|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4333 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ok,
Welcome to EvC.
ok boy writes: hi ICANT, from reading your posts in this thread it appears that you accept that speciation has taken place: I am a farm raised person who has taken wild hogs we called piney-woods rooters that could survive on little food and water who weighed less than a hundred pounds. Through selective, breeding produced animals that weighed over 700 pounds that could survive on small amounts of food and water. Could the 700 pound product breed with the less than 100 pound variety? No Were they both hogs? Yes. Are they classified as different species? Yes, go figure. To me they are just a different variety of the same thing.
ok boy writes: as you are using the definition of 'macro evolution' from the op:
ICANT writes: JRTjr writes: I want to vary specific here, when I say Macro-Evolution I am speaking only of a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. {Quoted from Wikipedia.org} Just so we are on the same page when writing our posts, I am using the definition of 'Macro-Evolution' as presented in the OP. it would seem as though you accept at least one instance of macro evolution. What instance of 'Macro-Evolution' are you talking about? You highlighted: "at or above the level of species," as if at speciation was the event of speciation. The definition would carry no such meaning. The at would mean that speciation has already taken place. So no My avatar is of a very large horse and a very small horse. They both are 100% horse with over 2000 pounds of flesh and bone difference. It would be physically impossible for them to breed. So according to the definition of species they are two different creatures. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes: Can you tell me when anyone has attemmpted this? In the early 1900's many tried to create a separate mule breed of animals. Was scientist interested is this no. But farmers wanted a work animal that could reproduce and be evolved into a bigger animal than the one produced by an ass and a horse. Now as far as my discussing DNA and information I will cease to talk about or answer posts that do in this thread. It seems to be pulling this thread further OT than intended. As I wanted to tie the two together. I will at a later date begin a thread on the origin of information, the information contained in the DNA, and its purpose. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
So no My avatar is of a very large horse and a very small horse. They both are 100% horse with over 2000 pounds of flesh and bone difference. It would be physically impossible for them to breed. So according to the definition of species they are two different creatures A grate dane cannot mate whit a Chihuahua and they are the same species though diferent breeds why? because a grate dane can mate whit a noter breed and that other breed can mate whit a Chihuahua. It is not about physical impossebility but genetic imposibility of mating
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi frako,
frako writes: Well because macro is loads of micro evolutions, when enough micro evolutions acure that we can call it a new species we call it macro evolution. Berkeley writes:
Source Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. 'Macro-Evolution' takes place after speciation has taken place. So when my two horse in my avatar could not breed 'Macro-Evolution' had not occured. It just got to the point they could not breed because of size of the animals.
fraco writes: moste definitions one is a member of the same species if one can sucsessfuly mate and produce an offspring that can do the same. 1. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. Do we have two fruit flies that can not breed? If we have two fruit flies that can not breed where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? We only have two fruit flies that can not breed.
fraco writes: 2. A new plant species, created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock I remember my tobacco growing days and we had many species of tobacco. Some produced low tonage crops with high quality and othere produced high tonage crops with lower quality. But they were all tobacco with nicotine that would kill you in them.
fraco writes: 3. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island. Why do you call them "multiple species of the house mouse"? Is it because they were all mouses? If they were all mouses where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?
fraco writes: Now if you wait a while i will provide some links if i find them cause i know you will not take my word for it. I will take your word for what you said above that I quoted. But if you want to present 'Macro-Evolution' you need to provide an instance of one critter becoming a totaly different critter. When that fruit fly ceases to be a fruit fly. When that mouse ceases to be a mouse. I would ask for something other than your word for that. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Stop messing with our heads changing your avatar to confuse us!
ABE: now it's the horsy again! Edited by Larni, : Shock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Just a slight hint:
Mouse is not a technical scientific term. You can't use it to make the argument you are making in the above post. Really! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
I will take your word for what you said above that I quoted. But if you want to present 'Macro-Evolution' you need to provide an instance of one critter becoming a totaly different critter. When that fruit fly ceases to be a fruit fly. When that mouse ceases to be a mouse. I would ask for something other than your word for that. How different must this new critter be to be accepted by you as a new species? Im guessing you would classify a gorilla and man as diferent species Why cause one has fur the other dosent, one has a slightly larger brain, and one has opposing thumbs, they walk a bit diferently and have diferent teeth though all of the above can happen whit micro evolution as you have said what makes them a different species than us. How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: There are TRANSITIONAL hominid fossils which is verifiable evidence that hominids TRANSITIONED from a common ancestor with apes to modern humans. 25 mya apes 195,000 tya homo sapiens / / / / / / Common ancestor \ \ \ \ \ \ 15 mya monkey 545,000 tya chimpanzees So I take a few skulls of apes, monkeys and chimpanzees and homo sapiens and says that is 'Macro-Evolution'. I have no idea what the common ancestor was, I don't know when it went extinct but if it went extinct before homo sapiens began to exist how do you tie them to the common ancestor? If the homo sapiens came from the same common ancestor that apes did then that common ancestor existed 195,000 tya. Why don't we have fossils of that common ancestor? Why don't we have a 25 my record of the line of homo sapiens back to the ancestor apes divided from? Where is the 'Macro-Evolution' history?
Taq writes: Then just produce one instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that is verifiable. That would be the transition between the common ancestor of chimps and humans and modern humans. It is verified by these fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments. The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion.
Taq writes: Then it should pose no problem for you to take your bare web site presentation and search it out and present one verifible instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that has taken place. "Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."Observed Instances of Speciation The evolution of multicellularity. That is definitely macroevolution. I thought it said the multicellularity was induced. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
will this help
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments. The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion. Well no you can get some other information from this as well. Human like sculls whit almost the same brain capacity or at least volume.No other modern sculls at those times they only arrive late. A similarety of the the newer sculls and older sculls implying an evolutionary process Edited by frako, : No reason given. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Transitional fossil hominids are that verification. Skulls of different creatures does not verify 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. It verifies that there were creatures with different skulls.
Taq writes: Macroevolution is the total journey. A man leaves point A and a man reaches point B where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? I am sure he changed a lot during the trip you described one being that he would be very, very, very old. But if he is still a man when he arrives no 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. Whether the journey took a week or a billion years, and no matter how many pictures of that man you had along the way. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans?
From Wiki: The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last individual, an african ape, that both humans and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor. The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of chimpanzee, the Bonobos and the Chimp, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments.
So? (There are a lot more fossils out there than you might think.)
The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion.
False again. The evidence (and it is a lot more than just a few fragmentary skulls) forms a cohesive picture of the past. If this was a court, you could call it circumstantial evidence, which is a lot more reliable that eyewitness testimony. You have just closed your mind to any and all evidence that doesn't support your particular religious beliefs. But that won't make the evidence go away, sorry. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
A man leaves point A and a man reaches point B where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? Aggain what is the minimal amount of change a species must undergo to become a new species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: If 'Macro-Eveloution' did take place there should be many verifiable instances of such an event. Many dozens have been presented to you and are awaiting your reply, in this and other threads. Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured. In fact no good argumentation has been presented to support such a position. Circumstantial evidence along with assertions and bull headed conclusions has been presented in this thread as evidence of verifiable instances of 'Macro-Evolution' having occured. The problem is none of those are verifiable instances of'Macro-Evolution'. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured. In your eyes now tell me how much change must one species undergo (the minimal amount) for it to be called a new species in your eyes and i will show you F%&$ macro evolution. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: Macroevolution is the process by which the history of macroevolution occurred. Are you telling me you don't understand the difference between something, and the history of that something? If you can't tell the difference between the past and the present educating you is going to be beyond the scope of this forum. 'Macro-Evolution' is the process that is proposed to explain how we and all other creatures extinct or living arrived on planet earth from a single cell life form. The history of 'Macro-Evolution' would be a detailed account of how that process took place to date. Anything short of a detailed account is a partial history. When you have gaps of millions of years you do not have a complete history.
crashfrog writes: We have 4.6 billion years of history, in fact. We do not have a 4.6 billion years of history. We have a book of 4.6 million years with many chapters covering millions of years missing.
crashfrog writes: So, you're admitting that whenever we show you evidence, you'll simply not look at it. If you want me to look at it present your argumentation along with the link. I can then read your reasoning and check your link for confirmation. If you make an assertion and present a link, why should I even consider it? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024