Alternatives to Evolution

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution. The others are seperate from biological evolution.

Macro evolution would not be possible if cosmic evolution were not possible. You have to have a legitimate starting point.

So tell me, has cosmic evolution been observed?

Originally posted by sugiezd
Perhaps I could add (for dj2's benefit) that macro can be best regarded as the sum of micro.

True, micro is observed and macro not - because it takes too long, it's as simple as that. However, the results are all around you.

Macro evolution is thus a religious idea and non-scientific.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Macroevolution does not predict that dogs would evolve into "not-dogs". Strawman!

Are you stupid, ignorant or just a liar?

Theoretically dogs came from a rock if you go back far enough in time. Yet observation has shown that dogs produce dogs and that rocks have always remained rocks.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Update: Nearing 200 posts and not a single viable alternative.

Give it time: if evolution be true, eventually one will evolve.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Give it time: if evolution be true, eventually one will evolve.

And yet when an alternative evolves it will be proof positive that evolution does happen making the alternative seem somewhat suspect.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Theoretically dogs came from a rock if you go back far enough in time. Yet observation has shown that dogs produce dogs and that rocks have always remained rocks.

And yet there are great-danes and poodles and wolves produced dogs. (or did Noah have wolves and dogs?).

Dogs don't come in green but that is not evidence that dogs never have pups of a different color.

You accept observable 'micro-evolution' as valid and then make statements which clearly contradict that assertion in an attempt to invalidate so called 'macro-evolution'

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet when an alternative evolves it will be proof positive that evolution does happen making the alternative seem somewhat suspect.

What if it's been there all along, lying dormant in either the recesses of our minds or -worse- in plain sight within the storehouse of already-discovered knowledge?

Originally posted by sonhouse
When Noah put two of everything in the Ark, where did he put the dinosaurs? Must have been a BIG ark, and why did they not survive the flood?

One of them ate the unicorns and, as a result, all were booted.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Macro and Micro Evolution is a distinction made only in the minds of Intelligent Design/Creationists. No biologist makes such a distinction except in addressing these people.

'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'

L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London

Originally posted by twhitehead
And yet there are great-danes and poodles and wolves produced dogs. (or did Noah have wolves and dogs?).

Dogs don't come in green but that is not evidence that dogs never have pups of a different color.

You accept observable 'micro-evolution' as valid and then make statements which clearly contradict that assertion in an attempt to invalidate so called 'macro-evolution'

Variations within a specie does not prove that all species ultimately evolved from a rock...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Variations within a specie does not prove that all species ultimately evolved from a rock...

Nobody claimed that it does.....

However you are claiming that variation never leads to new species which is a false claim and the contrary is observable.

Originally posted by dj2becker
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has b ...[text shortened]... n Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London

By similar logic you can declare Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Physics, Chemistry and just about any other science a faith. It all depends on what you mean by 'unproved'.
But parallel to special creation? No.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Macro and Micro Evolution is a distinction made only in the minds of Intelligent Design/Creationists. No biologist makes such a distinction except in addressing these people.

ROTFL. Your rocket-ship underwear is showing.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Macro and Micro Evolution is a distinction made only in the minds of Intelligent Design/Creationists. No biologist makes such a distinction except in addressing these people.

I am a biologist.

The distinction is, as you say, conceptual rather than real.

I don't know if it's already been said so forgive me for repeating, if it has:

Mutations happen all the time, they may be beneficial, harmful or neutral. The harmful obviously die out, as the neutral tend to do.

A beneficial change will eventually replace the wildtype until a barrier is reached. This happens time and time again until the organisms, originally of the same species but living on either side of the barrier, drift apart genetically.

This will eventually reduce their iter-fertility until they become seperate species.

A rather rough concept of species is the ability to interbreed true and fertile.

Micro/macro imples black and white - it's more shades of grey.

Originally posted by Halitose
ROTFL. Your rocket-ship underwear is showing.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

Here's six decades' worth from a rather suspicious source:

http://www.sciencemag.org