DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Jovian]

Alter2Ego, the vast majority of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. It is only the Creationist disinformation campaign that has been propagating the idea there is no evidence.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

You really need to take a look at fossils like Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and say to yourself, are all these scientists really wrong about these fossils?

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 proceed to invent how the animal looked when it was alive to the point of describing it was covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

Below is a depiction of how someone IMAGINED Ambulocetus might have looked, including its fur-covered body. The depiction is followed by a brief quotation describing the creature.



Keep your eyes on the bolded and red text within the quotation below, and you will see they're doing nothing but speculating/giving their personal opinions.

Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

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!

But why am I bothering? You're not interested in learning or studying evolution. You're only here to try and undermine it. You should know that we don't have time machines nor does everything happen in our lifetimes. So what would be evidence for evolution in your eyes? If you're expecting something like a crocoduck, then you have a very wrong perception of how evolution works.

[popeyespappy]

you have a very wrong perception of how evolution works just a fuckin' bout everything.

FIFY

[Anomalocaris]

All the oxygen in the air we breath is a direct result of evolution. People who deny evolution shouldn't breathe.

Do the brains that deny evolution ever use oxygen?

[Minimalist]

I read up on Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and was not impressed.

But I bet you read your fucking bible and piss your pants with joy, huh?



Meet tiktaalik...then go blow jesus out your ass.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary..._tiktaalik

In many news articles, Tiktaalik was billed as "the missing link" between fish and land vertebrates — but that description is a bit misleading. First, Tiktaalik is more accurately described as a transitional form than a missing link. Transitional forms help show the evolutionary steps leading from one lineage to another by displaying characteristics of both the ancestral and the new lineage.

[Reforged]

Alter2Ego, the vast majority of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. It is only the Creationist disinformation campaign that has been propagating the idea there is no evidence.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

You really need to take a look at fossils like Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and say to yourself, are all these scientists really wrong about these fossils?

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 proceed to invent how the animal looked when it was alive to the point of describing it was covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

Below is a depiction of how someone IMAGINED Ambulocetus might have looked, including its fur-covered body. The depiction is followed by a brief quotation describing the creature.



Keep your eyes on the bolded and red text within the quotation below, and you will see they're doing nothing but speculating/giving their personal opinions.

Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

I love how Ego ignored my point as well as the kudos it got from people who presumably have the same complaint and went ahead with posting yet another epileptic fit waiting to happen.
I guess he doesn't care if we read it or not, he just wants to type at people. Perhaps I should put my point forward in a clearer and more formal manner he can understand....

















Dear ALTER2EGO,
We find your choice to color every word you type pointless, irritating and childish. It is far less effort to read normal writing you don't have to squint at. As a result most people haven't bothered to even read your ramblings. Perhaps you could relate to this? Maybe this is intentional, I don't care that much if it is or isn't. Many here would just enjoy the luxury of not risking convulsions everytime we attempt to read something you've written in an extreme fit of verbal diarrhea.


Yours sincerely,
RaphielDrake... :-)

[Anomalocaris]

Dear ALTER2EGO,
We find your choice to color every word you type pointless, irritating and childish.

If you have no point, yet can't stand the fact that you aren't getting your point across, you resort to colors.

[Reforged]

Dear ALTER2EGO,
We find your choice to color every word you type pointless, irritating and childish.

If you have no point, yet can't stand the fact that you aren't getting your point across, you resort to colors.

My point exactly.

[Alter2Ego]

Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution, and Charles Darwin was the first to consolidate all those ideas with natural selection into the scientific theory of evolution. You shouldn't listen to the disinformation campaign that has caricatured macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen overnight. It's taken about 3.5 billion years of evolution for life to get where it is today, and a lot of that time was dominated by single celled organisms. Humans have only been around for a tiny amount of that time.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation. What it amounts to is variations of the same creature (eg. dogs belong to the wolf family and are an example of "microevolution"). Dog breeders can breed variations of dogs from now until kingdom come, and no matter how different the dogs look from their parents, they will still be dogs (microevolution).

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats? Seriously, I can't understand how atheists can point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in a sky god while they fall for stuff like this. They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.

[Hovik]

Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution, and Charles Darwin was the first to consolidate all those ideas with natural selection into the scientific theory of evolution. You shouldn't listen to the disinformation campaign that has caricatured macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen overnight. It's taken about 3.5 billion years of evolution for life to get where it is today, and a lot of that time was dominated by single celled organisms. Humans have only been around for a tiny amount of that time.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation. What it amounts to is variations of the same creature (eg. dogs belong to the wolf family and are an example of "microevolution"). Dog breeders can breed variations of dogs from now until kingdom come, and no matter how different the dogs look from their parents, they will still be dogs (microevolution).

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats? Seriously, I can't understand how atheists can point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in a sky god while they fall for stuff like this. They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.

I'm getting the very strong indication that you've never read a book on the topic that wasn't written by a guy with "Rev." before his name.

Do some basic fucking research, and you'll see exactly how stupid you look right now.

[libalchris]

Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation. What it amounts to is variations of the same creature (eg. dogs belong to the wolf family and are an example of "microevolution"). Dog breeders can breed variations of dogs from now until kingdom come, and no matter how different the dogs look from their parents, they will still be dogs (microevolution).

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats? Seriously, I can't understand how atheists can point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in a sky god while they fall for stuff like this. They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes. [/color]

Are you dense? Macroevolution is nothing more than adaptation! It's just built up over a long period of time! For the love of the flying spaghetti monster how is it so hard to believe that if you can lay one brick down, you can lay many down and build a wall?

Where did the scientists get 3.5 billion years? Pretty simple actually. It's called radiometric dating. Despite your delusions about how the fossil record looks, it really is very orderly, and only certain kinds of fossils exist in certain strata (Rabbits are never found in the precambrian) Basically, you look what area the first life forms occur in the fossil record, date that level of strata with methods of radiometric dating, and you get a date.

You seem to act as though because we can't see macroevolution happen before our own very eyes, it can't happen (that's called a fallacy.) We can't see it before our eyes because it takes a long time! You don't deny that dogs came from wolves simply because you've never seen it happen do you?

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