DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Anomalocaris]

....you'll see exactly how stupid you look right now.

No, she won't. There is bible stuffed into every pore and oriface. She is impermeable to any form of enlightenment.

[Minimalist]

The kind of stupidity which this asshole is presenting can only survive in a closed system, Hovik. Creatards cannot allow air, light or facts to contaminate their little fucked up belief structure or the whole mess will come crashing down like a house of cards.

[Anomalocaris]

Let me simplify this discussion: What evidence would it take to convince you that macroevolution can occur?

Her mother, while hanging lovingly onto a bible, changing from a tree shrew into something vaguely simian right before her very eyes.

[Hovik]

They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.

If you have a puzzle that's 95% completed except for a few holes here and there, you get a pretty damn good idea of what the picture is. If you're building a puzzle that displays a picture of a duck, you're not going to get 95% of the way there and go "Wow, I really don't see a duck. It must be a fucking house!"

[libalchris]

They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.

If you have a puzzle that's 95% completed except for a few holes here and there, you get a pretty damn good idea of what the picture is. If you're building a puzzle that displays a picture of a duck, you're not going to get 95% of the way there and go "Wow, I really don't see a duck. It must be a fucking house!"

Hell you can tell what a picture is going to be for the most part with 50% of the puzzle complete. Fortunately though, evolution is much more complete than that. The theory of evolution is full of holes, but they happen to be small ones in less than important places.

Theory of evolution is really 2 separate things:
change over time by natural selection (Organisms can change over time, often quite drastically, and the change is due to natural selection acting on random variations)
And then common descent. Common descent is the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor (it also encompasses in it the idea that change occurs over time)

It is a fact that change occurs, and that all life is descended from a common ancestor, it is one of the most supported ideas in science today. Even many intelligent design advocates accept this. Michael Behe accepts the second one, he agrees that all life descended from a common ancestor, he just believes that instead of natural selection acting on variation causing the change, that it is guided by a creator. Natural selection definitely occurs and is a strong driving force of evolution, but it may not be the only one. There may be other forces at work yet to be discovered, although natural selection is widely accepted as the primary driving force of evolution.

[Anomalocaris]

Holes is an indication that a theory is constructed and interpreted with intellectual honesty. Perfection is evidence of lack of intellectual honest at least on the part of the interpreter.

[libalchris]

I'm just going to pose 2 questions to the op

1.What evidence would be required to convince you that macroevolution occurs?
2.What limits evolution?

In regards to question 2, you have said before that microevolution occurs (that is, change within a species) but that this change is limited, and as a result small changes can't build up to cause huge amounts of change over time. What prevents that from happening? What factor is it that causes change to occur, and then just stop at a certain point?

[popeyespappy]

1.What evidence would be required to convince you that macroevolution occurs?
2.What limits evolution?

1. Cats giving birth to dogs or crocoducks.
2. God.

[Epimethean]

"I read up on Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and was not impressed. The language used in describing Ambulocetus is so speculative that it amounts to science fiction writing."

You should be plenty comfortable with speculative language, given your favorite book of fantasy-which, mind you, lacks the entirety of the science portion of fiction.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
I read up on Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and was not impressed. The language used in describing Ambulocetus is so speculative that it amounts to science fiction writing.

Scientists find fossilized bones of creatures that have been dead for extended periods of time. They then invent how the animal "probably" looked when it was alive. In the case of Ambulocetus, they even depicted it covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

Then what do you think these fossils are then, Alter2Ego? Mutant fish? Use some common sense. These are ancient species that are long EXTINCT, but their descendants are still alive today. Ambulocetus is the ancestor of modern whales, and shares many traits that are only found in modern whales. Scientists use something called common sense by comparing these fossils to modern animals to discern how they lived, just how archaeologists find ancient tools and comparing them to modern tools to know what they were used for. They would know that a sword would be used for battle or spear would be used for hunting, right? But by your logic, for all we know these tools could have used for scratching their asses!

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
"Extinct" is defined as "having no living descendants."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/extinct?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.or...Extinction

The fossils record does not show any animals evolving from something else. All it shows is similarities. Your position is that the similarities between Ambulocetus and modern whales proves macroevolution occurred. You are using what's known as homology theory to prove macroevolution. Homology theory is flawed, as explained by the following source.

Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals.

That some similarity exists when certain aspects of life forms are compared is obvious. The question is: ‘Does the similarity that exists prove that one structure evolved into another and, ultimately, that the complex evolved from the simple?’ The simplest and most obvious explanation for the fact that morphological similarities between bones, sensory organs, lungs, or gills exist among most higher animals is that the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs.

Homology also does not prove that a set of animals is related by descent because both similarities and differences exist for any two animal types, and traits often are chosen by evolutionists only because they seem to provide evidence that two animals are related. The only criterion that was used by Darwinists to select examples of homology was: ‘Does the example support what is assumed to be an evolutionary relationship?’ Other examples are ignored or explained away. This fact is so well recognized, and so many examples exist that contradict the explanation of common descent, that evolutionists have attempted to separate most putative examples of homology into two types: analogy and homology.

(Source: "Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?" by Jerry Bergman. Ph.D.)

Notice the words in bold and red within the quoted text. Do you see the dishonest science that's indicated there? Pro-evolution scientists cherry pick similarities in various animals and focus only on the similarities as their proof of macroevolution. At the same time, they ignore or explain away differences.