Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 302 (318459)
06-06-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 9:52 PM


Welcome to the fray.
What would you consider macroevolution to involve?
I'm not asking to be cute but to see what kind of evidence you are looking for.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 9:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:06 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 302 (318623)
06-07-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 10:06 PM


Well, macroevolution is when one kind of an organism supposedly evolves into another one.
Not really, that is what "micro"evolution covers - speciation, of which we have many many examples.
Like if you saw macroevolution in action.
You never will. This is a strawman concept and not evolution. "Macro"evolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes until the divergence is sufficient that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- it's really an artificial human intellectual construct.
But you will only ever see "micro"evolution between species in many steps in between. Now if you are interested in exploring those many steps over long periods of time that show a sufficient divergence that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- we can do that.
Or if you found that genetics would permit it.
Genetics does not prevent it, and thus it does permit it. There is no difference to genetics where or what any mutation is, they just happen.
Or if you found a REAL fossil of a scale evolving into a feather.
This is "hopeful monster" evolution and not real. You need to think this thru a little better than this.
For instance, what do you think a "half feather - half scale" fossil would look like? and then consider whether you would accept it as such or only as one or the other?
This is why I asked for your definitions here. You seem to expect "macro"evolution not just on the time scale of speciation but on a one generation change.
Speciation takes several generations, and "macro"evolution takes several speciation events to accomplish -- generations of generations.
I'll get through the rest of this topic tonight, but I expect a lot of flak to be generated.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 302 (318921)
06-07-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


... we need evidence of an increase in genetic information.
Nope. We just need change in genes. The amount of "information" is irrelevant. Evolution is change in species over time.
I bet you can't even define a standard by which the amount of "information" in a gene could be measured such that you could determine whether it increased or decreased.
But the real kicker is that you have a series species that evolve a feature, lose it and later regain it -- can you tell me which one did NOT gain information in the process?
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature? The animal would have to find (even in the case of a hermaphrodite) the ability to find compatible sexual organs and an incubation method.
Just because you have a lack of imagination doesn't mean that nature is somehow restricted by it. Your arguments are the argument from incredulity -- combined with a strawman caricature of evolution -- both logical fallacies.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 302 (318925)
06-07-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
SWC, msg 40 writes:
And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
Can you demonstrate how "macro"evolution cannot be an accumulation of "micro"evolution changes? Demonstrate how they are two different {mechanisms\things}?
Without such a demonstration this is just a statement, an argument from incredulity. You really need to define the differences better than that or you will just keep saying "oh that's just variation is a kind, and not macroevolution" -- you need to specify what will qualify in YOUR mind as macroevolution:
... one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
That is "micro"evolution. You need to differentiate better than that. How much different do you need? And what kind of time scale will you consider?
SWC msg 51 writes:
If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, ...
Just to repeat some things that have been said on this issue: evolution is change is species over time. Any change in any direction is evolution - even those that cause death.
Sometimes features are discarded when they are no longer useful - because they waste energy and resources to produce that could be better 'spent' on other newer features. Hind legs on whales fits that picture, eyes on animals in caves also fits that picture. That does not prevent some features from developing in new directions to become new kinds of limbs.
I AM CERTAIN EVOLUTION (MACROEVOLUTION) HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND NEVER WILL HAPPEN! I CAN BET ON IT!
By my definition of macroevolution or yours? Or by putting your fingers in your ears, wearing a blindfold and shouting even louder?
http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic
No answer yet?
Looks like you haven't really defined macroevolution yet in a way that can be used to then define what kind of evidence you will consider.
Exactly what do you expect to see that shows "macro"evolution but not "micro"evolution?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 109 of 302 (319284)
06-08-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


bump for SWC
http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution Logic
Still looking for your definition of "macro"evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:02 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 302 (319303)
06-08-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:50 PM


Yes, microevolution, we do have examples of that. But NOT macroevolution. There is a big difference between the two.
So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Macroevolution is not a combination of microevolution. Microevolution is the variations within a kind, we see that happen all the time. Macroevolution is changing the kinds, that cannot happen, never has, never will, and has NEVER been observed. It's not possible, there are limits to the variation.
You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again.
So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh?
Genetics don't permit it. They have limits, that evolution would need to cross, but this cannot happen. Mutations? They can't make evolution happen.
Once again, this is only a repeated statement based on an argument from incredulity and ignorance, and NOT a substantiation of your position with evidence.
There is no limit to genetics that has yet been found, no barrier to mutations happening in any position or causeing any specific change or other. To say genetics does not permit it you have to show evidence of a mechanism that prevents it, not just make unsubstantiated assertions based on incredulity and ignorance.
Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed. On this point you are absolutely wrong.
Evolution is change in species through time. Mutations are the mechanism for changes to the genetics of a species. Natural selection is the mechanism where non-disadvantageous mutations are not eliminated from the gene pool.
I cannot picture a scale-feather.
Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe.
That is what makes evolution so ridiculous. I am not saying that the change has to happen in one generation. I'll let you use millions of generations, as your theory proposes. But you will not find a scale evolving into a feather. So, what is the hopeful monster theory? Finding that a scale slowly evolved into a feather, and seeking the transitional forms?
What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way.
Does a feather need to evolve from a scale? Nope, so this is a strawman in your argument (another logical fallacy btw). It can have evolved from any type of {skin\surface} feature. If it evolved from any soft tissue feature then the chances of fossil preservation are limited (but not eliminated -- as we see with more and more fossils that show developments of feathers on dinosaurs)
You can't use denial of evidence as a substantiation of your argument.
Or, instead, finding that scales SUDDENLY evolved into feathers, without leaving any transitional forms?
Can I take it from this that your definition of "macro"evolution does NOT include the "hopeful monster" concept?
If we can agree on this, then how do you define "macro"evolution without having it encompass the accumulation over time of many intermediate evolutionary steps, each one on the level of "micro"evolution as it is passed from species to species by descent of selected features (natural selection of non-disadvantageous mutations over time ... evolution).
Bottom line: how do you define "macro"evolution?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:50 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:25 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 302 (319306)
06-08-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:02 PM


Re: bump for SWC
I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons.
How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.
This is what the fossil record shows.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:02 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:28 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 302 (319320)
06-08-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:16 PM


Re: Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
Anything you could show me. But this has to be a change between kinds of animals or plants, not species.
What kind of change, how much, ... what is your definition of "maccro"evolution?
You need to set the benchmark of what it is you want to see not just wave your hands at all the evidence.
Ok, so maybe that would show evolution, but it wouldn't help the evolution theory that a single cell evolved into a human.
So you keep stating,but you haven't provided any evidence for HOW it cannot happen. Just repeating statements of incredulity and ignorance is NOT evidence.
... for the progressive evolution ...
Why progressive? Evolution is evolution, it is neither "progressive" nor "regressive" - it is just change in species over time.
"Progressive" is an egotistical valuation of some changes compared to others from a purely human viewpoint, a viewpoint which - like your opinion - has absolutely no effect on what happens in the natural world universe.
... we would need many advances and growth.
Nope. Again your assumption of "advances" is an erroneous valuation from your {egotistical} human viewpoint.
We would just need a lot of changes, each one small and relatively insignificant in the grand scope of things, but by accumulation over time (3.5 billion years) amounting to "significant" enough for a vast and divergent ecology that happens to include us at this time.
But decreases and loss may happen sometime in there, but that's nothing that would convince me of evolution.
But you see, "decreases and loss" is once again your {egotistical} human viewpoint, and not of any importance to the natural universe. Is it a "loss" to get rid of extra baggage? Is it a "decrease" to stop wasting resources on a non-productive element?
Is it a loss for a horse to lose extra toes so that it can stand taller on one extended and fused toe-foot? It's still standing isn't it? And that extra leg length translates into being able to run faster for the same amount of leg development: is that a decrease?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:16 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:37 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 302 (319323)
06-08-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:23 PM


age of the earth ... again?
This earth is only about 6,000 years old.
Another unsubstantiate assertion that is contradicted by facts.
If you want to discuss this you can take it to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Or I can start another {Age Correlations, step by step} just for you.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.
or you can try to ignore reality.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:23 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 129 of 302 (319342)
06-08-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:07 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:43 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 302 (319345)
06-08-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:09 PM


define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really.
So you keep saying, but you have yet to present ANY evidence.
You are saying that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 does not equal 14.
Saying it does not make it so.
Until you actually present some kind of evidence for your assertion all it amounts to is your opinion stated over and over and over and over, and ... it has absolutely NO effect on the natural universe.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:09 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 171 of 302 (319466)
06-09-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:52 PM


"Macro"evolution still undefined.
SWC writes:
Message 133
I have already said what macroevolution would be.
But, here are the major differences:
That's not a definition. That is just a list of your personal misunderstandings of evolution. No, you haven't defined what "macro"evolution would be. All you have said is what it would NOT be.
You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation.
*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.
*Microevolution happens, it has been observed
*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"
You can call it anything you want, it is still change in species over time, so it is evolution. But at least we can start with examples of "micro"evolution, and not have you pretend it doesn't happen eh?
*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism
*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen
Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing.
Why and How? More to the point how NOT by accumulation of "micro"evolution?
Don't you get tired of making the same claim over and over and not providing any evidence, any reason for your claim other than your profound incredulity and pedestrian ignorance?
What prevents it? What is the {biological\genetic} obstacle that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution from happening? Where is the switch that says this little change is ok, but THAT little change take it outside "kind" and cannot happen? Other than in your mind.
That was not meant to be an argument.
ROFLOL.
SWC writes:
Message 134
The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly. It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.
This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.
Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated.
SWC writes:
Message 140
I have already said, you keep ignoring it. I'm not going to post it hundreds of times. Please check back, I already said.
No you haven't defined what "macro"evolution is, you just keep repeating what you think it isn't, without regard for whether you are correct or not.
Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.
Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture)
{abe}


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
{/abe}
I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?
Do you even know what I was talking about there? Or did you just go through and pick and choose at random without having a clue what I was talking about and to what I was replying?
Do you have a clue what you are saying?
The total effect is progressive, a cell evolving into a human. Sure, according to your beliefs it may have gone down and up, but the total effect is what I see, and it could only have come by through serious progression, this doesn't mean it couldn't go down at times.
You can call it "progressive" but that is only showing your human species egotism. What is it from the viewpoint of the bacteria? More food?
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.
This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong).
I wasn't making any assertions. I was pointing out how I could use the same reasoning an evolutionist used to put down AIG, to put down TO. It's a claim that can be flipped around right back at the person who used it.
That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged.
as·ser·tion n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
You have done this again with the age of the earth. This is all your argument about "macro"evolution amounts to: an assertion on your part.
SWC, msg 146 writes:
Ok, here, you can go to my essay that I wrote, on my site, and read my essay, there I have my support for my claim about mutations not being able to do the job, as well as support for many of my other claims: Page Not Found - Webs
I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?
So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.
I have work to get to ... see you later.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link
Edited by RAZD, : added picture

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 302 (319711)
06-09-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:52 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
I read your essay and was not dissappointed. It is full of misconceptions and falsehoods, as well as being assertion after assertion with no foundation.
Your comment on Lucy with the knee is typical of the lack of any care or attempt to find the truth of the statements you included. This has already been dealt with on the Lucy - fact or fraud? (click) thread, so I expect you either to:
(1) Correct your essay accordingly (the honest thing to do) or
(2) Substantiate you claim -- on the linked thread, not here -- by providing actual evidence of professional misconduct by the scientists involved (the other honest thing to do) or
(3) Continue in your ignorance and incredulity to claim such falsehoods as if they were real (with some mistaken belief that you are somehow right to do so, no matter how dishonest it is)
Your choice.
Because of the several outright errors (and lack of scientific rigor displayed by it) in your website it cannot be used as a source of factual information, it is NOT evidence (except of your ignorance).
Oh, yes, and your opinion is NOT evidence, and your repeated assertions of your opinion is NOT evidence.
So: you have not presented any evidence yet to show that an accumulation of small changes over time results in the 'remarkable' differences that we humans consider different enough to characterize as {family} or larger taxon groups.
You have specifically not presented any evidence of any mechanism that would in any way prevent further change from happening, whether at a genetic level or at a larger species selection level.
So, as noted in Message 171, let's set some groundwork. Lets talk about simple speciation first - you agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes? - and let's start with this example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?
Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added one line
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:52 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 208 of 302 (320071)
06-10-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ramoss
06-10-2006 4:28 PM


brain size and intelligence - and evidence
We had a thread a while back that dealt with the issue of brain size and intelligence, the thread is titled "Bones of Contention"
http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions. -->EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.
There is no relation within a species between brain size and intelligence because there are several other factors the also affect intelligence that are in no way related to relative sizes of brains in normally developed members of the species.
This argument is easily falsified by comparing ID scores or other measures of intelligence with brain size -- no relationship has yet been shown that correlates between the two, the data is scattered.
The intelligence in a species is more related to the surface area of the brain and the interconnectedness of the different portions.
Smaller volume skulls contain brains that can still have the same or more surface area and can still have the same or better interconnections, thus removing the constraints of volume on individual intelligence compared to other individuals within the same species.
Any argument based on brain size within the same species is therefore suspect.
What we see in hominid development though is not just an increase in volume, but development of certain areas more than others -- areas that relate to what we call "higher" cognitive functions. This is where you see the evidence for the evolution of brain capacity.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ramoss, posted 06-10-2006 4:28 PM ramoss has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 302 (320100)
06-10-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 7:52 PM


The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
Looks like this thread is devolving into "What is Wrong With SWC's Essay" so maybe we should take it a step at a time to show the logical fallacies and erroneous information.
Evolution - true or false? Have you ever wondered? Are you unsure of the answer? Do you think you know the answer, but are really doubting the validity of it? Have you been taught your whole life that evolution is true, but inside, you are really doubtful? Read on to understand the problem, and find the answer you really need. In our quest for the answer, we will cover a wide range or aspects of evolution. Not all evolutionists hold all the beliefs we will look at now, but most do. We will explore: the finds of the fossil record, natural selection, hominid finds, the geologic column, probabilities for evolution, the primitive environment with the first evolutionary developments, vestigial organs, mutations, rock dating methods, and much more.
Ever wondered what an argument from incredulity looked like? This first paragraph is nothing but fluff and the assertion that the author actually knows something that the reader does not. As we shall see (if we haven't already) this is a false assumption.
The outstanding falsehood here is that evolution is based on beliefs rather than the scientific study of evidence and the corroboration of theory by test after test after test.
Thus the first paragraph is based on a false premise.
So, what is evolution? Evolution is the popular belief that a unicellular organism or something even simpler evolved, over time, to form all that we see today; that being: animals, humans, plants, etc.
Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.
Evolution is the theory of change in species over time. As time passes more changes will be accumulated. This is all that is necessary for evolution to be "true" (although theories are not ever regarded as "true" by scientists, just corroborated by evidence and repeated testing; theories can be invalidated at any time by new evidence, but "truth" cannot - by definition eh?).
This is not a "belief" system -- let's look at the definition of
belief n
1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: unbelief]
2: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [syn: impression, feeling, notion, opinion]
Now lets look at the definition of
sci·ence n.
1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
No "belief" involved.
Thus this is a mischaracterization of the science of evolution, it is a falsehood. One cannot expect a valid argument about a topic when the topic is defined incorrectly.
Either the author does not understand the topic enough to define it properly, and thus will be unable to talk intelligently about it,
Or the author is purposely misrepresenting the topic, and thus will misrepresent anything else he needs to in order to make whatever point he intends with such misrepresentation,
Or the author is ignorant of the proper definition, and thus is likely to be ignorant of any other related issue,
Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.
Based on just this part of the essay there is no reason to expect any valid argument from it.
This is actually evidence of someone who is careless in what they say.
Can such carelessness be defended?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 7:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:49 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 249 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:38 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024