1984 & A/S/K revisited

[Undeceived]

Evolution was based on physiological observations--organisms "looked" similar, so some scientists decided there must be some causal relation. Evolution died when scientists discovered that many of the organisms (Darwin's finches, for example) were entirely different species and far apart on the hypothetical Evolutionary tree. But that hasn't stopped Atheistic scientists from pursuing a new version of the theory. They began drawing causal relations from an organism's genes instead. But there remains the biggest presupposition: that similarity implies causality.

Similarity does imply causality, at least at the level we've discovered. We've got the indisputable genetic data, but if you want more, there's the comprehensive fossil record charting the evolutionary lineage of organisms, and the instances of speciation we can observe under laboratory conditions. When you can literally watch evolution happening, your baseless denials kind of fall by the wayside, Undeceived.

You think I haven't researched this? Provide me with some transitional fossil examples and laboratory evidence of macroevolution.

[Ryantology]

Evolution was based on physiological observations--organisms "looked" similar, so some scientists decided there must be some causal relation. Evolution died when scientists discovered that many of the organisms (Darwin's finches, for example) were entirely different species and far apart on the hypothetical Evolutionary tree. But that hasn't stopped Atheistic scientists from pursuing a new version of the theory. They began drawing causal relations from an organism's genes instead. But there remains the biggest presupposition: that similarity implies causality.

One for the hall of shame.

That's unfair. People who believe in talking donkeys and a 6,000 year old planet are certainly more qualified than scientists with decades of experience to tell us the truth about life on earth.

[downbeatplumb]

You think I haven't researched this? Provide me with some transitional fossil examples and laboratory evidence of macroevolution.

I find your lack of education disturbing.

List of transitional fossils by no means comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.

http://matricsuploaded.co.za/index.php?o...nt&print=1

It is interesting to note that the same mechanisms that drive micro-evolution also drive macro-evolution. Whereas micro-evolution can be observed (insect resistance to insecticides, bacterial resistance to antibiotics etc.), macro-evolution cannot be studied directly. Evidence for macro-evolution comes from a study of fossils, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative molecular studies and biogeography (which is the geographical distribution of species). Although this is all indirect evidence, it is factually overwhelming and supports the theory of evolution.

[Undeceived]

List of transitional fossils by no means comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

Let me ask you this: how do you know these are transitional fossils and not dead-end species? By presupposing Evolution first, of course. That's the point I'm trying to make. Evolution is on equal par with religion in that it has to presuppose outside beliefs. Esquilax tried to argue that the fossil record is proof of Evolution, but it is clear that cannot be the case. If he simply means that the fossil record is consistent with, along with other things, a process like Evolution, I would dispute that too. There is a dating gap: http://www.icr.org/article/dating-gap/ 99.9% of all organisms that have ever lived are dead now. Why do we find hundreds of fossils for one species, but not one from millions of other species that must have existed in the same time period? Where are all the transitional fossils? What about one link between birds and dinosaurs, or fish and land animals? I'm just making a cursory argument here, because this is not a thread on Evolution. The point is that most people, if they looked at the fossil record without any prior beliefs, would not conclude Evolution occurred. A presupposition must be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants.

http://matricsuploaded.co.za/index.php?o...nt&print=1

It is interesting to note that the same mechanisms that drive micro-evolution also drive macro-evolution. Whereas micro-evolution can be observed (insect resistance to insecticides, bacterial resistance to antibiotics etc.), macro-evolution cannot be studied directly. Evidence for macro-evolution comes from a study of fossils, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, comparative molecular studies and biogeography (which is the geographical distribution of species). Although this is all indirect evidence, it is factually overwhelming and supports the theory of evolution.

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition. Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome. Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

[Darkstar]

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition.

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome.

Added? Things are never added to nor removed from a genome, only changed.

Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

Proof that you have no idea what evolution actually is. Nor do you know what natural selection is if you did not know the role random mutations plays in natural selection. Macroevolution is simply a bunch of microevolution.

[FallentoReason]

Why are you attacking Evolution Undeceived? The fact remains that your belief in God is an application of unjustified faith. You might as well literally believe in the Flying Sphaggetti Monster just because.

[Esquilax]

Let me ask you this: how do you know these are transitional fossils and not dead-end species? By presupposing Evolution first, of course. That's the point I'm trying to make. Evolution is on equal par with religion in that it has to presuppose outside beliefs.

It presupposes nothing, just follows the scads of actual, verifiable evidence that exists. See, the thing about these fossils is that evolutionary theory makes testable predictions about the fossil record that also turn out to be true: we can go to this place, dig this deep, and find this sort of creature.

But please, if you'd prefer to take up the much, much more ridiculous premise that every fossil found is an extinct, dead end species, then you'd have to actually support that claim with evidence, like evolution does, rather than just throw chaff by asserting it.

Esquilax tried to argue that the fossil record is proof of Evolution, but it is clear that cannot be the case.

The fossil record is one part of a vast tapestry of evidence for evolution, like the indisputable genetic data that you conveniently ignored. I guess it's easier just to focus on the concepts you think you might be able to debate against and pretend the ones you can't don't exist, huh?

If he simply means that the fossil record is consistent with, along with other things, a process like Evolution, I would dispute that too. There is a dating gap: http://www.icr.org/article/dating-gap/

I feel pretty safe in ignoring the views of that titan of scientific knowledge, the institute of creation research.

99.9% of all organisms that have ever lived are dead now. Why do we find hundreds of fossils for one species, but not one from millions of other species that must have existed in the same time period?

Because the process of making fossils is hard, and uncommon, and since there's no intent to make fossils it's entirely inexact? Those things?

The fact that we have as many fossils as we do have that confirm evolution just goes to show how correct the theory is.

Where are all the transitional fossils? What about one link between birds and dinosaurs, or fish and land animals? I'm just making a cursory argument here, because this is not a thread on Evolution. The point is that most people, if they looked at the fossil record without any prior beliefs, would not conclude Evolution occurred. A presupposition must be made.

Oh man, are you making my job easy here or what? We have transitional forms of those things: dinosaurs to birds- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

And fish to land animals- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Please note that these aren't the only examples we have, just the most well known, prototypical ones. There are plenty of others. So there's no presupposition that evolution occurs when looking at the fossil record, just a logical conclusion being made based on the fact that all of the available data, not just the fossils but the genetics, the predictive capabilities of the theory, and the current morphological observations or organisms, come together in a very clear picture.

When every shred of evidence points one way, there's no shame in interpreting other pieces of evidence to point that way, when they do.

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition. Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome. Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

You just don't understand evolution. Under your definition macroevolution is impossible because new information isn't added into genes, only altered. But that's not a point in your favor, because evolution as it stands never posited that new information could be added. The thing you've labelled as microevolution is just evolution; it's the only mechanism by which evolution occurs. And those smaller changes within species accumulate over time, giving us newer, diverse species.

What you've done is, you've created your own fantasy version of evolution, called it macro, and then argued against it, when nobody that actually supports evolution is arguing for it!

[ebg]

What's a/f/k?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ask/Seek/Knock, as in "Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened for you." Supposedly if you do those three things the Holy Spirit will come and put Jesus in your heart.

[Undeceived]

It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition.

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

Could you elaborate, please? Hard examples?

Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome.

Added? Things are never added to nor removed from a genome, only changed.

If that were true, how would a simple slug evolve into an intricately complex mammal? Just google "adding information to genome" and you'll find this to be a scientific fact.

Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

Proof that you have no idea what evolution actually is. Nor do you know what natural selection is if you did not know the role random mutations plays in natural selection. Macroevolution is simply a bunch of microevolution.

Okay, technically microevolution can occur with mutations also. Micro refers to change "below the level of species" while macro refers to change "at or above the level of species." In other words, Macro requires speciation to occur. And while micro can work without mutations, macro must have mutations in order to develop more complex life and allow speciation. I don't know what you're saying about natural selection and mutations. They are quite independent of each other. Natural selection takes the current gene pool and eliminates parts of it. Mutations modify the gene pool, which is grown through gene duplication.

The fact that we have as many fossils as we do have that confirm evolution just goes to show how correct the theory is.

We have a lot of extinct species. Similarity still doesn't imply causality. Supposition. This is a black-and-white issue here. Either you know the fossils are transitional or you don't. Just the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' indicates that it contains some presuppositions. I don't know why you are so up-in-arms about this reality.

Oh man, are you making my job easy here or what? We have transitional forms of those things: dinosaurs to birds- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

And fish to land animals- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

And thanks for making my job easy. I refer to a past thread (feel free to read): https://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-p...+Tiktaalik

You can find explanations for their debunking all over the internet, but the gist is this: The Archaeopteryx has since been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. One year after the Tiktaalik's pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.