Macroevolution: Its all around us...

The very first sentence is bogus. The claim is that "All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information". This is wrong, because one class of observed changes is gene duplication and diversification.Please start a thread to discuss, if you like.
Best wishes,Mick

Jeese, where do I start."All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information. Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood."Total crap. Peruse some of the threads in the science forums here and you will find many cogent explanations from molecular biologists (you know, the guys who actually splice genes for a living) on the NUMEROUS mechanisms by which genomes can generate and accumulate new information. It is not all "conservationa and decay" - they are trying to set up a strawman to imply the need for a creator.
I am scared to ask how they might "generally understand" evolution.(added in edit: As you can see below, one of our esteemed molecular biologists already beat me to the punch here )"The created kindsObserved variation does appear to have limits. It is tempting to use this fact to show that there are created kinds, and that variation is only within the limits of such kinds."Note that the term 'kind' is nowhere adequately (or even objectively) defined. The concept is totally subjective and completely useless from a scientific standpoint. There is no such thing. On truly objective level, the only really menaingful separation between animals is the 'species'. All higher taxa are objectively, but not biologically distinguished.Now, please, check out the primer on evolution I linked for you earlier. Study that and it should become clear why everything on this site if religious dogma and is completely mis-representing evolutionary theory. If you have a 'specific' question, come back and one of us will address it.EZThis message has been edited by EZscience, 06-06-2005 12:30 PM

You were explicitly asked to pick one yourself. When your suspension is over you may do so. There is no reason for others to waste their time when you have yet to show that you will put any effort in.You have been told it is bogus. If you think otherwise you may, when you are able to post, give your reasons for supporting it.In fact, the reasons for each of it's points being considered bogus have ALL (I am pretty darn sure) already been discussed several times at this site. We have a search capability and google with an advanced search restricted to works very well.

Reply to Message 64 in another thread. But that's not accurate. What we're talking about isn't "variations within a species", what we're talking about is new species. "Species" is a term with a specific biological meaning that allows us to objectively determine when two organisms are the same species and when they are not.We've determined that certain individuals, both decended from the same organism, are members of two different species. Describing that as "varations within a species" is not accurate; just as describing "black" as "white" is not accurate.So I ask you again - where are all the new species coming from? What we have is creationists refusing to admit that what they say is impossible is happening right in front of us; what we have are more creationist lies.

SlV, if you refer to major creationist sources you will, I think, find that they have given up on the new species issue awhile ago. They now agree that new species arise. Some agree to new genera and, while it gets fuzzy, maybe new families too. You might be a bit out of date in your arguments.While you're doing that research could you find the "official" creationist definition of "kind" please. We haven't been given a useful one yet.

Oh, thank you so much, that's the problem, my arguement is out of date. Hahahaha.Could you please enlighten me to all of the presupposition you make. Particularly, show me where these supposed sources might be found, because, though it is clear that you consider yourself an expert, you continuously make grand sweeping statements without evidence.So, please, give the specific support to your "updated" arguements or keep them to yourself.

crashfrog:
We've determined that certain individuals, both decended from the same organism, are members of two different species. Describing that as "varations within a species" is not accurate; just as describing "black" as "white" is not accurate.And the creationist would say that no such determination has occured.
So, sorry, but your arguement, though logical, is misapplied.

But since they would be objectively and demonstratably in error to say so, what's the relevance of that?

I would suggest that a mix of arrogance and ignorance is inclined to produce only foolishness. You don't know a tenth as much as you think you do (and a good chunk of that is wrong. ).From: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
(which is, I believe, one of the major creationist organizations, is it not?)

quote:

---

In fact, a biblical model of the history of life would seem to require that speciation not only happens, but does so rapidly. The wolf kind coming off the Ark, for example, would need to have been able to rapidly diversify into the different ‘species’ seen todaythe various types of wolves, jackals, coyotes and dogs, which are adapted to a wide range of different climates, from Arctic to tropical. These can hybridize, indicating that they came from the same original created kind12 (see pp. 19—22).

---

from:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

This is not to deny that speciation occurs. Much evidence implies that isolating processes are establishing unique populations all the time. Indeed, in the case of ploidy, a new isolated species (depending on the definitions) can occur in one generation. However, if speciation (primarily reproductive isolation) is the process of microevolution, and, in turn macroevolution, as some proponents hold, then we are once again in the precarious position of declaring that the fact of speciation leads directly to the fact of macroevolution, without knowing very well how either takes place, or the causative relation between the two.

---

Speciation is not the issue they wish to argue about anymore. Now, you were asked to research the support for your side but it has been partially done for you. Did you find a good operational definition of "kind"? You might as well try, since that is where you are going now.

We don't make any presuppostions. That is the whole point. It is creation science that is based entirely a presupposition: the bible is the only source of truth. A source of truth, unchanged, unrefined, and unmodified apparently in the last 2000 years. On the other hand, evolutionary theory is a virtual monument of human intellect contributed to by thousands of highly intelligent people over the past century and a half. It has proven infinitely more useful than creationism for anticipating, predicting and explaining biological phenomena of ALL kinds. Evolutionary theory is all that is left when all the suppositions are disposed of.Here's a clue. Why do all these bogus creationist sites always try and cite other scientists' evidence and portray it as against evolution ? Answer: They have no research of their own and, ergo, no evidence of their own. All these pathetic simpleltons can do is try and warp other people's data to try and make it fit their predetermined ideas. I have already directed you to a more reliable source in this message hereDid you go there and read anything at all?If not, come back later when you have.

The bible is NOT the only source of truth. Anyone peddling that is surely mistaken.I've never stated anything about "kind". My point is that creationists look at the same evidence as evolutionists and draw different conclusions.What biological phenomena has evolutionary theory "anticipated", "predicted" or "explained"?My basic point is that, unless you are a scientific type, expert in the scientific arena or an actual scientist in the areas that directly deal with evolutionary theory, you would have to take these individuals at their word, just like going to a foreign country and having to trust that what a translator is telling you is actually what's being said.You understand, that you cannot know everything in life, a lot you must trust the sources, especially if you do not have expertise lending to or directly in the area of knowledge presented to you.So for the average Joe, (a majority of the population), who is not well versed in evolutionary, creationist or complex scientific findings and study, sees two sides to a great big arguement and consciously or unconsciously must put his faith in one or the other. You can't believe both, because they are mutually exclusive. Either the earth is old or it is young, either human beings were made in the image of God or came from a single cell organism.

Your point, as I've shown you three times now, is erroneous. Creationists don't look at the same evidence; when evidence contradicts their conclusions they ignore or attempt to discredit it.They're not looking at the same evidence. They're letting their conclusion determine which evidence they'll look at at which they won't.

While I agree 100% with Crashfrog, I can also empathize somewhat with your dilemma so honestly presented. You feel you are being required to 'have faith' in one or other explanation because neither are yet comprehensible to you. What you must do is carefully examine the reasoning and logic on both sides until you can make sense of it. Evolutionary theory is not that hard to comprehend if you read a reliable introductory source. But going to those lame creationist sites to get info about evolution is not going to help you. It is like going to a science textbook for information on Christianity (although science doesn't mess with Christianity - it is the other way round, unfortunately).These sites like 'answersingenesis' are purposely trying to confuse people like you with snippets of 'evidence' taken completely out of context to make you doubt evolution. They are a blatant source of disinformation which is why we despise them so much. Notice that they don't propose any of their own 'mechanisms' of organismal change, even though they are forced to admit such changes do occur. Rather, they argue that such changes are somehow limited within the 'kinds' of species god created and comprise only 'micro', rather than 'macro' evolution. It's nonsense. Just a few years ago, they would have said 'species' equal 'kinds', but now they have been forced to retreat up to some (undefined) higher level taxon. If you are really 'following the truth', take the time to learn how evolution really works and you will understand it requires no leaps of faith whatsoever, just logic. Once you learn the basics, all of the higher order explanations will make sense. You will also quickly see that the other side has no higher order explanations to offer - only dogma. Ton's of examples are possible here.ToE explains why a minimum population size is necessary in order to prevent inbreeding depression in outcrossing aninals held in captivity, prompting zoo keepers to 'exchange' animals in breeding programs.ToE explains the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and predicts how quickly that can be expected to occur under different regimes of exposure. For example, it tells us we shouldn't be feeding prophylactic doses of anitbiotics to cattle because this is accelerating resistance of bacteria potentially pathogenic to humans. (Do you think the FDA and the USDA rely on anything but ToE to help them set antibiotic use policies?)ToE explains how insects evolve resistance to insecticides and is the basis for sustanable management policies that prevent are delay insecticide resistance in target insect populations. (Do you think companies like Monsanto ignore the evolutionary predictions of resistance development when they invest $100,000,000 in developing a new pesticide? - They don't - because they want to maximize it's useful lifespan and their profit.ToE explains how selection, both natural and artificial, acts on plant genomes, thus enabling plant breeders to continually breed improved crop plants and secure the human food supply, and this without genetic engineering - just conventional plant breeding. What do you think that creationist thinking has contributed to securing our food supply? Zero.Virtually every phenomenon we see in living things makes sense ONLY within the framework of ToE - there is no equivalent alternative.In the interests of keeping this thread alive, I am getting ready to post a nice piece of work that presents a number of inferences on the macroevolution of weevils in relation to their host plants. Hopefully I will have time later today.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-13-2005 07:02 AM

That's a totally bogus claim on your part.Imo, it's a little disingenious to claim ToE explains natural selection and developing of resistance when ToE is not exclusive to that. That's totally bogus.The fact is even YECism explains those things as well. YECism predicts those exact same things as OECism and ID.By your logic then, all of these things are true.Sorry, but the continual resort to overstatements indicates a serious flaw in common descent arguments.The truth is no one has ever really contested the idea that things can evolve. What is disputed is the degree organisms can evolve, and the methods of how they evolve.Imo, evolutionary theory has been largely disproven by the evidence that mutations are not random. I think convergent evolution also is strong evidence against evolutionary models, which by definition posit natural selection and random mutation along with normal genetic recombination as a result of reproduction as the ONLY means acting to create change and evolution.We know that's false. Convergent DNA shows that this is false. The seeming duplication of forms, even the 3 inner earbones in mammals, proves that evolutionist mechanisms cannot fully explain the data.I am not sure we have enough facts to know for sure how things all happened, but the attempts by evolutionists to insist on elimination of common factors like the possibility of common authorship, embedded design as a guiding force, etc,...imo, show the fallacy of evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by randman, 06-13-2005 12:55 PM

I didn't say ToE explained natural selection. NS is merely one of many mechanisms of evolution that has been clearly explained countless times on this site and elsewhere. I don't understand your second comment. Of course ToE is not 'exclusive' to resistance evolution, but the latter makes perfect sense within the the framework of ToE. Surely you are not going to claim that anyone has made meaningfull use of YEC to explain resistance evolution? Then they need to make some predictions that run counter to those of ToE and show that they can be right when (if) ToE is wrong. Otherwise they are just redundant. And I take issue with their ability to explain anything. Neither YEC nor ID postulate any testable mechanistic explanations at all. No. This is only your warped interpretation of my logic. No we might be getting soemwhere. So you admit things evolve. And I would contend evolutions explains how - YEC and ID explain nothing and put forward no testable mechansisms. So the question becomes, how much can they evolve to be different. My question to you them, is why, a priori, should we assume there are any real limits to how different organisms (gene pools) can get once they comprise different species? Why should there be any limits to how different things can get? This is only pre-suppositional crap derived from trying to shoe-horn everything into conformity with a biblical account of nature. Many people on this forum have now explained to you why this is not true in any regard. This is intended to be a thread for more advanced discussion of macro-evolutionary prcesses - please don't waste anymore of our time with this ridiculous drivel. You have also lost that argument repeatedly over on the other thread. Please take it somewhere else. Also, note that convergent evolution is a concept that is derived 'from' ToE, not from the 'mechanism-free' concepts of YEC and ID. I think we can trust evolutionary theorists to understand its implications since they identified it the first place.Please desist in these pedantic rants here - I do not wish to clutter up the thread any further with these previously de-bunked and misguided allegations.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-13-2005 02:30 PM