Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 168 of 238 (591109)
11-11-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by frako
11-11-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi fraco,
fraco writes:
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
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice.
But they are still mice.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of land creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of water creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of flying creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of mankind.
I do have a problem when I am told anyone of those came from one of the others.
The problem arises because of the lack of evidence that everything has evolved from one living life form that began to exist all by itself.
Darwin has four notebooks on Transmutation of Species.
Transmutation is a strong word meaning changing one element into another element. Example changing steel into gold. Non life into life. One creature into a totaly different creature.
That is 'Macro-Evolution'.
Well that word is too strong for the ToE so it must be discarded when talking about evolution and has been.
Then we had the words 'Micro-Evolution' and 'Macro-Evolution'. Well the word 'Macro-Evolution' proved to be too much for the ToE. It hasn't been discarded yet but that problem is being worked on as we speak.
In this thread it has been incorporated into every argument against 'Macro-Evolution'. The statement you have made several times is the process 'Macro-Evolution' will be discarded by.
'Macro-Evolution' is just the accumulation of a lot of 'Micro-Evolution' processes.
I will hereby make a prediction that in the very near future that the word 'Macro-Evolution' will cease to be used except by creationist, or when someone is answering a creationist.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 1:25 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 171 by jar, posted 11-11-2010 6:14 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 178 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 179 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:26 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2010 8:37 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 1:15 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 172 of 238 (591113)
11-11-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by subbie
11-11-2010 3:38 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi subbie,
Subbie writes:
So in other words, you won't believe it unless there's evidence of every single step of the way, until each and every question has been answered.
Of course, that's not science. That's irrationality.
Actually knowing each and every step would be science.
Anything else is either religion or belief in some system.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by subbie, posted 11-11-2010 3:38 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by hooah212002, posted 11-11-2010 6:17 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:19 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 11-11-2010 11:32 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 5:00 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 177 of 238 (591126)
11-11-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:02 PM


Re: More assertions from jar
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
That's macroevolution - over time, our classifications describe a greater variety of organisms. You watched your "piney-woods rooters" go from describing one species of swine to two.
No I did not observe 'Macro-Evolution'.
I observed 'Micro-Evolution' small changes in time by selective breeding. At no time did the piney-woods-rooter cease to be the same creature that I started with. He just became a modified version of that creature.
crashfrog writes:
We classify living organisms in a hierarchal fashion.
We do a lot of things and over time we change a lot of the things we have done in the past.
crashfrog writes:
If they're both horses, why are they so different? If they're so different, how do you know they're both horses?
Be specific.
Well when that picture was taken Radar was the largest horse in the world. Thumbelina was the smallest horse in the world. Neither was refered to as anyother creature.
I understand that Einstein has weighed in at 6 lbs which is 2 lbs less that Thumbelina was at birth so is expected to take her record when he is full grown. He is presently 14 inches tall. Thumbelina was born May 1, 2001 is 17 1/2 inches tall and weighs 57 lbs.
Source
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 8:01 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 208 of 238 (591212)
11-12-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by frako
11-11-2010 2:28 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi frako,
frako writes:
will this help
Well it doesn't answer the question:
"What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans?"
frako writes:
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
The volume of brain is determined by the size of the body.
You do realize that the Neanderthals had a larger brain than modern mankind. So what is your point?
When googling "When did modern man appear on Earth?" I get a lot of answers like the one found Here
It is believed that man developed from the same general grouping of animals as monkeys and apes, however, the ancestors of the human race were a separate group of animals which walked erect on two feet. It is thought that man, with his present build, was established by 25,000 B.C. The Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man, who might very well have led to the development of modern humans, had already died out by this time.
emphasis mine
But that is not the way it has been presented here. At EvC it is presented as a fact.
As I said the only thing the skulls verify is that creatures with those skulls existed at one time.
There is nothing about those skulls that verify that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 2:28 PM frako has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 212 of 238 (591217)
11-12-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coyote
11-11-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
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.
In your article under time estimates you find:
There are no known fossils that represent the CHLCA,
If there is no fossil how is that creature the common ancestor?
I am constantly told belief in someting is not evidence.
You are free to believe in 'Macro-Evolution' if you desire to do so. You keep talking about my belief system hindering me from accepting the evidence. Well actualy what you are saying is that I will not accept your version of what you believe is the evidence.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2010 2:32 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:29 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 214 of 238 (591220)
11-12-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:05 PM


Re: DNA
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
I don't understand what you mean by "circumstantial evidence." That's a term of law, not way of describing scientific evidence (since all scientific evidence requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.)
But this would seem to indicate your admission that evidence for macroevolution has been presented; you just don't like it, for some reason. Can you elaborate?
There is no direct evidence for 'Macro-Evolution'. No one has witnessed it occuring. There is no string of fossils showing one creature becoming a totaly different creature with no missing links.
The only thing we have is some fossils that have simularities and the conclusion has been drawn that they had to come from a common ancestor.
Many creatures have similar DNA and thus the conclusion drawn that they had to come from a common ancestor.
You can stand by the side of an Interstate Highway and watch many automobiles pass by they will range from tractor-trailer rigs 75' in length to two wheel motercycles. Nobody that I have ever met put forth that all those came from the same source. In fact not only did they come from different factories they came from different minds and designers.
BTW my verson includes a common ancestor.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 222 of 238 (591234)
11-12-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Tanypteryx
11-11-2010 4:13 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanpteryx writes:
No wonder nobody seems to be able to get through to you.
There is no problem with explaining something I can understand.
If you say dirt is dirty. I can understand that and if I doubt it I can go outside and test it.
If you say a pig is a pig even if you give him a bath and put a ribbon around his neck and put lipstick on him I can understand that.
If you want to tell me that we evolved from a single cell life form that no one has any evidence how that life form began to exist then I do have a lot of questions as I don't understand that.
The first bit of information needed for me to accept evolution would be where, how, why, when, and what from, that first life form began to exist.
Since that has never been established I don't have faith enough to believe that it did happen.
I know the evidence it did is that we exist.
But there are several alternatives to the one proposed.
Once it is established how life began to exist then we could get serious about what has happened since that time.
Now the evidence that has been presented for 'Macro-Evolution' is non existant, like that for how the first life form began to exist.
Albert Einstein said: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough
According to Einstein it is not my problem of understanding it is the problem that the 27 posters that have tried to explain it to me.
They just don't understand it themselves well enough.
Since you have just come aboard maybe you can shed some light on the subject.
'Micro-Evolution' is changes up through speciation. This has empirical, verifiable, reproducible evidence in support of that position.
'Macro-Evolution' is changes after speciation and above speciation.
According to Berekeley in Understanding Evolution says "there is no firsthand history accounts to be read".
If there is no firsthand history to be read then the only thing we have is the beliefs and conclusions of mankind. So whatever the worldview is of those people shape their conclusions.
Similarities is not evidence of a common ancestor.
For 20 years I built cabinets. There are thousands of people who build cabinets. Many are different, but there are multitudes that have similarities. Those similarities do not even mean they came from the same kind of material, even though you can not tell the difference by looking at them.
So when someone tries to convience me that because things are similar they are somehow descendant from each other I am very skeptical and demand proof.
But then I am told science does not deal in proof as nothing is ever proved. But that is not the attitude presented here.
So do you have some verifible evidence that an event of 'Macro-Evolution' has ever taken place?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-11-2010 4:13 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-12-2010 8:36 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 224 of 238 (591239)
11-12-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:13 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Not quite. Macroevolution is the process that is observed as the origin of new species. The theory of evolution is the proposal for how all extant life forms did arise, and its a scientific conclusion from the evidence (as well as the logical conclusion of parsimony) that all organisms share common descent from a single organism.
So you disagree with:
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
From Evolution 101Source
macroevolution
noun
Definition:
theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups
Source
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
Source
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2010 4:29 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 225 of 238 (591240)
11-12-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by frako
11-11-2010 5:08 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi frako,
fraco writes:
On a nother note if those mice are mice then why is the buffalo a buffalo and not a cow they look the same they should be called cows so what they have a bit of fur and different horns everything else is roughly the same why are they buffalo and not cows what destiguishes a species in your eyes if not the fact of sucsesfull reproduction. Does every diferent species need a new organ well shit happens all mamals are the same species then.
The buffalo is a buffalo because someone that designates what a critter is said he was a buffalo.
Since they can breed with cattle and produce offspring that can produce offspring as far as I am concerned they are just another breed of cattle.
frako writes:
What is the mechanism that you use to define 2 diferent species, what would the minimal changes haveto be in a house mouse to be called something different to be a different species.
In the course of research during this thread I find that the word microevolution definition has been changed a little here at EvC.
The references I find say that sub-species is created by microevolution. Not new species.
'Macro-Evolution' is when a critter ceases to be a specific critter and becomes a totaly different critter.
It is theorized that a fish walked up on land and became the first land dwelling life form creature. That would be 'Macro-Evolution'.
We still have walking fish today. So if they evolved one time into a land creature why are they not present in all forms every step of the way from fish to land creature today?
It is also theorized that later a creature that was small deerlike in build and lived around water went into the water and became our modern day whales. That would be 'Macro-Evolution'.
The problem is that there is no direct verifible evidence of either of those events occuring.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:08 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 4:40 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 229 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 4:48 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 228 of 238 (591245)
11-12-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 5:48 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Do you understand, yet? Mice will still be mice, apes will still be apes, tetrapods will still be tetrapods, birds will still be birds - yet, macroevolution will still be occurring, species will still be changing, and new species will still be emerging from old ones. Mice will never turn into birds - but evolution doesn't say that they ever did.
I understand mice will always be mice.
I understand that apes will always be apes.
I understand that flying creatures will always be flying creatures.
I understand that all the water creatures will remain water creatures.
I understand that all land creatures will remain land creatures.
I understand that all the air breating creatures that can also survive in the water will remain air breating creatures that can survive in water.
I understand that mankind will always remain mankind.
I just understand that for a different reason than you do.
I also understand that there will be sub-species that will arise due to malfunctions in errors in DNA information resulting in mutations.
Now if you have definite, verifible evidence that a new creature that has never existed before began to exist please present it.
That would be evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.
Now you said species will still be changing and will be emerging.
Just what is your definition of a species?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 5:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2010 5:20 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 236 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 7:04 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 231 of 238 (591250)
11-12-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
11-11-2010 6:14 PM


Re: ICANT's predictions about as valueless as the god he markets.
Hi jar,
jar writes:
In addition, as has been explained to you, the topic is whether macro-evolution can be disproved.
In Message 1 JRTjr said:
JRTjr writes:
I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ {Also known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’ or ‘Natural selection’}.
This statement asks a question.
That question was used as the title of the topic.
Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?
The balance of the sentence being: "using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences.
I find nowhere that JRTjr said he was going to give any information other than what is in the OP.
You guys have a reading or compherension problem I don't know which.
jar writes:
As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve.
I have actualy admitted that changes in critters takes place and that change can cause critters not to be able to breed and reproduce.
No place have I admitted that critter 1 can become critter 2 that has never existed before.
That is 'Macro-Evolution'.
jar writes:
The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time.
Yes.
jar writes:
It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters.
ToE does not explain why.
It attempts to tell us how current life forms evolved from the first single cell life form on Earth.
jar writes:
The divisions of critters into the various categories is simply a human construct we created to put labels on things. The difference between humans and the rest of the great apes exists only in the minds of man, that we, man, decided to extend the labeling system to that level.
I agree that labels have been put on critters by mankind that has a personal worldview that shapes their beliefs.
jar writes:
Now you may not believe any of this, and that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.
BUT, there is evidence to support the conventional model, and no evidence to support any alternative.
I am glad I have your permission to think outside the box.
There is evidence to support that changes in species take place over time.
There is no evidence that supports changes from species 1 to a totaly different species 2 that has never existed prior to division.
jar writes:
In addition, neither you or anyone else has presented any reason to even consider that macro-evolution is not simply the sum of micro-evolution over time, much less any evidence that would disprove Macro-evolution.
There is no direct history of 'Macro-Evolution' from Berekeley.
Therefore there is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'.
jar writes:
Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market.
You are welcome to your opinion and belief just as I am.
jar writes:
When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again.
So why have you wasted your time reading what I have posted and then made 12 posts of your own?
jar writes:
But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant.
As are your assertions, and belief
jar writes:
Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer.
Why do I need a model?
But as you know I do have one. God did it.
Now back to the topic.
JRTjr asked the question: "Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?"
Where would one find evidence to disprove 'Macro-Evolution' when there is no direct evidence to refute?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 11-11-2010 6:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 5:54 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 233 of 238 (591257)
11-12-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 6:16 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
Could you believe that the same "kind" of creature could come in both land and water varieties? I mean, surely that's not a stretch - you've heard of "water rats", right?
No.
But I know there are land creatures that spend a lot of time in the water.
The problem is they can not exist under water indefinitely. So they are a different critter than a fish.
crashfrog writes:
That evidence has already been presented to you. There's no "lack" of it.
What you believe is evidence that supports 'Macro-Evolution' may have been presented. But just because you believe it is evidence does not make it evidence.
crashfrog writes:
"Steel" isn't an element, it's an alloy of iron and carbon.
I stand corrected. I should have used the word metal.
crashfrog writes:
Your avatar is of two totally different types of horses. You can, I assume, imagine two totally different types of mice - say, one that dwells on land and another that lives in the water. You yourself have admitted to turning one kind of pig into a totally different kind of pig. Yeah, yeah, they're "still mice, still pigs", whatever that means (you won't say.) So why is it impossible for you to believe that all living things are actually the same type of creature in an extraordinary diversity of form and environment?
Be specific.
First off I don't believe the two horses in my avatar are two different types of horses. I do believe they are two different breeds of horses.
I did not turn my pig into a totaly different pig. I modified a pig by selective breeding to increase in size. He still retained his ability to live on smaller amounts of food and water than the breed of pig he was mixed with. This was modification by artificial selection. It was not 'Macro-Evolution'.
Since you asked me to be specific all creatures was formed from the ground except fish and modern man which was created.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 6:12 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 235 of 238 (591260)
11-12-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by frako
11-11-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi frako,
frako writes:
Ok so you acnowlage that they are different species not breeds so what is then the problem of macro evolution being evolution above the species level.
Actually if you want to be correct it would be necessary to say they are sub-species. Which would be a division out of an existing species.
In other words a species sub dividing because for one reason or another they can not nor will not breed for any reason is not '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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:09 PM frako has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024