Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 5:29 PM
68 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,220 Year: 24,061/28,606 Month: 1,362/1,786 Week: 224/423 Day: 61/73 Hour: 3/3

Internal Message Text
 
 
 
 
 
The purpose is to get a <i>creationist</i> definition of what "large scale change" is -- it is their criteria.

From Beretta again ([mid=435995]):

[qs]Except with evolutionists -they have faith that evolution (large scale) has occurred despite the lack of evidence. Take RAZD's foraminifera for example - they remain foraminifera, that much is obvious but to him that is a pure example of evolution at its most obvious. How foraminifera could get the genetic info to change into something else with new and complex genetic information is what interests us that don't share the evolutionist's faith.I want to see foraminifera start to turn into something that does not just look like a type of foraminifera.[/qs]

Notwithstanding the fact that the study in question only looked at foraminifera, and so it would exclude any evidence of forams that became non-forams, the problem for Beretta and others is that this does represent macroevolution as used in evolutionary biology by evolutionary biologists. Here's the excerpt from my post in question ([mid=435721]):

[qs]In the interim I'll point out the evidence of <i>Foraminifera</i>:

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

[quote]The <b>Foraminifera</b>, ("Hole Bearers") or <b>forams</b> for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.
[indent]<u>Scientific classification</u>
Domain: Eukaryota
(unranked): Rhizaria
Phylum: Foraminifera
[indent]<u>Orders:</u>
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida - extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Robertinida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
- Xenophyophorea
- Reticulomyxa[/indent][/indent][/quote]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/foram_article3.html

[quote]"There's a nifty passage in Darwin in which he describes the fossil record as a library. The library has only a few books, and each book has only a few chapters. The chapters have only a few words, and the words are missing letters.

"Well, in this case, we've got a relatively complete library. The 'books' are in excellent shape. You can see every page, every word."

As he spoke, Arnold showed a series of photographs, taken through a microscope, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foraminiferan species.

"This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," Arnold said. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

Counting both living and extinct animals, about 330 species of planktonic forams have been classified so far, Arnold said. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed. "We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," Arnold added.

Adherents of Darwin's theory of gradualism, in which new species slowly branch off from original stock, should be delighted by what the FSU researchers have found. The foram record clearly reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends" -- varieties that lead nowhere -- and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Moreover, transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendants. [/quote]

We are not talking about a single species, but the origin of new species and then additional branching into <i>more</i> new species, the formation of <i>genus</i> and <i>family</i> - if not <i>order</i> - levels of the taxonomic tree of relationships between the different species of forams.

This is macroevolution - according to evolutionary biology - the formation of branches in the taxonomic classifications. This is but a small sample of the evidence that the tree of life is due to evolution.[/qs]

You notice that Beretta did not argue with the record of change in hereditary traits in the population from generation to generation, nor with the evidence that speciation had occurred numerous times, nor with the evidence that branching above the level of speciation was also recorded in the foram fossil record. No, what Beretta did was to say that it is not <i>enough change</i> to satisfy him, or words to that effect. The fact that the change shown meets the criteria of macroevolution used by evolutionary biologists is irrelevant, for they just pull out the half-truth mixed with lie - that dogs will always be dogs, and forams will always be forams, and they will never become "something else" (which is undefined).

So the question for creationists is: how much change is needed to satisfy you?

If there is less "large scale change" between a cat and a red fox than there is between breeds of dog and a wolf, then how can "large scale change" be used to measure whether macroevolution has or has not occurred?

Denial of every piece of evidence only goes so far. "Something else" is not a scientific metric.

Enjoy.

Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014