DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Anomalocaris]

I think my conjecture about Christians continues to be experimentally verified: it doesn't matter how stupid and mentally warp any particular Christian you meet happen to be. You will soon meet one even more stupid and mentally wrapped.

[Annik]

Here, the evolution of the eye:


The first stage is just a layer of photosensitive cells. Eventually, the layer becomes a cup, as to sense the direction of the light. Then the opening gets more narrow so that it becomes more accurate, then we get pupils, ect.

Annik, eyes have evolved more than once. Check out the calcite eyes of the trilobite which are also seen in a species of Brittlefish.

The variation there is quite fascinating. Thanks for the tip.

[Anomalocaris]

There are other living examples that illustrate the particular steps in the evolution of a complex eye. Take the pearlie nautilus. It has a complex eye with a pupil, but lacks a lens. So it in effect has a completely evolved optical cup that is fully done folding in on itself, but hasn't yet evolved a lens.

A step back from a complete eye cup is the rim shrimp. As adults they lives on hydrothermal vents on the bottom of the ocean. Normal eyes are useless due to low light levels. So rim shrimp absorbs it's normal crustacean compound eyes as it matures and appears to be totally blind. But detailed study shows it is actually not blind, but instead evolved an amazing eye with effectively infinity aperture for extreme low light sensitivity that consist of an naked external retina on a big flap extending from its segmented carapace. In effect, it evolved a second set of eyes that's built like a normal cup eye, but peel open and laid out flat to achieve maximum light sensitivity at the expense of no resolution.

[libalchris]

They are talking about the descendants of one species evolving into a different species, like eohippus into the modern horse. 'Family' has a specific meaning in taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. The word "species" was fabricated by evolutionists and they use it interchangeably for animals that can interbreed as well as for animals that cannot interbreed. As a reminder, below is the definition of "species" from my OP.

DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species

Truth be told, pro-evolution scientists change the meaning of the word "species" whenever it suits their purposes, as confirmed by biologist John Endler who wrote:

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species.""


Another thing: The Taxonomy Table was dreamed up by Carl Linnaeus (May 23, 1707 – January 10, 1778) who erroneously classified animals based upon their similarities. In some instances, he put animals in different species despite the fact they can actually interbreed.

No, the reason the definition of species is used differently is because the definition of a species is so imprecise.

For example, is every bacteria a different species? No two bacteria can interbreed, so does that make every bacteria in existence a separate species? No? How exactly do you define a species for organisms who reproduce asexually?

Your definition from OP is already imprecise. Are horses and donkeys the same species? They can interbreed but their offspring are infertile.

What about ring species? Some organisms exist over a wide geographical area (like a ring around a valley for example.) If you were to take two of the organisms fairly close to each other, they could produce fertile offspring, but as the mileage increases they can no longer reproduce, and when the mileage is great enough they act as totally different species!

All of that just goes to show that the definition of a species is so imprecise. When differing definitions of species are used, it is not to try and fool people, it's a tool of convenience to make a point. The word species is simply a tool used for classification.

[Alter2Ego]

They are talking about the descendants of one species evolving into a different species, like eohippus into the modern horse. 'Family' has a specific meaning in taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

ALTER2EGO -to- MISTER AGENDA:
That bit from Wikipedia about the evolution of "eohippus into the modern horse" is pure fallacy that was discredited more than 40 years ago. It never happened.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html

According to one source, eohippus resembled a dog or a fox and the creature supposedly lived 50 million years ago. Where they got the 50 million years is anybody's guess. In any event, explain to me how a dog/fox-looking animal could end up looking like a modern horse! Some of these people calling themselves scientists will write anything to get their names mentioned in scientific journals.

The origin of the modern horse is believed to be the Hyracotherium, also called the Eohippus or "dawn horse." This ancient horse ancestor existed during the Eocene period (about 50 million years ago) and although paleozoologists believe the Hyracotherium was the origin of the horse, the creature resembled a dog or fox much more than it did the Equus we know today.

The Hyracotherium was about 10-20" tall at the shoulder, and it possessed a short snout/face, a short neck, compact legs, an arched back and a long tail. The feet were padded like a dog, and the front feet possessed four toes while the back possessed three. Although the Eohippus dined on fruit and foliage, its teeth were omnivorous in nature, possessing incisors, canines, premolars and molars suited to grinding vegetation.

http://www.alphahorse.com/horse-evolution.html

Now, if you believe that crap you will have to explain to me how they figured out the diet of an animal that died about 50 million years ago. Are we to believe the animal's stomach contents survived 50 million years when they could barely find enough bones to reconstruct the creature? And how did they know the creature had padded feet when no soft tissue could possibly have survived 50 million years in the ground? Keep in mind that atheists consistently accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in fairy tales from the Judeo-Christian Bible. Well, guess what: evolution theory should be confined to the pages of Grimms Fairy Tales.

[NoMoreFaith]

That bit from Wikipedia about the evolution of "eohippus into the modern horse" is pure fallacy that was discredited more than 40 years ago. It never happened.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html

Ooh free webpage, solid source finding there. Are you serious?

Can you please link to a reputable source providing evidence of why it is a fallacy. These fossils are dated (and by the way, up to 50 million, dating is fairly accurate to within a few million years) and show clear progression from one form to another over tens of millions of years.

If it was discredited, you should be able to point to the peer reviewed texts which do so.
Last time I checked, free angelfire webpages are not currently accepted for peer review.

According to one source, eohippus resembled a dog or a fox and the creature supposedly lived 50 million years ago. Where they got the 50 million years is anybody's guess.

Radio-carbon and uranium series dating. Sometimes biostratigraphy in cases where a fossil type has been consistently dated in many prior cases.
There is a vast difference between guessing, and estimates.

In any event, explain to me how a dog/fox-looking animal could end up looking like a modern horse! Some of these people calling themselves scientists will write anything to get their names mentioned in scientific journals.

Over 55 million years, the minute changes are evident through the fossil skeletons already provided to you.
I think the most interesting thing about this paragraph is clearly the unwillingness to even look at the evidence based on private assertion that it can't be true.

Now, if you believe that crap you will have to explain to me how they figured out the diet of an animal that died about 50 million years ago. Are we to believe the animal's stomach contents survived 50 million years when they could barely find enough bones to reconstruct the creature?

Often, Teeth.

Tell me, if you had never seen a lion before, and examined its teeth.. would you conclude it ate grass?
If you saw a cow for the first time, would you conclude from its teeth that it hunted down and ripped flesh from bone?

To put it more succinctly for you, if you dug up a fossil cow, would you conclude it sprinted around biting the heads off things? I think even you could make some logical conclusions on its diet based upon its structure.

And how did they know the creature had padded feet when no soft tissue could possibly have survived 50 million years in the ground?

Bone structure again, animals with padded feet have different foot bones.

I will agree however, that occasionally scientists get it wrong, that their assumptions are mistaken, but the process is constantly "evolving" and correcting errors. Mistakes will happen, no doubt.

This is preferable to asserting absolutes with no method of error correction.

Keep in mind that atheists consistently accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in fairy tales from the Judeo-Christian Bible. Well, guess what: evolution theory should be confined to the pages of Grimms Fairy Tales.

Talking animals, murder, incest, infanticide, mutilation, plucking out eyes, .. Grimm's fairy tales sounds like another book I know...

[Jovian]

Alter2Ego, you deserve a nobel prize. You have single handedly disproven the evil fairy tale fabricated by evil-utionists to corrupt God's children and to undermine the true science of Creationism. Everything was perfect before evolution existed and created the society today that is corrupt with sin.

I mean, who's dumb enough to believe those nasty evil-utionists anyway? Evilution has absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Fossils don't count, because fossils can be anything! We never seen a half dinosaur, half chicken fossil. If evilution was true, we'd be finding fossils like that, right? And how dare evilutionists say we're related do dumb, dirty monkeys that throw their shit at people! No wonder why violence exists if we're teaching our children that we're just dumb dirty monkeys. Chimps are disgusting animals and we all know they're dumb and just live in their own shit! Never mind that humans are the ones that have pushed Chimpanzees to the brink of extinction, if you teach people they're monkeys, they act like monkeys. That has been proven time and time again because before Darwin war and genocide and mass murder never existed.

And what does DNA evidence prove? Nothing! It does not show squirrels turning into bats! And the study of mitochondrial DNA in both humans and chimps which proves that we share a common ancestor is just wild speculation, right? What does mitochondrial DNA prove? These people aren't God. How do they know what it means? Show me some real evidence, like a single-celled organism evolving into a person. What, you say that takes millions of years? Ha! That's only because evilutionists have no evidence! If it can't happen in our lifetimes and nobody has seen it, it can't be true, can it? Fossils don't count! Radiometric dating has been disproven time and time again by Creationists who have been robbed of their nobel prizes by the dastardly evilutionary conspiracy theory.

Evilution is just a fairty tale. I mean, the thought that organisms can vary and change over time to adapt to radically changing environments to survive through mutations, natural selection and genetic drift just belongs with the likes of Red Riding Hood. The proven fact of an invisible all-powerful King that lives in a magical kingdom in the sky who just always existed somehow who decided to one day create a universe out of nothing and then creating people and then becoming pissed off with them because they listened to a talking snake he created because he made people so dumb in the first place is much more feasible. I mean, we all know that the ultimate intelligence of the universe that can create things out of nothing does not need an explanation, but everything else does, right?

[Thor]

Well, guess what: evolution theory should be confined to the pages of Grimms Fairy Tales.

It's statements like this where Creationists expose their ignorance and demonstrate to the world why they need to be fought at every turn. Anyone who thinks like this has no business getting their ideas into a science curriculum.

[Minimalist]

Well, guess what: evolution theory should be confined to the pages of Grimms Fairy Tales.

It's statements like this where Creationists expose their ignorance and demonstrate to the world why they need to be fought at every turn. Anyone who thinks like this has no business getting their ideas into a science curriculum.

Nah - they expose their ignorance every time they open their fucking mouths.

[Anomalocaris]

It's statements like this where Creationists expose their ignorance and demonstrate to the world why they need to be fought at every turn. Anyone who thinks like this has no business getting their ideas into a science curriculum.

Nah - they expose their ignorance every time they open their fucking mouths.

Statement like this may expose their ignorance even to the dimmest and least perceptive observer. But betray ignorance everytime they open their bibles when they could have been doing any thing else at all.