Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best Evidence Macro-Evolution
idscience
Member (Idle past 4665 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 1 of 164 (654462)
03-01-2012 5:17 PM


I am interested in todays best evidence for macro-evolution. With the phylogentic tree falling apart, and the failures of bacteria experiments to produce organisms with significant information gain, I am wondering if there is anything else evolution has to offer.
The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.
I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument. The same evidence could infer common design. Common components over a varied selection of organisms as well as similar building codes (hox genes, DNA) suggest to many common design.
I am interested in hard evidence that moves macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory? Evidence of the same standard that is demanded from intelligent design science. I look forward to the responses.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Omnivorous, posted 03-01-2012 7:45 PM idscience has replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:08 PM idscience has replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 8:24 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-02-2012 10:45 AM idscience has replied
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 10:48 AM idscience has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13108
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 164 (654464)
03-01-2012 7:13 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Best Evidence Macro-Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 3 of 164 (654474)
03-01-2012 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by idscience
03-01-2012 5:17 PM


Got evidence or reasoning?
idscience writes:
I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument. The same evidence could infer common design. Common components over a varied selection of organisms as well as similar building codes (hox genes, DNA) suggest to many common design.
So you reject homology and morphology as evidence for ID as well.
Is that correct?
I'd also be interested in an explanation of your claim of circularity, particularly in light of the confirming evidence found in the fossil record.
As your post stands, you seem to be attempting to poison the evidentiary well with bare assertion.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 5:17 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:01 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4665 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 4 of 164 (654477)
03-01-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Omnivorous
03-01-2012 7:45 PM


Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
I would say homology and morphology is equally supportive of common descent and common design. I can certainly see the association, and it is logical to see. Common ancestor and common design would be very difficult to distinguish, if at all.
I would say homology is a good case to infer common ancestor. The circular reasoning I see is, because evolution is a fact, similar structures and systems show relationship to common ancestors. Because the fossil record shows the relationships with common ancestors, evolution is a fact.
Because homology isn't evidence, but inference and conjecture, it is inconclusive and cannot be used to dogmatically state evolution is a fact. In my opinion. ID could make the same claim.
The fossil record shows similarities between organisms. The rest is assumption based on the predetermined belief it is evolution that caused this similarity.
Edited by idscience, : adding
Edited by idscience, : added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Omnivorous, posted 03-01-2012 7:45 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 03-01-2012 8:10 PM idscience has replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:13 PM idscience has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 8:27 PM idscience has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 5 of 164 (654478)
03-01-2012 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by idscience
03-01-2012 5:17 PM


Please define macroevolution first.
Hello idscience, and welcome to the fray.
I am interested in todays best evidence for macro-evolution.
What is macroevolution?
A definition used by science (biology, evolution) please, along with a reference so we can check your sources.
With the phylogentic tree falling apart, and the failures of bacteria experiments to produce organisms with significant information gain, I am wondering if there is anything else evolution has to offer.
Assertion without substantiation. What are your references?
The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.
Again, what is macroevolution?
We need you to define this so that we know if we are talking about the same thing.
I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument. The same evidence could infer common design. Common components over a varied selection of organisms as well as similar building codes (hox genes, DNA) suggest to many common design.
What you don't accept is irrelevant, opinion is apparently completely unable to alter reality in any significant way.
What the evidence shows is what is relevant.
I am interested in hard evidence that moves macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory? Evidence of the same standard that is demanded from intelligent design science. I look forward to the responses.
Again, what is your definition, and what do you expect to see for evidence to meet your definition? Then we will review your definition to see how it matches what is used in science, and then we can see if your expectations are based on a false definition or not.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

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


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 5:17 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 164 (654479)
03-01-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:01 PM


Macroevolution is a fact.
The best evidence of Macro Evolution as a fact is that we can look around us and see the diversity, and also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.
The ONLY explanation that explains what we see is the Theory of Evolution.
There have been claims of "common design" but so far no evidence has ever been presented that supports the existence of any designer or of any model or method that designer might use.
Until that happens the idea of design should be put at the same standing as pixie dust.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:01 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:32 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 7 of 164 (654481)
03-01-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Hello again idscience
I would say homology and morphology is equally supportive of common descent and common design. I can certainly see the association, and it is logical to see. Common ancestor and common design would be very difficult to distinguish, if at all.
So is it a testable difference?
We can test for homology and morphology occurring in lab experiments, field experiments, the DNA record and the fossil record.
Can we test for common design? What would we expect from common design that we would not see from common descent?
Enjoy

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


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:01 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4665 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 8 of 164 (654483)
03-01-2012 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
03-01-2012 8:08 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Lets start with the 5 best examples that meet your definition of macro-evolution.
As far as the only contention between ID and Evo is this hypothesis, it would be rather lengthy and I must say irregular to cite proof for agreement? ID agrees variation within a species is a fact, and that natural selection is a known mechanism for limited change. No arguments there so what do you want me to cite?
Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-clue-how-life-began
Universe: Hawking believing that universes can create themselves from nothing because of laws like gravity exist, is an indicator to me that is pretty much up in the air. So what is left to argue about? common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2012 8:24 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:29 PM idscience has replied
 Message 16 by nwr, posted 03-01-2012 8:42 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 03-01-2012 9:01 PM idscience has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 9 of 164 (654484)
03-01-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
The Gish Gallop continues.
What in this post is a definition of Macroevolution? You were asked for a definition. Instead you throw more crap against the wall. Nothing stuck.
Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-clue-how-life-began
Universe: Hawking believing that universes can create themselves from nothing because of laws like gravity exist, is an indicator to me that is pretty much up in the air. So what is left to argue about? common ancestry.
It is your topic. It would be nice if you stayed on topic. But alas I am sure it is to much to ask.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:20 PM idscience has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 164 (654485)
03-01-2012 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by idscience
03-01-2012 5:17 PM


I am interested in todays best evidence for macro-evolution.
Genetics, morphology, biogeography, the fossil record, that sort of thing.
With the phylogentic tree falling apart ...
... without any actual scientists noticing this remarkable event ...
... and the failures of bacteria experiments to produce organisms with significant information gain ...
... something that creationists are unable or unwilling to define ...
... I am wondering if there is anything else evolution has to offer.
You mean, apart from consistency with all the facts? No, in that respect it is in just the same boat as every other scientific theory.
The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution.
Try telling that to Michael Behe.
I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument.
That would be a more compelling argument if it meant anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 5:17 PM idscience has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 164 (654487)
03-01-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
I would say homology and morphology is equally supportive of common descent and common design.
And if saying things made them true, creationists would long since have achieved victory, as would flat-earthers.
I would say homology is a good case to infer common ancestor. The circular reasoning I see is, because evolution is a fact, similar structures and systems show relationship to common ancestors. Because the fossil record shows the relationships with common ancestors, evolution is a fact.
Because homology isn't evidence, but inference and conjecture, it is inconclusive and cannot be used to dogmatically state evolution is a fact. In my opinion. ID could make the same claim.
The fossil record shows similarities between organisms. The rest is assumption based on the predetermined belief it is evolution that caused this similarity.
You seem to have failed to understand the argument. This leaves you in a different position from scientists, who do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:01 PM idscience has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 12 of 164 (654488)
03-01-2012 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Hi again idscience.
Lets start with the 5 best examples that meet your definition of macro-evolution.
Not how it works: you made an assertion. In order to be able to discuss whether or not it is a valid assertion we need to know if you understand what you are talking about.
You need to provide the definition of macroevolution. With references so that we can check them.
Otherwise we can be talking at cross-purposes.
So step up: define macroevolution.
We start with your definition.
Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-clue-how-life-began
Which has nothing to do with evolution, macro or micro, so we are getting the impression that you don't have a clue for what macroevolution is ....
Do you know what the gish gallop is? It's a dishonest creationist trick to keep from answering question.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : gishing

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


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:20 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4665 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


(1)
Message 13 of 164 (654490)
03-01-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
03-01-2012 8:10 PM


Re: Macroevolution is a fact.
So for you, the best evidence is that the world has different varieties of life in it, and the fossil record pretty much shows us what we see today? This is your scientific evidence?
You say there have been claims of common design but no evidence. You are claiming evidence for evolution that is subjective, and can be used for common design. The only reason it can't is because you say it can't. Common components are used all the time by engineers, and designers. There is evidence to some, from what is known about intelligent actions. Digital coding in DNA, and the regulatory systems and the language and building plans used to construct organisms. I am not saying any of this proves ID but certainly it suggests further investigation. Certainly there is enough that ignorant personal attacks, ridicule and mocking is unwarranted.
to summarily throw out ID as so much "pixie dust" is short sighted. To say ID has to explain all the answers for a designer is absurd, and doesn't negate any evidence suggesting an intelligent agent involvement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 03-01-2012 8:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:38 PM idscience has seen this message but not replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 03-01-2012 8:45 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 8:58 PM idscience has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 164 (654492)
03-01-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Macroevolution is a fact.
Hi again idscience,
... Common components are used all the time by engineers, and designers. ...
Indeed.
Can you tell me what we would see from such sharing of design that we would not see from common descent?
Enjoy.

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


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:32 PM idscience has seen this message but not replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4665 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 15 of 164 (654493)
03-01-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
03-01-2012 8:13 PM


Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Nothing is being tested. All that is observed is similarities. DNA in fossils shows similarity. How do you test for morphology in past events?
I would expect similar components and systems in organisms that don't seem to fit branches of the tree. Seemingly different unrelated creatures with common components would suggest a possible design. For example, an RFID for your car ignition, and the same controller for an industrial door lock. Very similar system or component but unrelated otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:48 PM idscience has replied
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2012 8:51 PM idscience has replied
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 9:00 PM idscience 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