god, life + creation

What, if anything, would you consider strong evidence of so-called "macroevolution"?

Ironclad empiricle proof.

Or, have you simply decided there is currently a sufficient lack of evidence for the theory, and therefore there will never be any evidence that could sway your opinion?

Perhaps the discovery of the any creature's history (e.g. fish to amphibian or reptile to b ...[text shortened]... itably defendable mechanism for this evolving from one creature to the next would also be great.[/b]

Originally posted by Halitose
http://www.answers.com/'scientific_method

Compare carefully with
http://www.answers.com/'empiricism
At no point do either of these say that the Scientific Method is based on an "assumption" or that it is based on empiricism.

Ironclad empiricle proof.

What does this mean ? Most scientists say that the evidence of evolution is "Ironclad empiricle proof".

Perhaps the discovery of the any creature's history (e.g. fish to amphibian or reptile to bird) with the distinct development indisputibly consistant without any leaps or gaps in the record. No large morphological jumps please - and no wishful thinking.

It would be impossible to find skeletons or other evidence of every single creature ever to have existed. However there are plenty of fosils showing "the distinct development indisputibly consistant".

A suitably defendable mechanism for this evolving from one creature to the next would also be great.
Here I give you "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It has been succesfully defended for nearly 150 years even though it went against many peoples religious beliefs and egos.

You have accepted microevolution which is basically the same thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]http://www.answers.com/'scientific_method

Compare carefully with
http://www.answers.com/'empiricism
At no point do either of these say that the Scientific Method is based on an "assumption" or that it is based on empiricism.

Ironclad empiricle proof.

What does this mean ? Most scientists s ...[text shortened]... ligious beliefs and egos.

You have accepted microevolution which is basically the same thing.[/b]

At no point do either of these say that the Scientific Method is based on an "assumption" or that it is based on empiricism.

I think you miss the point:

1. Empiricism: The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

2. Scientific Method: An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.

As is quite obvious, empiricism is assumed in step (1) and (4) of this simplified version of the scientific method. How else do you collect the data, but through sensual (no pun intended) perception?

What does this mean ?

Ironclad: without flaws or loopholes
Empirical: relying on or derived from observation or experiment/verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment
Proof: the validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

Most scientists say that the evidence of evolution is "Ironclad empiricle proof".

Once again I will have to request a statistical analysis for my perusal.

It would be impossible to find skeletons or other evidence of every single creature ever to have existed.

I just need a couple.

However there are plenty of fosils showing "the distinct development indisputibly consistant".

Really? Care to show and tell?

Here I give you "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.

Been there; done that; not impressed.

It has been succesfully[sic] defended for nearly 150 years even though it went against many peoples religious beliefs and egos.

That must be why some of the greatest evolutionists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have 'rejected' the pure Darwinian selection and instead suggested the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. There have been many improvisations of Darwin's original 'natural selection'.

microevolution... is basically the same thing.

Nope.

1)Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

2)Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

1) is a survival mechanism.
2) is an (IMHO unverifiable and unprovable) extrapolation of 1) to describe our origins.

A big difference.

Originally posted by Halitose
Really? Care to show and tell?

(hesitantly) Archeopteryx, maybe?

--Were you really that unimpressed by Darwin? Not exactly an unoriginal work (although he borrowed from his grandfather, if I recall well).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(hesitantly) Archeopteryx, maybe?

--Were you really that unimpressed by Darwin? Not exactly an unoriginal work (although he borrowed from his grandfather, if I recall well).

Archeopteryx

And the development history? What did this develop from? When did it learn to fly? When did the scales change to feathers?
That is my problem with the TOE, just not enough proof...

Were you really that unimpressed by Darwin?

From a skeptical perspective, I admit there was a high level of bias.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Archeopteryx

And the development history? What did this develop from? When did it learn to fly? When did the scales change to feathers?
That is my problem with the TOE, just not enough proof...

Were you really that unimpressed by Darwin?

From a skeptical perspective, I admit there was a high level of bias.[/b]

You do seem to be asking for the impossible. If a more reptilian version of Archie were found, you'd be asking for the previous stage of transition, and so on.

Birds still have feathers and scales. Feathers are specialised scales, as far as I know (not very far, true). Perhaps the feathers developed from scales....(interrupts train of thought to Google)...

Aha!

"Structural similarities leads many to believe that modern birds evolved from dinosaurs. A recent finding of a Tyrannosauroid with a partial coat of hairlike feathers has provided stronger evidence for this theory. The discovery was published in the science journal Nature in October 2004 by Xing Xu, Mark A. Norell, Xuewen Kuang, Xiaolin Wang, Qi Zhoa, and Chengkai Jia." (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:RACnqgJeJWwJ:www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOL05papers/75.doc+archeopteryx+feathers+development&hl=en)

As for Darwin, I'd say were reading against him rather trying to evaluate the merits of his argument objectively.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You do seem to be asking for the impossible. If a more reptilian version of Archie were found, you'd be asking for the previous stage of transition, and so on.

Birds still have feathers and scales. Feathers are specialised scales, as far as I know (not very far, true). Perhaps the feathers developed from scales....(interrupts train of thought to G ...[text shortened]... d say were reading against him rather trying to evaluate the merits of his argument objectively.

You do seem to be asking for the impossible.

I am well aware of the daunting task; which is why I still remain a skeptic. The TOE in its entirety cannot be flaunted as a watertight theory; there are so many missing pieces to this wonderful puzzle.

Birds still have feathers and scales.

Both are constructed from keratin to my knowledge. The one is highly complex, the other less so. What was the mechanism for this evolution? Was flight consciously sought for in its development?

A recent finding of a Tyrannosauroid with a partial coat of hairlike feathers has provided stronger evidence for this theory.

I question the ability of a fossil to conclusively prove the nature of a creature's epidermal covering. How do you get from a scale to the highly complex arrangement of a feather?

A flying tyrannosaurus would have given new meaning to weight overload. It would need an extra-long runway and loads of baked beans for fuel; lol, heck, throw in a 50 meter wingspan and a jetpack. Yes, such a fossil may be the brink of a true discovery.

As for Darwin, I'd say were reading against him rather trying to evaluate the merits of his argument objectively.

The same could be said for the way many people read the Bible on this forum.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I think you miss the point:

1. Empiricism: The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.

2. Scientific Method: An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. ( ...[text shortened]... ientific method. How else do you collect the data, but through sensual (no pun intended) perception?

No empiricism is not assumed. At no point does the scientific method claim observation to be the only source of knowledge.
It is perfectly possible to be a scientist as well as religious.

You yourself are asking for empirical proof of evolution and yet are not a believer in empiricism.

Are you possibly saying that observation is not a source of knowledge ?

Originally posted by Halitose
I question the ability of a fossil to conclusively prove the nature of a creature's epidermal covering. How do you get from a scale to the highly complex arrangement of a feather?

A flying tyrannosaurus would have given new meaning to weight overload. It would need an extra-long runway and loads of baked beans for fuel; lol, heck, throw in a 50 meter w ...[text shortened]...

[b]Darwin

The same could be said for the way many people read the Bible on this forum.[/b]

About dinosaur feathers, I enjoyed reading this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3298

And this one:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn6500

People reading the Bible subjectively isn't relevant to your bad faith as a reader of Darwin. Besides, reading the Bible objectively (as a text among texts) is what makes people ask questions in the first place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No empiricism is [b]not assumed. At no point does the scientific method claim observation to be the only source of knowledge.
It is perfectly possible to be a scientist as well as religious.

You yourself are asking for empirical proof of evolution and yet are not a believer in empiricism.

Are you possibly saying that observation is not a source of knowledge ?[/b]

Dude. You are getting me all wrong. Science is a matter of observation. Empiricism is believing that the observation results in knowledge.

At no point does the scientific method claim observation to be the only source of knowledge.

It does too.

It is perfectly possible to be a scientist as well as religious.

Yep.

You yourself... are not a believer in empiricism.

I've claimed nothing of the sort.

Are you possibly saying that observation is not a source of knowledge ?

For science, it is the only source of empirical knowledge.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
About dinosaur feathers, I enjoyed reading this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3298

And this one:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn6500

People reading the Bible subjectively isn't relevant to your bad faith as a reader of Darwin. Besides, reading the Bible objectively (as a text among texts) is what makes people ask questions in the first place.

Interesting links, but still inconclusive; no flight as yet; perhaps gliding. Perhaps the dinosaur had just finished a huge meal of feathered creatures before getting fossilised with the feather imprints not being its own. It's mostly wishful thinking IMO.

Originally posted by Halitose
Interesting links, but still inconclusive; no flight as yet; perhaps gliding. Perhaps the dinosaur had just finished a huge meal of feathered creatures before getting fossilised with the feather imprints not being its own. It's mostly wishful thinking IMO.

No. Wishful thinking is making up what you already want to believe. Whatever these people are doing, it is not interpreting according to pre-conceived ideas. Rather these discoveries are making them question their assumptions & formulate new hypotheses. Your critique is starting to look weak.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No. Wishful thinking is making up what you already want to believe. Whatever these people are doing, it is not interpreting according to pre-conceived ideas. Rather these discoveries are making them question their assumptions & formulate new hypotheses. Your critique is starting to look weak.

Rather these discoveries are making them question their assumptions & formulate new hypotheses. Your critique is starting to look weak.

New-hypotheses within the evolutionary framework, yes. There is no re-evaluation here, only making the system workable.

"There has to be a jump from lizard to bird and it will be made to work."

Originally posted by Halitose
New-hypotheses within the evolutionary framework, yes. There is no re-evaluation here, only making the system workable.

Hell, that sounds just like...never mind.

Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure. Dinosaurs and birds were linked on the basis of this evidence. It makes morphological sense. Feathers were discovered to bolster the theory. Obviously, birds had descended from reptiles. The latest evidence puts this order of events into doubt, but not the affinity between feathers and scales. It's a complex dynamic theory, not the Procrustean bed you have made up for it.

Can you see no advantage in an evolutionary perspective?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]And by the way, triangulation is not the only way to measure the distance to a given star

Really? Could you please elaborate, because to my knowledge, triangulation is the only method that astronomers use to measure the distance of stars. As Stephen Hawking said, the only thing we can know about a star is its brightness and colour, the rest is mer ...[text shortened]... s clear...[/b]

I'm afraid not. Do you fully understand the concept of the young-earth model?[/b]

Very interesting thread -

I will start my comments with Halitose -

Lets give this theory a bit of discussion.
Science has shown that the speed of light, unimpeded, is a constant. For simplicity, we will say that it has a value of 1. If we measure the light year distance of an object with an unimpeded path (the moon, for example) we get its value. We measure another object (the sun) and get its value. Using mathmatics, which deals in constants, we can gauge their distance from the earth. Now, we want to know how far away that star over there is - So, in our revolution aroiund the sun, we gather numbers from multiple points (not just two) to get a more accurate measurement. Using a telescope, we are able to determine that there are no other celestial bodies or phenomenon in the path of that star to us. With light having the value of 1, we determine that said star is 20,000 units away. Even giving to human error, which has been proven, we will give a 20% range of error. This mean that the value can be between 16,000 and 24,000 - and 20% is a HUGE margin of error. Even at the low end of the equation, it takes the light from that star 16,000 years to reach us. If God placed that star in the sky 10,000 years ago, when the light from that star began to glow, we would not be able to see that star in the sky for another 6,000 years.

If your comments on the evolution from dinosaur to bird, you state/ask "Both are constructed from keratin to my knowledge. The one is highly complex, the other less so. What was the mechanism for this evolution? Was flight consciously sought for in its development?" - Why do you assume that flight is the purpose of the evolutionary change? Feathers do not mean flight. There are flightless birds that have feathers. Bats fly and they dont have feathers. The theory of dinosaur to avian includes the change from scales to feathers, a hollow bone structure, the aerodynamic "chassis" of creatures of flight, plus a number of other factors. The theory of scale to feather is based on evolution. Taking that into account, to go from scale to feather over a period of 20 million years is not a stretch. You negate the TOE so you can easier negate theories that use TOE as a base.

On Scientific method -

Scientists use observations(The act or faculty of observing), hypotheses(A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation) and deductions(Deductive reasoning is the process of reaching a conclusion that is guaranteed to follow, if the evidence provided is true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is correct. The conclusion also must be based only on the evidence previously provided; it cannot contain new information about the subject matter. Deductive reasoning was first described by the ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle.) to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.

Observation is but one tool that is used in the method, not the only one.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Hell, that sounds just like...never mind.

Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure. Dinosaurs and birds were linked on the basis of this evidence. It makes morphological sense. Feathers were discovered to bolster the theory. Obviously, birds had descended from reptiles. The latest eviden ...[text shortened]... ustean bed you have made up for it.

Can you see no advantage in an evolutionary perspective?

Hell, that sounds just like...never mind

Lol, I know. Life's ironic.

Paleontologists observed striking similarities between bird, modern reptile and dinosaur bone structure.

Similarity = ancestry? Only if you assume common descent...

Edit: Darn! The rest of my post got cut off!!! Now I'll need to retype it all.