Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, Percy (Admin), Taq (5 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,756 Year: 16,792/19,786 Month: 917/2,598 Week: 163/251 Day: 51/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 72 of 137 (599976)
01-11-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
01-11-2011 10:41 AM


Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT, hope you are well.

When I mention transmutation as the process of one creature becoming a totally different creature I am refered to the statement that was when man tried to turn lead into gold.

Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way?

If not then please once again read Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. about creationist misdefinitions:

quote:
The creationist misdefinitions of evolution cited above carry with them implications that are not shared by the actual definition, while omitting aspects that are crucial to a proper understanding of the science, and this is why they are so wrong, and why creationists continue to misunderstand evolution. In this thread I would like to discuss those implications in greater detail.

If you cannot find a single biologist that supports your definition of macroevolution then you are guilty of creationist misdefinition.

Also see Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.:

quote:
We'll call what S1WC presented a 'daffynition' - some statement that does not relate to the terms as used in the science (no matter which science) but some 'daffy' misrepresentation instead (it is also known as a logical fallacy -- the straw man argument).

If you are addressing the validity of a science then you use the terms as defined in the science.

If you don't use the terms as defined in the science then you are not addressing the science.


It's really simple - you need to use the proper language to understand and be understood.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity.

At the micro scale this involves the changes between individuals within the breeding populations over time, up to the point where speciation occurs.

At the macro scale this involves the increasing divergence of daughter populations after speciation has occurred, increasing the diversity of life by the continued evolution within the separate branches.

Both occur through the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunity. No additional mechanism is needed to explain the evidence.

In the micro scale version we are looking at the changes within populations, while in the macro scale we are looking at how these changes within all the different populations results in greater diversity.

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/agassiz.html

quote:
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
One of the great scientists of his day, and one of the "founding fathers" of the modern American scientific tradition, Louis Agassiz remains something of a historical enigma. A great systematist and paleontologist, a renowned teacher and tireless promoter of science in America, he was also a lifelong opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. Yet even his most critical attacks on evolution have provided evolutionary biologists with insights.

128 years dead ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...%C3%A7ois_Jules_Pictet_de_la_Rive

quote:
François Jules Pictet de la Rive (27 September 1809 - 15 March 1872)
... Feeling the want of a hand-book, he prepared his Traité élémentaire de paléontologie (4 vols. 1844-1846). In the first edition Pictet, while adopting the hypothesis of successive creations of species, admitted that some may have originated through the modification of preexisting forms. In his second edition (1853-1857) he enters further into the probable transformation of some species, and discusses the independence of certain faunas, which did not appear to have originated from the types which locally preceded them.

139 years dead ... and his handbook was published before Origin of Species?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology

quote:
The history of paleontology traces the history of the effort to understand the history of life on Earth by studying the fossil record left behind by living organisms. Since it is concerned with understanding living organisms of the past paleontology can be considered to be a field of biology, but its historical development has been closely tied to geology and the effort to understand the history of the Earth itself.
...
Geological time scale and the history of life

Geologists such as Adam Sedgwick, and Roderick Murchison continued, in the course of disputes such as The Great Devonian Controversy, to make advances in stratigraphy. They described new geological epochs such as the Cambrian, the Silurian, the Devonian, and the Permian. ...


... with the link to Sedgwick:

quote:
Adam Sedgwick (22 March 1785 – 27 January 1873) was one of the founders of modern geology. He proposed the Devonian period of the geological timescale. Later, he proposed the Cambrian period, based on work which he did on Welsh rock strata.

Though he had guided the young Charles Darwin in his early study of geology, Sedgwick was an outspoken opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection.


... 134 years dead

All of these "critics" are people alive while Darwin was alive ... when there was a lot of reluctance to accept the theory Darwin proposed ...

... and nothing has happened in the over 100 ensuing years in biology and paleontology that provides any additional information about whether these ancient opinions were right or wrong ...?

Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated.

Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct?

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 49 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 10:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 84 of 137 (601302)
01-19-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Taq
01-19-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi Taq, having fun with a brick wall?

ICANT wants to see evidence that foraminifera evolved into something like a snail ... ignoring that forams are single cell while snails are not.

I've yet to see his explanation why convergent evolution doesn't fill his criteria of "something like" another species.

I am only aware of about 2 ERV's that are shared by chimps and gorillas that are not shared by humans. This is 2 out of thousands, a number that would be expected from incomplete fixation of the rare ERV in one lineage

You could also look to see if the loci for the anomalous ERVs shows evidence of subsequent mutation in the human lineage, thus eradicating the evidence in our lineage while not affecting it in the chimp and gorilla lineages.

Given that we are talking 1 or 2 ERVs out of several thousands, with the rate of mutations, plus the millions of years since the human\chimp\gorilla split, it would seem to be very reasonable to expect such subsequent mutations to happen. Certainly one would expect old ERVs to be lost at some point, as mutation\evolution is not just additive.

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 81 by Taq, posted 01-19-2011 1:20 PM Taq has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 86 of 137 (601511)
01-20-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
01-18-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT

Doing well hope you are also doing well.

I've been better, and I've been worse. Plus ca change plus ce le meme chose

There are very few places that mentions transmutation at all but the three gentlemen in his article did refer to transmutation which was the belief at that time is what was required to produce a different critter from an existing critter.

Ah, so we are going back to the time when Darwin was writing "Origin of Species" to find mention of transmutation, not any current biology texts, and you'd rather use something that was over 150 years than modern biology.

Since 'Macro-Evolution' one critter becoming another critter has never happened you and others here have cast the term 'Macro-Evolution' in the trash can.

Ah, not quite: that is not what 'Macro-Evolution' means in the science of evolutionary biology, instead this how creationists try to misuse the term.

My definition of 'Macro-Evolution' = evolution above the level of species.
From Berkeley
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Do you disagree with Berkeley?

I don't disagree with Berkeley, I disagree with the way you interpret what Berkeley says. This is confirmation bias on your part, not careful reading to arrive at understanding.

Berkeley goes on to say that macro-evolution is the formation of nested hierarchies by speciation and descent from common ancestors; instead of looking at the specific evolution within species (micro-evolution) you look at the effects of such evolution on speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies and descent from common ancestors.

Berkeley does NOT say that some other kind of evolution occurs, no matter how much you try to interpret it this way.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Small scale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

quote:
Defining Microevolution
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

It is looking at the tree rather than the forest, to use another analogy.

Speciation, the dividing line:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml

quote:
Defining Speciation
Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species.

Large scale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...o101/VIMacroevolution.shtml

quote:
Macroevolution
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.

We look at the growth of a forest from a single tree, seeds from the tree grow into new trees, and this process continues until the forest is formed. Speciation is the seed that allows a new tree to grow.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.../evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

quote:
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

It is looking at the forest rather than the tree. Each tree in the forest is a record of the evolution within the clade represented by the tree ...

quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

mutation
gene flow
genetic drift
natural selection

+ 3.8 billion years

= Macroevolution


... and the forest does not grow by a mechanism new and separate from the growth of the individual trees, that each grow from seeds from other trees. Mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection are processes of microevolution.

Once speciation has occurred, the seed is planted for increased diversity as the two branches grow apart from their common ancestors and each other as each generation passes, producing seeds of their own that go on to grow into new trees, new clades of species.

The problem is there is no direct visible evidence that one critter has become a different critter. One critter becoming another critter would be necessary for all life forms to begin to exist from one life form.

We have a 66 million year history of foraminifera presented by Drs. Tony Arnold (Ph.D., Harvard) and Bill Parker (Ph.D., Chicago) in which there was 330 species of foraminifera began to exist.

The problem is they were just 330 different species of foraminifera. Not one critter that was a totally different critter produced in that 66 million year period.

This is you equivocating on what is a "different critter" rather than a true statement about the evolution of foraminifera. The 330 species are different critters within the lexicon of evolutionary biology - they are different species. Curiously, in evolutionary biology, being different species is sufficient to be different critters.

Not only are there 330 different critter species observed in the paper by Arnold and Parker, there are many more species within the order, including multiple taxonomic classes between the order foraminifera and the individual species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

quote:
The Foraminifera, ("hole bearers") or forams for short, are a large group of amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, fine strands of cytoplasm that branch and merge to form a dynamic net.[1] They typically produce a test, or shell, which can have either one or multiple chambers, some becoming quite elaborate in structure.[2] These shells are made of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or agglutinated sediment particles. About 275,000 species are recognized, both living and fossil. They are usually less than 1 mm in size, but some are much larger, and the largest recorded specimen reached 19 cm.

Orders:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida- extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
Xenophyophorea
Reticulomyxa


Within each order there are superfamilies, within the superfamilies there are families, within the families there are genera, and within the genera there are species.

Species from one genera within one family that is part of one superfamily are indeed "different critters" from the species from another genera within another family that is part of another superfamily, even though they are all part of the order of foraminifera --- just as you are a "different critter" from a ring-tailed lemur (which is also a member of the primate order) --
unless you want to say that humans and lemurs are still just primates, that evolution has not produced a critter in the last 66 million years that was a totally different critter in the primate order ....

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramfr.html

quote:

The oldest fossil foraminifera, from the Cambrian, are simple agglutinated tubes. Calcareous microgranular and porcellaneous tests evolved in the Carboniferous, and calcareous hyaline tests in the Permian. Over time, each of these groups has evolved many different forms, including large complex tests associated with reefs. These groups of large species became abundant when reef environments were widespread, then suffered major extinction when world climate changed and reefs were decimated.

Do those all look like the same critter to you? Do some look similar to snails?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Wetmore.html

quote:
Fully grown individuals range in size from about 100 micrometers to almost 20 centimeters long. Some have a symbiotic relationship with algae, which they "farm" inside their shells. Other species eat foods ranging from dissolved organic molecules, bacteria, diatoms and other single-celled algae, to small animals such as copepods. They catch their food with a network of thin pseudopodia (called reticulopodia) that extend from one or more apertures in the shell. Benthic (bottom-dwelling) foraminifera also use their pseudopodia for locomotion.

You once said that you would be impressed if forams evolved into something like a snail, something that is a bottom dwelling shell enclosed type of critter that use their pseudopodia to catch food and for locomotion ... do you change your name to RECANT? or do we see continued equivocation?

Or is your standard of a "totally different critter" unrealistic, as evolution does not create "totally different critters" by speciation, but by continued evolution of daughter populations after speciation, including further speciation events.

Do you consider yourself a "totally different critter" from Pelycodus ralstoni? Why?

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_evolution.htm

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : dbcode


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 75 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 107 of 137 (601590)
01-21-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
01-21-2011 6:32 AM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT

If you want to explain how all those little changes in a critter can produce a competely different critter you probably wasting your time as there is not enough variation in the critters we have to look at to convince me.

So you agree that all the evidence of diversity on earth and in the fossil and genetic record does not show you enough variation to qualify in your mind as a "completely different critter" - the question is whether this will cause you to reflect that maybe your concept of a "completely different critter" is what is in error.

But if you got 330 different species of foraminifera you still only got one critter.

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.

But modern humans have only existed for 6 to 10 thousand years.

According to you, not according to the evidence of evolutionary biology.

Yes I am a totally different critter as I am a descendant of modern humans ...

And yet the foraminifera genetically have similarly different critters ...

Just like you have faith that in the future there will be evidence that will validate the prediction of the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population.

Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.

Now when you back off and look at life and you see a foraminifera and a horse you got two different critters. And you are trying to convince me they decended from the same life form. I don't think so.

Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases.

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 88 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 6:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 1:31 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 115 of 137 (601654)
01-22-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
01-22-2011 1:31 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
Hi ICANT, once again ...

I know a horse and a cow are different critters.
I know a cow and a hog are different critters.
I know a bird and a fish are different critters.

How? What is your criteria?

I know a horse and a cow are different critters.

Here (again?) is the result of the criteria used in science to differentiate them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Bovidae
Subfamily: Bovinae
Genus: Bos

There are various living and extinct cow species within the Bos genus.

The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Perissodactyla
Family: Equidae
Genus: Equus

There are various living and extinct horse species within the Equus genus, as well as zebras etc.

The ORDER Perissodactyla includes all ODD toed ungulates, including horses, but not cows.

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a horse.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a horse will be a horse, Equus, Equidae, Perissodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow.

I know a cow and a hog are different critters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig

quote:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Suidae
Subfamily: Suinae
Genus: Sus

There are various living and extinct pig species within the Sus genus.

The ORDER Artiodactyla includes all EVEN toed ungulates, including cows, but not horses. The FAMILY Suidae includes pigs, but not cows, and the FAMILY Bovidae includes cows, but not pigs.

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a cow will always be a cow, Bos, Bovinae, Bovidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a pig.

And according to the science of evolutionary biology in general, and the theory of common descent in specific (which is what you seem to object to), any offspring of a pig will be a pig, Sus, Suidae, Suidae, Artiodactyla, Eutheria, Theria, Mammalia, Chordata, and Animalia, but it will not be a cow. Nor will it be a horse or a fish or a bird.

In all three of these cases a member of the Eutherian Infraclass has not produced anything that is not a Eutherian. This is like you saying that a member of the PHYLUM Foraminifera has not produced anything that is not a foraminifera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraminifera

quote:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Rhizaria
Superphylum: Retaria
Phylum: Foraminifera

Even though the PHYLUM Foraminifera has produced the following ORDERS:

quote:
Allogromiida
Carterinida
Fusulinida- extinct
Globigerinida
Involutinida - extinct
Lagenida
Miliolida
Rotaliida
Silicoloculinida
Spirillinida
Textulariida
incertae sedis
Xenophyophorea
Reticulomyxa

With quite different characteristics and behaviors, each with different FAMILIES each with different GENERA and each with different SPECIES.

Just a sample of the differences in four of these ORDERS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allogromiida

quote:
The Allogromiida are a group of monothalamous (single-chambered), mostly organic-walled foraminiferans, including some that produce agglutinated tests (Lagynacea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globigerinida

quote:
The Globigerinida are a common group of foraminiferans that are found as marine plankton (other groups are primarily benthic). They produce hyaline calcareous tests, and are known as fossils from the Jurassic period onwards. The group has included more than 100 genera and over 400 species, of which about 30 species are extant. One of the most important genera is Globigerina; vast areas of the ocean floor are covered with Globigerina ooze[1] (named by Murray and Renard in 1873), dominated by the shells of planktonic forams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miliolida

quote:
Miliolida is an order of protists which comprise foraminifera with calcareous, porcelacous tests that are imperforate and commonly have a pseudochitinous lining. (Loeblick and Tappen, 1964). Tests are composed of randomly oriented calcite needles that have a high proportion of magnesium along with organic material. Tests lack pores and generally have multiple chambers.

Miliolids, which range from the Carboniferous to Recent, are benthic foraminifera abundant in shallow waters such as in estuaries and along coastlines, though they also include deep water oceanic forms.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotaliida

quote:
The Rotaliida are a large and abundant group of foraminiferans. They are primarily oceanic benthos, although some are common in shallower waters such as estuaries. They also include many important fossils, such as nummulites. Rotaliids produce hyaline tests, in which the microscopic crystals may be oriented either radially (as in other forams) or obliquely.

Organic walled (ie soft) or aglutinated tests are entirely different from hyaline calcareous tests, and both are entirely different from calcareous, porcelacous tests, and all three are different from hyaline tests: these are indeed different critters as they wear different skins, different organizations and different behaviors.

Allogromiida and their subsequent families, genera and species, ARE "different critters" to Globigerinida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and both ARE "different critters" to Miliolida and their subsequent families, genera and species, and all three ARE "different critters" to Rotaliida and their subsequent families, genera and species.

Do you think their small size makes them the same critter?

I know that none of those critters can produce one of the other critters.

What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the science of evolution does any theory say that any one "of those critters can produce one of the other critters" and that in fact if such a thing occurred that it would invalidate several theories in evolutionary biology.

What you can't seem to fathom is that nowhere in the evidence of evolution, from the world around us, through the paleontologic record and through the genetic record, is there a suggestion that such a cross-clade formation has occurred at any time in the past

RAZD writes:

Curiously, I have very little faith in ever seeing that validation.

So why make the following statement?

RAZD writes:

Interestingly, your opinion is not able to alter evidence, nor change reality to fit your world view biases.

Why do my opinion have to invalidate evidence that has not been validated to date?

You can't invalidate evidence, what you can invalidate is the theory that interprets the evidence to provide the best explanation known for all the evidence.

Because science works by developing theories from known evidence to provide the best explanation for the data, make predictions of what you will see (a) if the theory is true or (b) what you will see if the theory is false, and then testing it to see if it can be invalidate. Science works by invalidation, not by validation.

Why?

Because theory can never be proven 100% true, because it is necessarily a tentative conclusion from the known data to formulate the best explanation that fits all the known data, and new data always carries the possibility of invalidation.

At best a theory, especially one as tested as evolution, can be considered valid so far, if it has been extensively tested and is not invalidated by any results.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 111 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2011 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 118 of 137 (601858)
01-24-2011 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
01-24-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Transmutation vs Evolution, Macro & Micro
HiTaq,

The number of living species has been highly variable through time. The Permian extinction even saw the disappearance of roughly 95% of species. The K/T extinction even 65 million years ago saw the same extinction rate for species larger than 30 kg or so. It took quite some time for species diversity to return after these major extinction events. Smaller extinction events have also occurred, such as the extinction of megafauna after the last ice age.

And we can go further: if the current trend in ecological change continues, and massive extinction does occur as a result of (a) human activity PLUS (b) climate change to a warmer overall climate, that the ToE would predict an increase in diversity and speciation to follow. Who knows, we may get undeniable evidence of "macro" changes to convince all but the most devout deniers.

That would be fun to see.

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 117 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 1:22 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 01-24-2011 11:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019