DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Minimalist]

Pro-evolution scientists

Meanwhile, creationist morons stick their heads up their own asses and shriek that their fucking bible is true.

You are one of the latter.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

Uhoh, the text is getting bigger now.... I request we move to Defcon 2 for creationist meltdown.

Homology is just part of the whole picture, although even by itself it would be reasonably conclusive, if you are unconvinced by such things, I suggest you read up on additional evidence.

I suspect you think homology is just counting fingers and saying two species are related, but the relationship is even more simple than that.

There are genes in all living things which perform basic life functions. The sequence of proteins could be in a million different ways to perform the same function, and yet different species share these same ubiquitous genes.
There is only one observed function which copies similar sequences, and that is heredity, and I assume you aren't denying heredity exists.
Therefore it is a clear link between different organisms and a genealogical relationship.

We're not just counting fingers, you admit microevolution exists yes? How do we know? We can observe the heredity as it happens, at both a physiological, anatomical and molecular level.

The question is; especially at the molecular level, how do YOU explain similar protein patterns between grossly anatomically different organisms, in some cases where the protein is unnecessary, unless heredity was involved?

[libalchris]

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

Congratulations! You learned to look something up! Now do the same for "speciation." The fossils we find are rarely the direct ancestors of organisms today. We usually only find the cousins of the direct ancestors (you can learn all about that if you'd actually read about speciation!) Of course when looking up the definition of extinction rather than going to a dictionary that gives the non-biological definition, you might want to look up how scientists define extinction. That is, the end of a species.

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.

You're right. I guess God just created the a sequence of fossils showing change from one species to the next and put them IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT ORDER IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN.

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.

You clearly don't have a fucking clue what homology is or how it works. You seem to think all homology means is "some similarity." It is much more than that. It's similarities in structures that perform completely different tasks. Like hands and wings for example.

Each animal, though very different, uses the same bones for a variety of function. This can't be considered "conservation of design" or whatever because these bones perform completely different tasks, as a designer easily could have used a variety of bone designs that would have really presented a problem for the theory of evolution.

Another example is that ear-bones began as reptile jaw bones. We are obviously very different from reptiles, but we can still find homologies.

OF COURSE there's going to be differences in organisms! If there weren't it wouldn't be evolution! If you look at closely related organisms (humans and chimps for example) You find similarities. If you look at two organisms that are extremely distant relatives you won't find much similarity, but the deeper you look the more similarity you find. The point is that you see changes and transitions in the fossil record that
a. don't defy evolutionary explanations (the changes that occur are not impossible)
b. are found in the right order (this is essential, because transitional fossils would mean nothing if you found the modern whale before its ancestors even started evolving)
c. contain homologies that give clues as to the evolution of the organism

Now, you can continue to sit here and tell me that although the transitional fossils share similarities, they're not actually related, but if you do you're simply denying the evidence.

I'll ask you one more time

1. What would it take to convince you of macroevolution?
2. What is the limiting factor in evolution (what causes organisms to have limited change?)

[Reforged]

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."

Charles Darwin quote from "The Origin of Species":
"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Now, lets spare you the embarrassment of admitting the fact you got it the wrong way round in a haste to post some more drivel for a moment... "As monstrous as a whale". Not into a whale, as monstrous as a whale. He compared what the bear might evolve into to something large and aquatic should its habitat dictate many small changes (micro evolution) that would eventually come together to form big changes (macro evolution) over millions of years. He did not suggest, at any point, a transformation from a bear into an actual whale.
Could you please also point out in this paragraph where he says this had actually taken place as you just attempted (and failed) to state he did? It seemed to me like he was simply speculating what could happen.

I'm waiting for your reply with baited breath... :-)

P.S. I took the liberty of removing the blue from your writing so as not to cause a headache to people who aren't as excited by pretty colors as you seem to be. I hope you don't mi- actually, thats a lie. I don't particularly care either way.

[libalchris]

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.

Uhoh, the text is getting bigger now.... I request we move to Defcon 2 for creationist meltdown.

Homology is just part of the whole picture, although even by itself it would be reasonably conclusive, if you are unconvinced by such things, I suggest you read up on additional evidence.

I suspect you think homology is just counting fingers and saying two species are related, but the relationship is even more simple than that.

There are genes in all living things which perform basic life functions. The sequence of proteins could be in a million different ways to perform the same function, and yet different species share these same ubiquitous genes.
There is only one observed function which copies similar sequences, and that is heredity, and I assume you aren't denying heredity exists.
Therefore it is a clear link between different organisms and a genealogical relationship.

We're not just counting fingers, you admit microevolution exists yes? How do we know? We can observe the heredity as it happens, at both a physiological, anatomical and molecular level.

The question is; especially at the molecular level, how do YOU explain similar protein patterns between grossly anatomically different organisms, in some cases where the protein is unnecessary, unless heredity was involved?

I don't think alter2ego understands that. The facts of homology on their own aren't enough to prove evolution, just to provide support for it. It's the summation of all the evidence pointing toward the same conclusion that makes common descent true. The fact that a man was in the house of a murder victim around the time she was killed isn't enough to prove the man did it. But if the man was also found with the murder weapon, an eye witness saw him leaving the house after hearing gunshots, and the man had sent the woman an email threatening to kill her, then you have a convincing case. It's like putting together a puzzle, any piece by itself doesn't make a picture, but enough pieces put together can make the picture very clear, even if it isn't complete.

One of the most convincing pieces of evidence from common descent represents just that concept, and that is phylogenetics. If you take the fossil record, you can use it to construct a phylogenetic tree, a tree of life. Now, if you take DNA similarity; that is, how much DNA different creatures share, you can use that to construct another phylogenetic tree. If you use embryology, you can construct another tree, same with ERVs, same with anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, and more.

Now first, let me mention how astounding it is that we can get even one phylogenetic tree from any of these different areas of biology. It simply only makes sense in the light of evolution. Take anatomy and homology for example. A designer would be able to mix and match certain characteristics, making it impossible to trace the evolution of an organism and construct a phylogenetic tree. An example of this is how only birds have feathers, and only mammals have mammary glands. If any mammal had avian feathers, it would absolutely destroy the theory of evolution, and the same if any bird had mammary glands. Now it is possible that a mammals could evolve something like feathers, or birds something like mammary glands, (such is the study of convergent evolution) but the only similarity would be that they shared similar function, a careful study of the adaptation would reveal that they are fundamentally different.

Now, what is even more astounding, and what acts as undeniable proof of evolution is that if you take these phylogenetic trees according to all the different areas of biology, they all line up PERFECTLY. A full tree cannot be constructed from all the areas, but there is a TON of overlap, and they all line up perfectly. There are only two possible explanations for this:
1. All organisms are descended from a common ancestor as the theory of evolution states
2. A designer wanted to fool us so made it look as though all organisms descended from a common ancestor.

Take your pick.

[Jovian]

RaphielDrake, I was going to use that exact same quote from Darwin, but you beat me to it! Darwin later removed it from later editions of On the Origin of Species because even back then, people caricatured what he said and were using the quote to spread misinformation.

Oh, and Alter2Ego:

Homology as defined is not the evidence for
evolution itself. Rather, it is the specific patterns of descent in ancient
and modern organisms and how they fit the relationship of homology
that is the evidence for evolution. Moreover, the existence of
nonfunctional similarities in specific patterns of descent is
overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and essentially makes
useless Wells’ appeal to the actions of an Intelligent Designer.

Gordon Elliott and Burt Humburg on Wells' Discussion of Homology

One more thing on the whole homology thing, Alter2Ego. Not only do Humans and Chimpanzees share very similar physiology and anatomy, but they share very similar behaviours and share over 98% of their DNA. It isn't just random homology that is evidence of common descent, it's the patterns of homology in evolutionary lineages. Humans and other apes share much more homology with each other than they do with other animals, and it's not just homology they have in common, but also DNA and behaviour. The ancestors of humans have clear patterns of homology consistent with an evolutionary timeline which shows a clear picture of how anatomically modern humans evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes. Using homology to define a fossil's relationship with modern animals isn't just spotting random things in common and just assuming for example that fish must be closely related to whales or bats are birds. Rather, each fossil is a jigsaw piece and we must work out where each jigsaw piece fits to complete as much of the jigsaw puzzle that is the evolutionary tree as possible. The jigsaw piece of Ambulocetus clearly cannot fit anywhere else except in the evolutinary lineage of whales, where it is completely consistent with the patterns of whale fossils. Oh, you might want to check your understanding of homology, too.

Why would a supreme intelligence use similar homology between animals, anyway? Did this intelligent designer run out of ideas?

[Reforged]

RaphielDrake, I was going to use that exact same quote from Darwin, but you beat me to it!

*ziiip*
*FLOP*

Don't mind me, this is just how I celebrate a win. Ask anyone.

[Jovian]

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).

You do realize that evolution (or macroevolution, as you like to call it, as if microevolution and macroevolution are radically different things) IS adaptation and variation, right? Microevolution is one of the processes, albeit not the only process, involved in macroevolution. Without microevolution, macroevolution cannot happen. Your definition of microevolution is somewhat accurate, but you got macroevolution totally wrong. Here's how I explained in the most simple way possible how macroevolution works in a different thread:

Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution. Microevolution is small incremental changes within a species or population over successive generations. When those incremental changes between two or more seperated gene pools within a species mount up over many generations to the point they can no longer interbreed, that is when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Macroevolution is when microevolution reaches the point of speciation and above. Those gene pools will continue to drift apart over many more generations until they have diverged into many new species, genera, tribes, families and so on. The different gene pools will continue to diverge as long as each lineage survives, and it will some day get to a point after thousands upon thousands of generations where these descendants will be completely different from their now distant ancestors.

Now, would a dog that looks different from its parents be still considered a dog? Yes, of course it would be after just one generation. But what about a hundred thousand generations? And the names we give animals, such as "dog", are simply labels we give them that are purely subjective. Animals are not born with the labels they have, we humans give them to them to distinguish between them. Animals are considered the same species if they can interbreed and produce viable offspring, and animals that are considered the same species, such as dogs and wolves, sometimes have different names to distinguish different branches of the species. So, when does a wolf become a dog? What's the difference between a dog and a coyote if they can interbreed and produce hybrids? What about dogs and jackals? Dogs and foxes? What's the difference between any of the canids? A canid is still a canid, no matter how different they look from each other, right? So are they all the same kind? Oh and by the way, did you know that the four species of big cats of the genus panthera, lions, tigers, leapords and jaguars can all interbreed and produce offspring (albeit infertile)? So that must mean that *GASP" they must have had a common ancestor and that speciation must have occured, right? And macroevolution is evolution on the level of species and above, so OMG THAT MEANS MACROEVOLUTION MUST HAVE HAPPENED!!! Unless you have some bullshit explanation for why that's not evolution, as you always seem to. BTW, why would God create all these different species of felines, canids, hominids ect... Did he run out of ideas and recycled the same ideas over and over? Did he get lazy with his design?

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.

Poor creationists, they always seem to have a habit of making rank straw man arguments. People have already explained to you that Darwin did not say that. Even if he did, how would that be relevant to whether or not modern evolutionary theory is true or not? That's known as a genetic fallacy.

Oh by the way, that's bullshit what you said about there being no evidence for evolution. So then why do all the fossils of ardipethicus, australopithecus and homo as they appear later in the fossil record show the enlargement of the brain case, the straightening of the spine, flattening of the face and the legs becoming longer than the arms and not the other way around? Oh, and also the hips resembling more of a modern human's and less like a modern chimp's as time goes on and them all having the necks joining the base of the skull just like a modern human's and not like a chimp's? And as for knowing the 3.5 billion year old date, have you never heard of the uranium-lead dating method? I guess not.

Where did this intelligent designer come from? Why does this ultimate intelligence with the ability to create entire worlds not need an explanation and everything else does? Where did the designer get the materials needed to create the universe, and what processes did said designer use to make the universe? Oh that's right, magic. So you've explained nothing.

[Mister Agenda]

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).

Thanks for using one color! I'm glad you brought up dogs, because they illustrate a nuance of evolution that many people don't understand: natural selection and body type variation alone don't necessarily result in a new species unable to breed with its ancestors. Genetic drift is usually what tips a new species into being unable to breed with the original. 'Unnatural' selection pressures on dogs have quickly produced varieties that a casual observer would have trouble believing can successfully interbreed with a wolf. It takes tens of thousands of generations of relatively isolated breeding for less visible changes to accumulate enough to make interbreeding impossible. Natural selection can actually work pretty quickly to make an organism significantly different in appearance while still able to interbreed. We do, however, have an interesting experiment that relates: fruit flies bred in isolation for forty years have become unable to interbreed with other fruit flies: although selection pressures conserved their body plan (same kind of cage as fruit flies are normally bred in), genetic drift due to reproductive isolation alone made them a new species, because fruit flied can have many thousands of generations over a span of forty years.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims).

What's the point of saying anything to you if it doesn't stick? You have the bear/whale thing backwards and Darwin wasn't making a prediction.

There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution.

All the evidence we have says every animal in existence is the result of macroevolution, which is merely the accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Do you know of a mechanism that prevents macroevolution from happening? It would probably be a mechanism similar to the one that prevents raindrops from accumulating into ponds and lakes.

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."

It took that long to get from microorganism to the present variety of life. It's based on the fact that strata dated over 3 billion years ago have only the fossils of microorganisms, while later strata illustrate new species appearing over the course of millions of years. If you want to do an experiment in real-time, try isolating fruit flies for 40 years.

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats?

Yes. That's it. They just make these numbers up. They thought no one would ever notice, but you're just too clever for them.

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 don't usually call theists dumb: they are usually okay outside their particular brand of theism. However, your brand of theism encompasses so much rejection of scientific evidence that the irony of your assumption that you are capable of intelligently criticizing scientific theories is hard not to laugh out loud at. If you are a Poe, you are overplaying it, I think.

[Reforged]

... can I put it away now?
I mean... I don't know if it shows but its kind of cold in here.

---

Thanks for using one color!

What th-... was that a crack at me?
I was just making a point. :S