|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No Witnesses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Hi Chuck,
Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor. By "some", you seem to mean 99.99% of professional biologists.
We Creationists interpret a common designer. That is hardly equivalent to the weight that one gives to the opinions of 99.99% of the world's biologists. Besides, the evidence does not fit a designer, unless your designer is a liar who goes around making things look as though they evolved when in fact they did not.
So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then? You are moving the goalposts. What was being discussed was the transition from land to water for various species of mammal. Macro-evolution can be and has been observed. A specific event that took place thirty million years ago cannot be observed by a living human witness. If you are asking for human witnesses to an event that took place before there were any humans, you are being unreasonable.
If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? What on earth made you think that we can't produce evidence of micro-evolution? We can. In fact, any reasonably well equipped high school biology lab could provide this. This kind of evidence is so ubiquitous that very few creationists dare dispute micro-evolution.
Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc... Chuck, cats don't write books either. To compare the interrelatedness of humans and chimps with that of cats you need a system that can be applied to both the "chimps and humans" clade and the cat clade. Then you could make a fair comparison.
You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together? In the way that they actually are classified together; using a mixture of morphology, ethology and genetics.
Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans. And they are; at the species level. No-one is claiming that chimps and humans aren't different. They are. But they are also very similar.
Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together? Morphology. Can you name any creature that is more morphologically similar to humans than a chimp or bonobo is? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
You do realise that if a person did see a cow turning into a whale within the course of a human lifetime, it would falsify the ToE, right? You understand that don't you?
Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
He's already explained what he means. Read back over the thread between Rrhain and Modulous. Rrhain is using the standard scientific definition of macro-evolution, namely "change above species level". He is not using your definition, because your definition is wrong.
To summarise; Can we show you eyewitness evidence of macro-evolution (where "macro-evolution is taken to mean change above species level)? Yes we can, if you are interested. Can we show you eyewitness evidence of macro-evolution (where macro-evolution is taken to mean a sequence of events equivalent to a land-based mammal evolving into a highly adapted aquatic mammal)? No, we can't, nor would we expect to be able to show you eyewitness evidence of that since the ToE predicts that it would take place over a period of time greater than any human lifespan. We can however, show you other forms of evidence that such a thing has taken place. Can we show you eyewitness evidence of macro-evolution (where macro-evolution is taken to mean any damn thing that the creationist in question wants it to mean, whilst never providing any specific definitions, but instead chopping and changing between various competing definitions as convenient)? Well now... not really a fair question is it? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Okay, if you're interested, here are some examples of plant speciation. they're from Observed Instances of Speciation at TalkOrigins, a link that has already been cited on this thread.
quote: There are many more such examples on the source page. Or alternatively, how about an example of speciation in bacteria?
quote: Source Prefer an animal example? Well for that you will have to wait a few million years to see it from start to finish (about three million years is believed to be typical for speciation in macro-orgnisms). But we can show you the process in action; The salamanders in the video are well on their way to speciation, but since the change is gradual, it will take time. Lots of time. Come back in about three million years and they'll have completely diverged. For now, we see more or less what we might expect to see over the pitifully brief time that we have been studying evolution (only about 150 years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms).
Fine. I'm just asking if it happens, All the available evidence suggests that it does.
and if it does, how is it determined, By observing morphological, genetic and behavioural changes. By looking at reproductive isolation. By observation of the fossil record, biogeography and so on. Genetic, fossil and biogeographic evidence are the important things when considering changes that occur over millions of years.
and why the ToE predicts it. Why does it have to predict such a thing? According to the ToE change in an organism is typically very gradual. Mutation typically produces very tiny changes. They take a long time to stack up. Gradual change (which we can observe) suggests slow and gradual speciation over time-spans that seem vast in comparison with a human life. If we saw change on the scale of "cow to whale" in the course of a human lifetime, it would not be compatible with the gradual change that we observe and would thus falsify the ToE.
Is it necessary that land to water or water to land mammmals be predicted to make that transition? Why are they combined(water and land)? Is this a prediction or does evidence suggest it happened or happens? I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The ToE does not predict that mammals should take to the water. That was just the example you happened to choose. You might just as well have chosen the evolution of hoofed horses from critters that looked more like a dog, or any other example of long-term large-scale change. The ToE does not attempt to predict which direction evolution will take. It only seeks to explain how those changes take place. What the ToE predicts (and what I was driving at) is that change will be gradual, being based on a succession of tiny incremental changes. For this reason, you're not going to see evolution of the kind you're talking about over the course of a human lifespan. If you did see that, it would be a problem for the ToE, not a proof. Basically, we know that seals and whales and so on evolved from land-based mammals by studying their morphology, their genes and their fossil records. The Theory of evolution seeks to explain that fact and the process by which it came to be. Any clearer? Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024