Hi, thure, and welcome to the forums.
The problem is the scientific community has not soundly proved macro-evolution; the more scientists try to stack up the evidence the more the foundation of the theory crumbles. The fossil record actually shows change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. There is no evidence of gradual change from one species to the next. The struggle to prove it with the fossil record, 1859 tons of them by 1982, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct evolution.
This is simply not true. Evolution does not rest on the fossil record - it never has. The primary evidence for evolution is the observation of small changes over generations via mutations (an easily observed occurrance in the laboratory) and the similarity of features over multiple species. There is, in fact,
abundant evidence for the gradual change of one species into another. The fact is, every feature of every species in existance is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species. The similarities are stronger and more frequent the closer related the species are. It is these similarities, and the gradual flow from, say, the cecum of the alimentary canal of many mammals to the appendix of humans that provides evidence of common ancestry.
To say that "macroevolution has never been observed" is also false. If "macroevolution" is defined as the descendants of one species no longer being able to interbreed with that species and thus becoming a new species of their own, then we have observed it several times. Here are a few examples, from
Creationtheory.org.:
quote:
1. Primula kewensis was speciated from Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda in 1912 by Digby via hybridization and polyploidization.
2. It was shown that you could reproduce the existing species Tragopogon mirus by hybridizing Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius, as demonstrated by Owenby in 1950.
3. In 1969, Pasterniani demonstrated speciation (as defined by reproductive isolation) via artificial selection rather than hybridization. He took two existing varieties of maize, planted them in a field, and over a 5 year period, selected only kernels which were not interbred for the next year's planting. At the end of this 5 year period, the plants' natural likelihood of interbreeding had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
4. In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.
—"Creationtheory.org"
These are just a few examples of "speciation events," where the progeny of one species is no longer able to breed with that species, yet still produces viable young amongst its own population.
One can breed fruit flies through thousands of generations while changing the environment and watch them go through micro-evolution or adapt to a better "fit" but at the end of the day you still have a fruit fly.
True to an extent. After all, both tarantulas and black widows are spiders. Of course, they are also entirely different species. What you just described in your fruitfly example is the first step towards the generation of a new species. The new population can still breed with other fruitflies - but if they were seperated from other fruitflies for enough generations under different envireonmental conditions, eventually the populations would no longer be able to cross-breed - a new species would have arisen. This is what we have seen in the examples I just posted.
The "adaptation to the environment" you speak of
is evolution. The seperation of "microevolution" from "macroevolution" is an artificial construct completely made up by Creationists as a way to basically say, "yeah, but..." Scientific papers do not speak of micro- or macro-evolution. It's the same mechanism, the same process, and there is nothing to seperate the two. It would be like differentiating walking ten feet from a thousand miles, and calling one micro-walking and the other macro-walking. It's just walking - there is no difference except one of scale.
Quote: Tom Bethell (1976) concludes, "Darwin's theory [of natural selection] I believe is on the verge of collapse. . . . Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supporters, some years ago."
One man's opinion does not a scientific theory make. This is called an "appeal to authority." Quoting what other people say is so without any actual argument is a logical fallacy. You need to provide proof to form an argument. You can't just say "Oh yeah? Well this guy said so!"
Besides that, he is obviously wrong. Evolution by mutation guided by natural selection is stronger than ever, with a growing mountain of evidence in support of it. The theory of evolution has certainly not collapsed since the 70's.
Quote from a paleontologist:
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44)
Again, you are using an appeal to authority fallacy. This is no argument - this man simply says "it's not so." Prove it.
While you gather your evidence, consider this.
The fossil record is by no means a complete timeline of events. It's a series of snapshots through history. Fossilization is an incredibly rare event - no paleontologist in his right mind expects to find examples of every species that has ever existed in the fossil record. But the snapshots we
do have fit 100% with the predictions of the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that no feature should be unique, that each feature should be a slightly different version of the same thing on another species - and that's exactly what we find. The similarities, for example, between many dinosaur species and modern avian species is remarkable. Archeopteryx, while an often-used example, is a perfect snapshot of a species with both dinosaur features and avian features. We don't see the complete chain from dinosaur to bird because fossilization just doesn't happen often enough to reasonably expect that - but Archeopteryx is a perfect snapshot of a species far closer to modern birds than other dinosaurs, but retaining dinosaur features as well. This is exaclty what we would expect if evolution were true.
To
disprove evolution, if species really did "suddenly appear" as you claim, we should see species whose features are wholly unique, and not simply altered versions of the same features on other species. We should not see vestigial organs like the human appendix which serves no good purpose and bears a high risk of infection. We should not see whale bone structure than is indicative of a whale ancestor that actually posessed
legs. Etc.
I agree that the Big Bang and Darwin's evolution theory are on roughly equal footing.....and that neither will hold up in the inquiry
The Big Bang is, indeed, on similar footing with evolution. We have observed the universe as it existed in the past just a few million years after the Bang itself. We have observed the structure of the mocrowave background radiation, whose structure and mere existance fits perfectly with the theory of a universe expanding from a smaller, more dense, hotter version of itself in the past. We have observed the redshift of stars and galaxis moving away from each other at fantastic speeds, proving the expansion of the universe. Yes, the Big Bang and Evolution are considered scientific theories rather than mere hypotheticals or hunches for a damned good reason - al of the evidence observed thus far has abcked them, and no evidence has surfaced to disprove either, despite numerous rigorous atempts at falsification (remember that falsifying widely-held theories is the quickest and most effective path to fame and fortune in the scientific community - scientists are
encouraged to disprove theories, becuase the trial by fire is the only way to sort the accurate descriptions of the universe from guesswork and imagination).
Plate tectonics theory has more of a basis and aligns with general geological studies.
More to the point, we can see and mesure it happening,
right now. Just as we can with universe exmapsion and evolution.
We certainly hope that scientists evaluate the evidence and abandon the postulates when they are unsupported, or accept them when they hold sound. One of the main issues with evolution is that micro-evolution is a valid and provable theory but macro-evolution has not and likely will not be provable. Understanding the difference between the various evolution theories is important to properly evaluating their soundness.
Sorry, Thure, but this statement is false. Evolution is supported on every scale, whether generational changes within a species or gradual changes that, over time, result in the development of a new species. Scientists have and will continue to look for evidence which disproves evolution, because that's the only way we can ensure that we have an accurate view of the universe. But evolution, so far, has made predictions that have been wholly backed up by observable evidence.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
).
)
™ Version 4.2