The phenomenon is described relying on micromutational change. Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. Micromutation is provable, macromutation is inferred.Apart from that, macromutation is not at all well supported by the evidence.
Explain the difference between "micromutational change" and "macromutational change." These are made-up terms that don't appear anywhere in a scientific description of the Theory of Evolution - they are made up by Creationists who want to pretend that small changes can't possibly add up to large ones after multiple iterations. What mechanism do you propose that prevents small generational differences from resulting in a descendant that is vastly different from its distant ancestor? It's like you're claiming that if a person starts walking in the correct direction from Washington, DC they won't eventually wind up in New York. Small steps add up to large distances.
As Gould stated -
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1.Stasis -they appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear;morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
Right, but Gould is a discredited idiot. What he's essentially saying is that he wants to see all of the steps between points A and F. We have steps A, C, D, and F. The fossilization process means that fossils are extremely rare in comparison to original population sizes (out of a hundred thousand individual organisms, you may only find one fossil, or even fewer), and so we don't expect to see every single permutation.
Also, he keeps moving the goalposts. For example, Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of a transitional species between birds and reptilian dinosaurs. When presented with this extremely strong evidence, morons like Gould demand that scientists show him every single generational change between a reptilian ancestor and Archaeopteryx. It's an impossible demand, and doesn't even come close to falsifying evolution.
In short, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.Yet, it is 'believed' despite the lack of evidence.
Blatantly false. Every single fossil ever found has supported exactly what Evolution predicts: every feature of every species should not be wholly unique. Rather, all features should be modified versions of the same feature found in other species. This is borne out by every fossil ever found, as well as every currently living species.
but the evidence fails for the most part to support this contention.
No, it doesn't. Rather, the entire body of the evidence supports the contention that all life on this planet descended from a common ancestor. There are no unique features on this planet. All features of every organism existing or that we have evidence of having existed in the past are modified versions of the same feature in other species.
That's true but nonetheless the theory allows people to imagine that there is no God in which case who makes the rules? We do and let's face it, we're not good at that as evidenced by the state of this world and its rapidly declining morality.Since the theory is not well supported by the evidence -it is a philosophy.
What rules? Morality? Humans do, obviously. As we always have. Even when your supposed deity gave instructions, humans continued to define morality on their own. You say the world is declining morally? I say we've come a long way in fighting against racism and slavery, in treating women fairly, in the treatment of the ill (physically and mentally), and tolerance of homosexuality and other sexual differences. If you'd really like to go back to a more "moral" time as defined in religious texts, feel free to ship out to Pakistan and join up with the remnants of the Taliban.
Evolution, once again, has
absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. Evolution is in no way the same as "social Darwinism." Evolution is a model describing an observed phenomenon. No conclusions can be taken from Evolution as to human behavior, any more than the Theory of Gravity can tell you how to treat your fellow man.
Except the theory of gravity is not a philosophy since it is fully supported by the facts. We cannot call it a philosophy by any stretch of the imagination so it belongs in a completely different category.
"Philosophy" does not mean "an idea unsupported by facts." Please consult your dictionary.
I agree and that is why so many cults spring up all over -they interpret according to what they want to believe, not what the Bible actually says.For example, theistic evolutionists happily interpret 'day' to mean millions of years and fit it into their philosophy. God gave us brains and languages, not to confuse us but so we can be personally responsible for the choices we make. Days has to mean days -otherwise nobody can be held responsible for not choosing the correct philosophy.Even Hebrew scholars, though they might not believe the Bible personally, have stated that the clear implication of the Bible is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days
The Bible says a great many things that, taken literally, are completely false. Like 6-day Creationism. There is literally zero evidence supporting that position except for a collection of old books written to preserve an oral tradition of stories made up by pre-historic humanity. Primitive nomads like the early Hebrews could certainly be forgiven for thinking the Sun orbits the Earth - but they were still wrong.
But teaching that philosophy as fact without presenting the evidence for creation/ID as an alternative philosophy, leaves people with no choice -they think its fact and that science has proven it and their lives are affected by it.Philosophy affects people.
Creationism and ID are not the only competing ideas. Science, as it is taught in classrooms, consists of the general consensus of the scientific community. The most accurate model for the observed changes in allele frequency over generations, including the apparent relationships of all species currently extant and every fossil dug from the ground, is the modern Theory of Evolution. This model has been supported by countless experiments, and its predictions are used in laboratories literally
every day without being falsified.
Flying Spaghetti Monster Creationism is a competing idea. It says that Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe, with all of our memories intact, etc, last Thursday, beginning with a midget on a hill.
One of these belongs in a science classroom. The other does not. Guess which category Christian Creationism belongs in? How about ID?
Philosophy may affect people. Scientific Theories are not intended to affect people's relationships with each other. If some moron decides that the Theory of Gravity means that obese people, with their stronger personal gravitational fields, are somehow "better" than smaller individuals, this is hardly the fault of the Theory of Gravity, and it certainly doesn't make the Theory any less accurate. It just means some people are idiots.
No, I really don't think so -society justifies it by opinion -if you think of an unborn baby as a separate life and really give it some thought, I do not think that an unseared conscience can come to that conclusion. I know however that many people believe it. I believed that consensus opinion before I realized that evolution is a philosophy and God is a very real possibility. Now I feel differently. My conscience tells me that I justified that belief by listening to people' opinions on the matter.
Quite to the contrary - the more I think on the matter, the more I realize that a fetus is not yet a full human being, and it is in effect a parasite living in the body of a fully developed human being. The fetus' right to exist is overridden by the woman's right to control her own body. Nobody has the right to force a woman to go through a pregnancy and childbirth, or to force her to continue to host a parasite in her body that she wants removed.
Even if the parasite will, in 9 months, grow to become a human being.
Unless the evidence is actually underwhelming at best and the religion that one sticks to is evolution blinding one to other possibilities that actually, in my unbiased opinion make more sense.
Evolution is a scientific Theory, not a religion. The evidence for its accuracy is so "underwhelming" that it's predictions have been borne out throughout the fossil record, as well as in countless laboratory experiments. Nearly all of modern Biology is based on Evolution, right down to modern medicines, antibiotics, and scores of other real-world solid verifications. If the Theory of Evolution was not an accurate model describing the observed allele changes over generations, none of these would exist.
Your opinion is hardly unbiased. You're ignoring volumes of evidence in support of a very old superstition. The correct word, I think, is "delusional."
quote:
de·lu·sion /dlu’n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
—"Dictionary.com"
Unless one looks at the fossil lack of evidence for evolution and is not blinded by the uniformatarian assumptions of geology and looks at so many other things like the human brain and the eye and all the things that make gradualism look suspect at best.
Gradualism is an observed fact. We can see, for example, the yearly depositing of layers of sediment on lakebeds. Care to provide a mechanism by which millions of these identical layers could have been created in some other way, and then magically started to be an annual event as we currently observe, all while maintaining an identical pattern?
The eye is one of the
best proofs of evolution. It has evolved, completely separately, on at least three separate occasions I can think of off the top of my head. We have examples of every step, from basic light-sensitive cells, right up to the fully-formed eye, present in existing species and the fossil record. See
the Wiki article for a basic rundown.
Though we cannot prove Genesis neither can we prove the big bang, abiogenesis and so many other so called 'facts' of evolution -its an alternative philosophy and a closer look at the Bible shows many provable facts of history supported by historical accounts as well as by archeological finds. Not to mention the alignment of nations that currently want to annihilate Israel exactly as foretold in many chapters of the Bible where the end times are mentioned.
All the nations prophesied as attempting to wipe Israel out are Muslim nations and these things were written centuries before Mohammed started the Muslim religion.An alliance primarily of Russia and Iran with many other Muslim nations taking part with one main intention is happening right before our eyes.They will try to annihilate Israel -of that I have no doubt.Who could have known these things but One who is outside of time and can see the beginning as well as the end?
Evolution says
absolutely nothing at all regarding cosmic origins or abiogenesis. Evolution describes
only the change in allele frequency over generations in already-existing life. Abiogenesis is a completely different Theory and, while it has been making stunning progress itself, even if Abiogenesis is false, Evolution would not be falsified. The Big Bang Theory of cosmic origins is similarly a strong Theory, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution.
Your Biblical prophesies have been made many times in the past, and have thus far failed every time.
Is there any possibility that the emotional avoidance may be just what evolution is all about. It did replace creation and people theorized about an old earth long before radiometric dating with all its inherent assumptions conveniently came to the fore and apparently proved what had already been decided by men that clearly hated the Bible. I'm not speaking of Darwin -in that sense he wasn't such a good Darwinist himself, he had some serious reservations about his own theory while others ran with it and built on it.
No. That's foolish. The Old Earth Theories were
verified when radiometric dating confirmed their predictions. That's the nature of the scientific method. Step 1: observe. Step 2: hypothesize. Step 3: make a prediction based on the hypothesis. Step 4: test the prediction. If the prediction holds true, the hypothesis carries the weight of at least some evidence. If the prediction is false, the hypothesis must be revised or discarded.
Hating the Bible is irrelevant, whether it's true or false - evidence is unbiased. Of course Darwin had reservations of his new Theory - he lacked the ability to test it much further than his own observations with birds. But the predictions of his Theory have since been confirmed by later finds in the fossil record and advances in Biology and experimental capabilities. And the whole of the field of genetics with the direct observation of allele frequency changes over generations adds a mountain of support in way Darwin could never have even imagined.
As a last thought on the matter, everyone on this site calls for evidence for ID and seem very opposed to evidence against evolution being held as evidence for creation but it is precisely the evidence against evolution that most strongly points toward creation and it is that evidence that leaves evolution open to serious question.
If I prove that your eyes are not blue, does that mean they are green? This is the black/white fallacy - it's not an either/or choice. If Evolution is falsified, it means that the Evolutionary model for observed changed is traits over generations is false. That doesn't suddenly mean Biblical Creation is true. Creation, ID, and all of their silly cousins need their
own evidence to back them up. Proving "A" wrong doesn't mean "B" has to be right, either.
Edited by Rahvin, : Goddammit, I just saw Nosy's post. Sorry, early-morning reflex posting.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2
