Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 96 of 217 (514938)
07-14-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by boysherpa
07-13-2009 10:17 AM


Re: my observations
"Macro", however, seems untestable , but is a perfectly reasonable set of inferences, deductions, and inductions from the facts.
'Macroevolution' cannot be observed directly, but it is testable, by reference to the expected results of 'macroevolution', for example
- existence of intermediates in the fossil record.
- similarities and differences between the genomes of organisms.
- geographical distribution patterns of organisms and fossils.
The evidence from these sources, and others, is actually very good.
Bear in mind also that 'micro' evolution of the genes and 'micro' evolution of the phenotype are not necessarily closely correlated. What appear to be 'big' changes - such as significant changes in body plan - can be brought about by small genetic changes. And vice versa.
I've used the quotes because scientists don't believe there is a fundamental difference or clear boundary between two types of evolution. If you think about it, there is clearly a series of genetic changes that could take us from any organism to any other - there is no 'barrier' there to any particular scale of evolution. This is not to say that all these paths are valid, or that in an individual case any of them are. But there is no theoretical difficulty that would lead scientists to divide up these two.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by boysherpa, posted 07-13-2009 10:17 AM boysherpa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2009 12:57 AM Peepul has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 98 of 217 (515061)
07-15-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Rrhain
07-15-2009 12:57 AM


Since we can see speciation happen, we can observe macroevolution directly. Reproductive isolation, for example, is "macroevolution" since it is involved in speciation. We have observed reproductive isolation occur in as few as 13 generations
Overall I take your point, Rrhain. However, I don't believe the occurrence of reproductive isolation after 13 generations would correspond to the use of the word macroevolution by creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2009 12:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 9:30 AM Peepul has replied
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2009 9:29 PM Peepul has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 100 of 217 (515066)
07-15-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
07-15-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Macro Micro
I guess the obvious question to ask here is what does the word "macroevolution" mean when used by creationists? Is it defined?
Where is the dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution as conceived by creationsist? If creationists cannot define such a distinction why do they even think such a dividing line must exist?
I wish it was possible to get a clear answer on that, but one has never been forthcoming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 9:30 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 104 of 217 (515224)
07-16-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rrhain
07-15-2009 9:29 PM


Since we don't let creationists define what "evolution" is (they seem to think it has something to do with the creation of the universe and the origin of life), why would we ever let them get away with defining what "macroevolution" is?
Well, it's a term they defined themselves, and not one that science recognizes the need for, so I guess they have the right to say what they mean by it.
Unfortunately what they mean by it isn't clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 07-15-2009 9:29 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NosyNed, posted 07-16-2009 10:40 AM Peepul has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 106 of 217 (515228)
07-16-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by NosyNed
07-16-2009 10:40 AM


Re: macroevolution's definition
Nosyned, thanks for the clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NosyNed, posted 07-16-2009 10:40 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 152 of 217 (524100)
09-14-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Archangel
09-13-2009 6:21 PM


quote:
Really? As simple as that? Then by all means prove descent with modification has actually occurred in the real world, which means show me that one type/species of lower animal such as a fish has actually evolved into a different type/species of animal such as an amphibian, and then, since we are well past that stage of evolution, go on and show how that amphibian evolved in the reptile and how the reptile evolved into mammals. We'll put the evidence for avian's on hold for now cuz I don't want to stress you out.
There's strong evidence from the fossil record these for most of these transitions.
The embryonic patterns of blood circulation in mammals go through a number of stages that are the same as embryonic blood circulation patterns in earlier groups. Fascinatingly the sequence embryos go through is - fish, amphibian, reptile, then finally mammal.
Genetic analysis shows divergence of these groups on timeframes that align with the fossil record.
'Fossil' genes also indicate common descent. For example tooth genes in birds have been switched on experimentally. For a more recent example, humans have a large number of inactive genes related to the sense of smell. These are still in use by monkey species with which we shared a common ancestor.
When we look at hierarchies developed by comparing genetic markers across different groups then they show common descent. This is done using statistical techniques that are tuned to spot common descent or its absence. Language hierarchies also show up as having common descent, hierarchies of cars for example do not.
When we look at species on isolated islands, we often see 'radiation' of a groups to fill niches usually occupied (on the mainland) by other creatures. These species resemble species found on the nearest mainland, by and large. This fits perfectly with the idea of a founder population establishing itself on the island and then evolving to fill available niches.
When we look at regions that have been separated recently by geographical barries, we find 'young' species that are different enough not to be able to interbreed, but are still very similar.
These are all good evidence for descent with modification.
Of course, God could have done things in exactly this way. We can't rule that out. However, no gap in science has ever been closed by identifying God as the solution. Not a single one. Not only that, but if God did it, he did it in exactly the way evolution would have done it. That's why science, rightly, does not consider special creation as a realistic alternative.
Happy to discuss specifics on any of these.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Archangel, posted 09-13-2009 6:21 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 153 of 217 (524103)
09-14-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Archangel
09-14-2009 1:00 PM


quote:
Every single example which is forwarded by evolutionists in order to defend one example of macroevolution, will invariably, and must ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent other known and accepted laws of science which I showed above by pointing out that absolute genetic changes in alleles have been proven regarding the Pelycodus which allegedly evolved during the Eocene Age 30 to 50 million years ago, when other established sciences prove that such DNA cannot be successfully extracted past 100,000 years.
Leaving aside your example (RAZD is capable of defending himself on this!), please cite some claims that ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent accepted laws of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 1:00 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2009 2:02 PM Peepul has not replied
 Message 155 by Archangel, posted 09-14-2009 2:18 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 174 of 217 (524233)
09-15-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Arphy
09-15-2009 3:02 AM


Re: Allelegorical License
quote:
Evolution with a big E is about order from disorder or simple to complex.
Evolution with a big E would definitely refer to biological evolution and not to anything else.
But also the other kinds of evolution you mention don't fit the definition you suggest.
Stellar evolution is just about the lifecycle of stars. There is not a consistent progression from disorder to order here. In fact, when stars collapse there is a massive increase in disorder.
Cosmic evolution must in fact consistently lead from order to disorder, if we consider the universe as an entire isolated system. Otherwise we violate the second law of thermodynamics. And I mean really violate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Arphy, posted 09-15-2009 3:02 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 176 of 217 (524254)
09-15-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Archangel
09-15-2009 10:27 AM


quote:
And by that, I mean that it happened when you say it did. If you apply your beliefs to having taken place within the past 10,000 years or so, then all of a sudden the science starts to make sense to me. But when you insist that this is evidence of evolution occurring over the last 40 to 50 million years, you lose me.
Archangel, can I take it that one of your fundamental problems with evolution is the claim made for an old earth? It's not quite clear that's what you mean, but I think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Archangel, posted 09-15-2009 10:27 AM Archangel 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