|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best Evidence Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
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: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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? Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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, : gishingby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
idscience Member (Idle past 4665 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024