DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Zen Badger]

Oh dear, another clueless christian who learnt everything they think they know about evolution from Answersingenesis. And therefore actually know nothing.

Heads up for you kid.

You need to first prove that the universe is only 6000 years old before you try to attack evolution.

And given that EVERY field of scientific endeavour supports an old universe,
wellll... good luck with that

[Phil]

Oh dear, another clueless christian who learnt everything they think they know about evolution from Answersingenesis. And therefore actually know nothing.

Heads up for you kid.

You need to first prove that the universe is only 6000 years old before you try to attack evolution.

And given that EVERY field of scientific endeavour supports an old universe,
wellll... good luck with that

I think these creotards come from very tiny and mostly familial gene pools and have read somewhere in their bible that Google is real science.

[Anomalocaris]

Alta2ego, I've been an evolutionist all my life. But you've shown me the light. I could not possibly have ever shared any "animal" ancester with a moron like you. So evolution is wrong.

[NoMoreFaith]

In response to my question: "Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?" you replied "Yes." What evidence are you referring to?

Go read a textbook. The evidence is enough to convince 99% of those who study biology.

What evidence do you have that the evidence we have is false. Sure you can nitpick on gaps (Clue: Theres always a gap otherwise they wouldn't be transitional.. think about it).

Science means we can look at a theory and we can predict the outcome with a level of accuracy. This has been done through expected results in the DNA record.

What do you have? A book with suspect origins. Genius.

That's how it's supposed to work in macroevolution. The problem is that there's no evidence that macroevolution ever happened in the fossils record.

Whale bears? Would we be incredulous if that was how it actually worked, or are you completely brainwashed?

So whats your explanation, for these fossils over the last 55 million years?
Horse Evolution over the last 55 Million Years

You can assert thats HOW its supposed to work, but have you actually ASKED a scientist? Have you read a science textbook?

Whales don't come from Bears, but they share a common ancestor, would you like to have a look? Here it is! Magnification level of "bloody loads".



Thats what evolution can be tracked back too. Abiogenesis is the only bit we're not sure about yet. We can be sure that God is a failed hypothesis.

If you go back and look at my OP towards the bottom, you will see that the definition given by Charles Darwin and modern-day scientists for evolution is that all living creatures evolved from a "common ancestor." I even provided the website where this was said.

A PRIMORDIAL FORM, you even highlighted it. Look up, I gave you a picture.. Does. That. Look. Like. A. Squirrel.

You're basically saying, is that Snickers bars are made by mixing Gummi Bears up. when in fact, they simply both started as a bag of sugar. Not a great analogy, but the point is, they share a common origin, even if the method they got to the final product were different.

[Creed of Heresy]

It's not fair to pick on Darwin.

After all he admitted his own theories were highly flawed and incomplete, and overall Darwinian evolution has been completely disproven by modern science. Its relevancy is that it laid the groundwork for modern evolutionary science. To say Darwin's theory was wrong or flawed is old news. The man admitted it himself. It's been admitted by science for a long ass time.

[Tiberius]

FYI, when you don't confine yourself to a "Conservative opinion" website, and actually research what Darwin was talking about, you find this:

Just two years after penning his bear-to-whale tale, Darwin lamented to a friend (letter to James Lamont, February 25, 1861), “It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this bear.”

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/g...athan.html

[genkaus]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


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

Fine.

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

Fixed that for ya.

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)

Good thing we have come a log way since 1859.

EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/

Looks fine.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Ofcourse not. Why would you expect them to have evolved from completely different beings? Read the data you yourself provided - "The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist". This clearly means that organisms would always bear some similarity to their ancestors and would never be completely different beings. Our ancestors were Eukaryotic organisms and we are still Eukaryotic organisms.

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

Never. Since that is not macro-evolution, doesn't happen, isn't expected to happen and if it happened it'd blow the theory of evolution out of the scientific water.

3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

Get your terms straight. Animals of one family never suddenly evolve into another family. And "type of organism" is not a scientific classification. Reform the question and it'll be answered when and if it makes sense.

[Regens Küchl]

That demotivational is funny. What's sad is that many fundies are probably stupid enough to think "Damn, they actually found it" upon seeing the photoshop.

Or the brighter ones of them will say: "OK, they found that. But both, duck and cayman, live in the water. So they must be same species and that means the cayduck is only prove of microevolution!"

[frankiej]

This guy makes me want to blow my brains out

[Thor]

That's how it's supposed to work in macroevolution. The problem is that there's no evidence that macroevolution ever happened in the fossils record.

I guess you've never heard of Tiktaalik. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

This creature clearly shows a transition from fish to tetrapods. Of course, you won't believe evolution is true no matter how much evidence is heaped on you. You'd much rather believe the unsubstantiated crap found in a 2,000 year old book of unknown authorship.