Evolution in pieces.

Prove to me that, given that I can walk a few blocks to the store, that I can't walk from Minneapolis to St. Louis given much more time.If there's a process that can lead to species change, and there doesn't seem to be a limiting mechanism as to the scale of that change, then it's reasonable to me to conclude that it's possible that you could go from unicellular life to the variety of metazoan life we see today. It becomes likely that's the case if we can't find any more likely alternatives.Simple enough for me. The only reason to reject it would be if you had a prior commitment to the inerrancy of a certain untestable view.

Perhaps we should get clear just what you do and do not accept? It is difficult to answer you in a way that you might understand if we don't know what we do have in common?That is, are you someone who is a believer in intelligent intervention here and there in the otherwise "conventional" evolutionary process?Or are you someone who believes in a collossal stream of "special creations"?Or are you a young earther who believes in one batch of creation with no changes since 6,000 years ago?Or are you a young earther who believes in hyper evolution since the flood?In addition, you ask for "proof". That word can mean somewhat different things. In science "proof", as it is used in mathematics isn't what is reached for but rather a best answer we have today. Can you define your idea of "proof"?

Ach, I still can't believe that there are people that actually believe that garbage. Blind faith is what that is. They completely reject the theory of continental drift don't they (most other theories I'll bet, don't they)?------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

quote:

---

Originally by Ooook!; Partially reproduced by The Elder

​

Ooook!: "So can you give a specific example of an evoltionary step that is too far to be caused by mutation?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Elder

​

Come on "Sam" we are not going to play word games tonight, or ever, I just dont do that crap.

---

Although I don't have a biology background sufficient to contribute to most C/E discussions, I am usually lurking around and crunching every word.To The Elder: I was disappointed in your response to Ooook! in this post. In contrast to your counter-challenge, he was not asking you for "proof" of anything. He merely asked that you point out one specific example of (macro-)morphological change which could not have occurred due to accumulated micro-evolutionary process and to suggest any factors which might act as a barrier to this process.He even requested that you select an example from among the modern evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record.

quote:

---

Remainder of quote originally posted by Ooook!

​

Define a real (ie one suggested by the theory of evolution not one imagined by creationists) 'macroevoltionary' step and explain why simple changes in DNA could not have caused it.

---

I, for one, would have been interested to read your answer. Perhaps John Paul or someone else would be willing to point to such a specific example and suggest any possible barrier.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 12-20-2003]

Some believe in continents whirling like drunken skaters, at fantastic speeds, with people on them ... and the people never thought it unusual enough to leave any record, nor did the rocks retain any trace of this other than the standard evidence for plate tectonics. Center for Scientific Creation. Googling "hydroplate" and digging up the many refutations of this silliness is left as an exercise for the reader.A Google search on "catastrophic plate tectonics" is good for a few laughs, too. John Baumgardner's the man for that one. A pretty interesting theory, with few flaws other than requiring vaporizing all the oceans and probably a good bit of the rocks without affecting life ;-). There was a lot of discussion of CPT here just before I showed up, much of it with a guy using the handle True Creation, who's now shown up on the Theology Web message board (at least I think it's the same guy). Well, the more intelligent ones claim to interpret the same data differently .. and are careful never to specify how they inerpret this data differently.

Ok, This is a horrible metaphore comparison, but in most states it is against the law to travel on the hwys and in all states you cannot walk through personal properties such as farms, peoples houses,etc because it is tresspassing, you would have to get permission to walk through backyyards and such, but you see I dont think in the theory of evolution, permision is a problem and even if it is then it is an assumption that permision would be given. So I dont think you can travel that distance any other way when walking. So, you cant walk that distance.------------------
The Elder

You would classify me as a student, thats it. When I study I apply this method to all topics: "guilty or incorrect" untill "innocent or correct" as correct. Most people read something and say, yeah that makes since, so they study the specifics and say, yes that backs this up so it must be true, I say hmm lets see whatelse we can find even after seeing the specifics.(added by edit)
My belief is irrelevent when trying to prove the "toe" wrong, you are not trying to prove me wrong we are trying to prove theory of evolution wrong and in trying to prove the "toe" wrong we will see if it is right.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

County roads, then. And it's only interstates you can't walk on, according to some heavy walkers I know. Since you've proposed a barrier that isn't in fact there, I say that not only can you walk from St. Louis to Minneapolis or back, evolution can proceed from microbe to man. I mean you haven't come even close to proposing what barrier would prevent that.

Ok, Do country roads actually go from St. Louis to Minneapolis? If you are correct then you can find the contry road which leads from St. Louis to Minneapolis and back it up with a websight/map showing the path via country roads. It really is irrelevent but if that example is factual, we must consider the problems that could occur from micro-e to macro-e also and present proof also. The problem is there is no proof which is comparible to a websight/map showing the roads from St. Louis to Minneapolis. So you are able to provide proof for the example but not for the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that mutation cannot lead from unicelled life to man in fact. If mutation can have this much of a change over time, present the proof that mutation can lead from bacteria to man.I want PROOF not indications, not just the fossil record and not just similarites but factual verifiable proof. And if science is based on similarities for the theory of evolution, then it is wrong. I dont care how smart people have been in the past, this shows there ignorance and you are just being a robot following flaw.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

ok, The step from reptile ear to mammel ear, that is un-proven. The only information we have is that it could have happend based on the fossil record.Here is the link:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1You have to scroll down the page a little bit to find it but it is on that page.------------------
The Elder

I want to say for the record if I am wrong, I will fall.------------------
The Elder

That's not an example of what he asked for. He didn't ask for an example of something that's un-proven; all of science is un-proven. He asked for an explanation of why "simple changes in DNA could not have caused it."

Are you saying that it is proven that smaller changes can lead to bigger changes? You also said all of science is unproven, I DONT think that is true, specation is proven.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

"I want to say for the record if I am wrong, I will fall." The ElderI want to say for the record that old Rte. 460 will take you from St. Louis to Virginia Beach, and (having been replaced by I-64) is now largely county or state maintained, and is frequently used by hikers, bikers, and farm equipment." Peace.

Map/Websight that shows evidence please. Honestly I dont want it because I dont care, it is irrelevent and represents an imagery only.------------------
The Elder