there is no evidence are we then left to decide, is it faith in randomness, or faith in a higher power?
I think it is important that we speak the same language. It would help me if you could precisely define what you mean by "macroevolution", and how specifically it is different from "microevolution". Be aware that I will hold you to those definitions when I refute them. By macroevolution do you mean speciation? The appearance of a subspecies? The appearance of a completely new life form in one massive change? People want to know.
By the way, you have simplified Darwin's work to the point that it (your objection) is meaningless, and you have ignored 150 years of follow-up science that has failed to discredit Darwin in any major way, and with each scientific breakthrough has only supported his ideas.
One idea of Darwin's (if you can call it that) that has been revised by subsequent is the role of mutation. Darwin never proposed genetic mutation as the driver behind evolutionary change. Genetics was a pretty much unknown field, and the very concept of a gene would not become widely recognized for another 30-40 years. Darwin just spoke about change, and how natural selection would work on the diversity that appears in every generation. With the advent of the gene concept much focus was placed on random mutation. We now know that much of generational diversity is the result not of gene mutation, but of genetic rearrangement or duplication, resulting in existing genes acquiring either new functions or new regulatory mechanisms.
 

slouiscar

Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution/180#post_3377001
I think it is important that we speak the same language. It would help me if you could precisely define what you mean by "macroevolution", and how specifically it is different from "microevolution". Be aware that I will hold you to those definitions when I refute them. By macroevolution do you mean speciation? The appearance of a subspecies? The appearance of a completely new life form in one massive change? People want to know.
By the way, you have simplified Darwin's work to the point that it (your objection) is meaningless, and you have ignored 150 years of follow-up science that has failed to discredit Darwin in any major way, and with each scientific breakthrough has only supported his ideas.
One idea of Darwin's (if you can call it that) that has been revised by subsequent is the role of mutation. Darwin never proposed genetic mutation as the driver behind evolutionary change. Genetics was a pretty much unknown field, and the very concept of a gene would not become widely recognized for another 30-40 years. Darwin just spoke about change, and how natural selection would work on the diversity that appears in every generation. With the advent of the gene concept much focus was placed on random mutation. We now know that much of generational diversity is the result not of gene mutation, but of genetic rearrangement or duplication, resulting in existing genes acquiring either new functions or new regulatory mechanisms.
Ouch. No need to get your panties in a bunch. But I like to play along... Let me break this into pieces I can chew.
I am not a scientist. I do not claim to generate my own definition to existing theories. But for the record, my personal definition includes the following:
Macro is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macro studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with micro, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes within a species or population.
...to quote wikipedia:
"The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species."
Refute away.
 
Top