Evolution: a red herring?

I think you know that the term macro-evolution is referring to the evolution from a lower form to a higher form of life while micro-evolution explains why we have different species of dogs for example.

Let's put it this way. If I had a series of dated photographs showing me standing in front of a car parked in front of the nation's national monuments, would any of those photographs show me at the wheel of my car, in motion, like a video tape?No, of course not; that's not what photographs are able to record. But such a collection of pictures would be proof that I had driven from one side of the country to the other - and, indeed, if you laid the photos out in chronological order, you could tell about where I had started and where I had ended, even though none of those pictures showed me driving on the road - the transition, in other words.Fossils are evidence of evolution because they show the various species that evolution has acted on over time. They don't, of course, show one creature changing into another, because that's not how evolution works. How about the various species of Protocaptorhinus? Any of those species would qualify. Indeed; multiple thousands of such species are known.

I don't understand what you mean by "higher" and "lower."Is a dog higher than a beaver? Is a bird higher than an iguana? Or is an iguana higher than an alligator, and if so, why? Is fungus higher than bacteria, or the other way around?I think you'll find that most of your misunderstandings about biology come from the fact that you apply a great deal of your own prejudices to your understanding of the world of living things.

By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution."for instance, if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would effectively disprove the law heritability, meaning that any system describing reproduction through heritable features, such as evolution, would also be overturned."It seems to me that if a dog spontaneously gave birth to a cat (or vice versa)it would be a great thing for evolution. This would be hard evidence for one genus evolving into another, which I have never seen anyone give an example of, either living or in the fossil record. It is easy to understand how different species of Feline could evolve. Its not sow easy to see how Feline could evolve into Canine for example. You can mate any cat with another species of cat but you you cannot get an offspring by mating a cat with any species of dog."actually, yes, it is. if you have a working theory, and new information presents itself that contradicts that theory -- you have modify or discard that theory, don't you?"I would agree that if something discredits the theory you have to discard the theory and create a new theory but it would not be very useful to just build upon the old theory if its based on something that you later find to be untrue. For example if I state a the "Theory of Only Life on Earth" and I later find concrete evidence of life on Mars it wouldn't make much sense to rename my theory to "Theory of Only Life on Earth and Mars"."that's more or less the opposite of what creationists do: ignore the vast majority of evidence against their position."Your statement makes no logical sense. I would love for you to give me an example of evidence against a creator? Its impossible to provide such evidence. To disprove the existence of a creator is outside the scope of science therefore there can be no scientific evidence against a creator. Obviously, any being who could create our universe would not be subject to the very laws in which this being himself created. So while it is impossible for you to provide evidence against a creator I could give you a proof of a creator but the proof would have to rely upon your acceptance of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. If you reject those laws then I would be wasting my time.

Absolutely we can. For instance, we could design an experiment to test whether or not organisms inherited any of their traits from their parents. If this was not true, evolution would be impossible.Your problem is, you've confused the fact that evolution does not appear to be false with the idea that it's somehow not falsifiable. That's simply untrue - evolution could be disproven; it just hasn't been. That's exactly what we should expect for a theory that is essentially accurate. I'm not sure why you're hung up on "genus", which after all is a completely arbitrary taxonomic classification (which may or may not be relevant to evolution.) Certainly we've observed the evolution of new genera, and we certainly see from the fossil record that it has happened many times in the past. And obviously it has happened at least once for every genera we're currently aware of. Feline never did evolve into Canine, so it's not clear how this consistutes any sort of rebuttal for evolution. Why? You act like changing your mind and position to suit new evidence as it is uncovered is a bad thing, or is somehow dishonest. What could be more honest than admitting error and correcting it? Well, wait a minute. Is the creator outside of science, or not? How is it that you managed to directly contradict yourself in the space of a paragraph?

quote:

---

It seems to me that if a dog spontaneously gave birth to a cat (or vice versa)it would be a great thing for evolution.

---

With all respect that simply shows that you know very little about evolution. Dogs and cats have diverged for a considerably period of time and expecting a dog to lose all the features specific to dogs gained in that time and to spontaneously acquire the features specific to cats instead is simply not possible according to evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

This would be hard evidence for one genus evolving into another, which I have never seen anyone give an example of, either living or in the fossil record.

---

And if radical changes like a dog giving birth to a cat were possible we COULDN'T find evidence in the fossil record. The parents and child species would be just to different for us to make the link. We couldn't rely on any of the links we have found because the actual ancestry could be completely different.But we have found links in the fossil record - I would think that anyone interested in evolution would have heard of tiktaalik discovered last year, one more link in the chain connecting fish to land vertrebrates. That's evolution at well above the genus level - so why haven't you heard of it or the other well-known (and many, many more less well known) transitional fossils ?

Is that a fact? Let's see, if a mechanism was found that prevented minor genetic changes from accumulating and leading to macro-evolutionary changes then the ToE would be falsified. Seemed pretty easy to conceive of a possible falsification of the theory to me. Took me all of about 15 seconds, what's your excuse?

One can propose mechanisms all day long but mechanisms are not scientific evidence. I am an experimentalist. To experimentally disprove evolution would be impossible because an evolutionist will always argue that given enough time basically anything can happen. So how can one design an experiment to concretely disprove that microevolution + time = macroevolution.But I will turn it around on you and ask you to just give me just one experimentally verifiable case, in even the simplest of organisms, where minor genetic changes accumulate leading to macro-evolutionary changes.

Wow, just wow. Could you be more wrong? Seriously, I am completely serious. Is there any way on Earth that statement could be more wrong?

​

Introduction to the Scientific Method

​

From the link...

​

"If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified."

​

That is exactly what you are supposed to do. If it didn't then it *would* be a religion.

You just made my point for me. Where are the experiments that prove evolution? More importantly, how can we do an experiment that disproves evolution? How can we do an experiment to disproves micro + time = macro? No matter how long we carry out a genetic experiment in order to try and force mutations into evolving into a new and viable life form an evolutionist can always say there was not enough time to accomplish the task. We have been doing fruit fly experiments for over 100 years now, involving thousands of generations in order to try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability, but in fact the mutations are almost always detrimental to the organism and in the best cases they are neutral in terms of viability. Not to mention that no new species has been developed or even a new enzyme.Of course evolutionists will say there has not been enough time. That may be true, but without the scientific experiments to back up the claims it is still just a belief system. I can't disprove your belief system because you have not set it up so that it can be disproved. It's not subject to the testibility of experimental science which is why I say its not a valid scientific theory.I hope you better understand where I am coming from now.

. . . But we have found links in the fossil record - I would think that anyone interested in evolution would have heard of tiktaalik discovered last year, one more link in the chain connecting fish to land vertrebrates. That's evolution at well above the genus level - so why haven't you heard of it or the other well-known (and many, many more less well known) transitional fossils ?

I am sorry but have you seen the picture of the bone fragments for this species? I refuse to believe that we can know all that is claimed to be known about this organism from a few fragments of bone. Surely you can agree that a fair amount of assumptions are made and these assumptions are unverifiable. This is the case will pretty much all fossils. I am not saying they aren't true but only they cannot be proven to be true.I am sure we could give our opinions about these types of things for a long time with little accomplished.What I really wish more than anything that one of you biologist or evolutionists out there could honestly and logically address my previous point about chemical evolution. Nobody seems to want to talk about the jump from non-living to living.

Welcome to EvC EODoc One of your likely sources, directly or indirectly, would like for you to not use the argument all mutations are neutral, detrimental or 'not more viable.'From AIG - Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use:

quote:

---

“There are no beneficial mutations.”

​

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.”

---

Can't speak toward enzymes at the moment without further research but here are several examples of new speciation:Observed Instances of SpeciationYou may want to start a new thread should you decide to attempt to refute each and every example listed in the above link.{ABE} Before you start you may want to know AIG also would appreciate not embarrasing them with this easily disproven statement.

quote:

---

“No new species have been produced.”

​

This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.

---

Edited by anglagard, : ClarityEdited by anglagard, : Forgot to add speciation.

. . . For example if I state a the "Theory of Only Life on Earth" and I later find concrete evidence of life on Mars it wouldn't make much sense to rename my theory to "Theory of Only Life on Earth and Mars".

​

Why? You act like changing your mind and position to suit new evidence as it is uncovered is a bad thing, or is somehow dishonest. What could be more honest than admitting error and correcting it?

Its not a matter of changing your mind, it a matter of sheer logic. Why would I simply rename my theory to encompass every new planet that I found life on. If I found life on mars after my initial theory of "life only on earth" why would I revise my theory to just add mars, isn't more logical to just start over with a new theory? Obviously if I found life on mars too then it highly likely that there is life on many other planets so I need to redesign my theory to make it useful otherwise I am just wasting time. (Please note that this is only a simple example and I am not stating any position of the existence or non-existence of life on other planets.). . . So while it is impossible for you to provide evidence against a creator I could give you a proof of a creator but the proof would have to rely upon your acceptance of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Well, wait a minute. Is the creator outside of science, or not? How is it that you managed to directly contradict yourself in the space of a paragraph?

Of course DISPROVING creator is outside of science because the creator of anything would not be subject to the "laws" of his own creation. But we accept the observed laws of the universe as true laws (i.e. they are unwavering and always true for all time) then the laws the creation can point back to the existence of the creator and we can still speak scientifically without involving any hand waving. The best way to do this is by simple process of elimination. Would you like to see? But before I go further I need to ask you some questions because the proof does make some basic assumptions.First, do you accept the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?

because evolution is a biological process, the variation of the frequency of heritable features from one generation to the next. i'm not even sure what you think "chemical evolution" is. i've only ever heard creationists use that term. that should be your first hint that it's nothing but a canard. don't presume for one second that you know anything about my religion. i fail to see your logic. what does one have to do with the other? in fact, what ARE one and the other? i am not new to this debate. i have heard creationists speak before. the fact that i "obviously know what it means" does not make it valid scientific terminology. it means i'm somewhat familiar with creationism -- they're the only ones that use that term. "evolutionist" is another bad term, coming (again) straight from creationists seeking to make evolution into a competing religion. i have applied that term to people before, but only those so ignorant as to use terms like "macro-evolution." just because some people are ignorant of science doesn't mean that there isn't science. please describe to me why you think this is the logical outcome of the variation of heritable features in a population from one generation to the next. there is no part of evolution by means of natural selection that can apply to anything non-living. that means abiogenesis is NOT part of evolution. for all the theory of evolution knows, god could have planted the first life. or space aliens. or it could have arisen naturally -- it's all the same because evolution simply describes what things that are already alive do. yes. natural selection. sexual reproduction allowed organisms to vary their genetic makeups more, making them less succeptible to being wiped out by any one single thing.we have a number of organism that already display transitional states between asexual and sexual reproduction, such as hermaphrodism. in fact, you've probably given at least one such example to a significant other.

---

quote:

---

I am sorry but have you seen the picture of the bone fragments for this species? I refuse to believe that we can know all that is claimed to be known about this organism from a few fragments of bone.

---

The pictures I've seen indicate that we've got the front half of the beast pretty near complete. It's certainly a lot more than "a few fragments of bone". So I have to ask if you've seen the pictures ? Because what you're saying isn't true.

quote:

---

Surely you can agree that a fair amount of assumptions are made and these assumptions are unverifiable. This is the case will pretty much all fossils. I am not saying they aren't true but only they cannot be proven to be true.

---

This is the usual creationist attempt to dispose of the eivdence. The fact is that we do have many fossils with intermediate anatomical structures linking groups - and tiktaalik is only one of the fossils link fish to land vertebrates. This is pretty strong evidence - you may argue that it isn't absolute proof that it's just coincidence that these creatures just happened to exist - and at the right time, too. You could even argue that it's just coincidence that tiktaalik just happened to be found right where it should have been found. But that's really not a convincing explanation is it ? And it becomes even less convincing when you consider the huge number of transitional fossils that have actually been found.There's a big difference between nobody showing you the evidence and you rejecting the evidence that you've been shown out of hand.

Been there, done that. For one thing the second law only works in a closed system, which is not Earth due to the sun.If you have any evidence for your pronouncements, please feel free to post them in detail in the appropriate thread or propose one of your own.Edited by anglagard, : left out a letter

again, another famous canard. unless your proof has anything to do with the movement of heat, thermo-dyanamics is not going to help you.

---

shall i throw a book at you? there's quite a lot of information in answer to that question. i suggest you take a class in biology, geology, and then paleontology. you are evidently grossly unfamiliar with the fossil record, and it would not be profitable to explain everything in detail to you here. try this thread specifically set up for good examples (far beyond genus).

---