Originally posted by twhiteheadYou think I make the criteria of more certain proof unreasonable?
No, actually you would not be impressed or blown-away. You would simply ask for more evidence stating that whatever was presented was not good enough.
Your initial objections have all been shown to be invalid so now you ask for something you know is not possible nor part of evolutionary theory in the first place - a strawman.
Your argument is starting t before the first life form to the present day and even then you will say "thats impossible."
I don't think so. I would not expect every transformation to be demonstrated. I think that is the strawman argument of your own design.
Suppose I presented a theory that the rings around Saturn were once around Mecury. Suppose I said that through millions upon millions of years those rings gradually migrated outward from planet to planet. First they went from Mercury to Venus and then to Earth and then to Mars etc. etc. Suppose I proposed that over a billion years the rings presently around Saturn were originally around the other inner planets.
Now suppose for proof I point out that there are rings around Uranus too. This then is offered proof that the rings are in the very act of moving from one planet to another. It just takes so very long that it cannot be observed. But we do see them migrating gradually from Saturn to the outer planet of Uranus.
That seems similiar to Macro Evolutionary theory. You propose that (to start from somewhere) ameoba has its distant offspring in human beings. And we can see that apes look a little like people. So this is strong evidence.
I don't think the weight of your evidence is enough to match the momentous idea proposed. While I agree that laboratory reproduction of all transformations would be totally unreasonable more significant ones could be requested before we adopt the idea wholesale.
What is hardest for me to envision is the absence of any "look ahead" capability usually associated with intelligence which guides the process.
I simply don't have enough faith to believe that undirected and random "selection" could bring a light sensative bump on the skin to develop into an eyeball.
Okay, okay Let's hear it all together now -
"YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION !!"
To the poster who suggested that I take a biology class - I asked where he was in education in the 1974 75 time frame. I received no answer.
Okay. just so you know I took college biology around that time frame. That was my second biology class. My first was in the late 60s in high school of course.
Both very good courses which I enjoyed very much. I wonder if you were more than a toddler in 1974 - 75 ish, when I was taking college biology.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWhy are you supposing that I could never be convinced?
Fossil records, synteny in DNA and protein sequences, intermediate forms. I could go on. You're not going to be satisfied unless you see 100 000 years of evolutionary history in an afternoon so you're not worth bothering with.
Do I sound that unpersuadable?
Even if I were to be persuaded of macro evolution I think I still would have to suspect that some kind of intelligence is responsible for the program itself.
Originally posted by jaywillWhy do you think you'd require an intelligence?
Why are you supposing that I could never be convinced?
Do I sound that unpersuadable?
Even if I were to be persuaded of macro evolution I think I still would have to suspect that some kind of intelligence is responsible for the program itself.
Originally posted by jaywillYou misunderstand macroevolutionary theory. According to it, organisms remain in the same groups they descended from, so yes, dogs with breed dogs, just as in the past, the first mammals produced mammals, the first vertebrates produced vertebrates, and dogs are still vertebrates and mammals.
You still have a dog in the beginning and a dog in the end as a product. Close but are you going to base the huge implications of macro evolution on that?
Originally posted by jaywillI think you are confused about the concept of macroevolution. It is not some separate evolutionary concept, but simply microevolution over a long period. I assume you accept microevolution (if you don't, I think you are beyond help), so if it exists in the present, why shouldn't it have existed in the past?
You think I make the criteria of more certain proof unreasonable?
I don't think so. I would not expect every transformation to be demonstrated. I think that is the strawman argument of your own design.
Suppose I presented a theory that the rings around Saturn were once around Mecury. Suppose I said that through millions upon millions of years thos ...[text shortened]... ay Let's hear it all together now -
[b] "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION !!" [/b]
Oh, and don't give me an answer that involves changing from one species into another as a difference for macro and microevolution. By the dictionary definition of species that I gave you, microevolution (as in my example of dogs) can cause changes of species. If you are working with another definition, please explain what it is before you use the word "species" again.
By the way, evolution is not random. Whatever survives to reproduce gets selected for. It's not a hard concept, really, and definitely does not require divine direction.
you know ... no one knows anything really.. about anything... just books that they have read written by someone else that may have learned from someone else more learned 200 years ago who wrote from a scribe he found rolled up in his grandads archives somewhere.. we are all just story tellers, don't get me wrong , please .. we are all among very deep thinking men who are as smart as they come but in the end we are all just circling the wagons.. no one really has any concrete evidence that god exists and no one has any concrete evidence that he doesn't .. so i think i'm pretty smart , and a deep thinker ... i keep going back to the campfire in the middle of the wagons and waiting for the marshmellows to be ready. i just can't seem to put a forkin this whole thing. We did not evole from animals and I can't put my arm around the fac tthat a supernatural being came out of nowhere and created the human being. anyone....?
Originally posted by XanthosNZxanthos, you haven't fixed anything, nor will you ever, but... i agree with your single point that the two can peacefully coexist . As far as the bible be taken literally, well... we know where we need to focus our thinking now. thanks for being out there keeping the balanced slightly on edge. regards, Big b.
Why does religion have to be antagonistic to evolution?
There are many religious people who are scientists - and yet a small and very vocal minority seems to believe that to accept the Bible means rejecting the scientific process, and so reject evolution.
Why is this?
Does it have to be the case?
I can't myself see any conflict between evolutionary and ...[text shortened]... e is read literally which is clearly a ridiculous viewpoint to take.
I've fixed it for you.
I am substantially researching evolution (and I have previously), and it appears that:
-Speciation Happens
-There are many, but of course not all, transitional forms.
I recognize my statement about probability regarding evolution is incorrect, given that there is uncertainty regarding both sides of the argument, between evolutionists and creationists. My point regarding “there are no transitional forms” is false, which I obtained from the website URL I provided, because speciation happens. My statement regarding that the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria is evidence of evolution is accurate as “evolution on the smallest scale, or microevolution, can be defined as a change in the allele frequencies of a population.” (C23, Introduction, Campbell 6th edition biology textbook) This is undeniable, but the accuracy of macroevolution, which would trace back and maybe include the origins of life is in question.
In the forums, there is too much word-tossing; I have done this myself without extensively supporting my claims, but I have made some of my points. The dearth of supporting evidence for evolution in, at least, the last 20 pages of the thread, would make a strong case for creationists; a few of the creationists that are critics of macroevolution are scientists with PhD’s, and are leaders in their respective fields in science with their own views on creation, but some of the leaders which support evolution are also leaders in science.
However, I do not believe the theories provided evolutionists and creationists are completely at odds. I believe evolution happens (and evidence of speciation indicates that), but there are flaws in the theory; my problems with evolution regard transitional forms, punctuated equilibrium, human consciousness (evolution spawns consciousness?), origins of life. The use of similar embryonic development (I don’t know organisms with similar-looking embryos are evidence of evolution, especially when usually, this simply is not usually the case, and especially as similar characteristics in organisms may sometimes be attributed to different gene loci; correlation “embryos look similar!” does not beget causation “evolution must be the answer!&rdquo😉… and the use of Miller experiment, which was extremely flawed, in collegiate textbooks as supporting evidence of evolution is very, very bad.
There must have been an extraordinary set of circumstances necessary to initiate life (it is incredible that Earth even has the means to support life), and currently, the origins of life are beyond the means of science to fully explain to a reasonable degree of certainty; scientifically, propagating life, I believe, is not possible. The complexity of the most fundamental organism is astounding; it must have the means (the systems, the organelles) to function, reproduce, hence a means to copy its genetic material. This immensely complex life form must have somehow developed from non-living organic material? What non-living organic material has the capabilities to facilitate the simplest organism, which is immensely complex? “The origin of life appears at the moment almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” – Francis Crick
I’d have to look at virus formation before I could state how viruses relate to living things; however, I would think that living organisms originated before viruses, because viruses are dependent on living things for reproduction, etc. (Think of it as the evolution of computers, the computer network, and viruses; the computers were in place before the viruses.)
Sorry I haven’t provided supporting evidence here, and for posting more than you may have wanted to read, but this is my general argument. I admit that researching is not at all easy due to the difficulty of obtaining supporting evidence to the claims made. Also, sources have their own agendas, and bias.
Regarding someone’s statement about that terms microevolution and macroevolution originating from creationists, I do not know if that is the case. However, they are used in my collegiate biology textbook, and anywhere else where I read about evolution. I suppose one may use ‘small-scale’ and large-scale’ evolution, but microevolution and macroevolution do need to be considered separately. Looking in the index of my biology textbook for the precise definition of evolution, I find 63 references to how evolution applies to a separate topic.
Originally posted by YugaWhat is written below is directly word-for-word from a collegiate textbook; in high school, I believe we used the 7th edition (a later version in any case), but we only had access to the online version of the Campbell Biology 6th edition (C26, which I am referring to); I’ve heard that the later version that we used in class was used at Harvard 2-4 years back:
… and the use of Miller experiment, which was extremely flawed, in collegiate textbooks as supporting evidence of evolution is very, very bad.
My comments are in brackets.
In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis by creating, in the laboratory, conditions comparable to those that scientists had postulated for the early Earth. Their apparatus produced a variety of amino acids and other organic compounds found in living organisms today… The "atmosphere" consisted of H2O, H2, CH4, and NH3…Hydrogen gas was probably not a major component, and traces of O2 may even have been present…
[Well, the textbook renders the result of the Miller experiment meaningless, no hydrogen gas; no methane either I have also read elsewhere.]
Many laboratories have repeated the Miller experiment using a variety of recipes for the atmosphere. Abiotic synthesis of organic compounds occurred in these modified models, although yields were generally smaller than in the original experiment.
[Do you want to know what organic molecules were produced? Formaldehyde and cyanide! (according to Jonathan Wells, PhD, doctorate in molecular and cell biology; focus embryology, evolution, post-doctorate research biologist, etc, etc, etc.)]
Some scientists now doubt that the early atmosphere played a significant role in early chemical reactions. Instead, submerged volcanoes and deep-sea vents--gaps in Earth’s crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceans--may have provided the essential resources. Evidence is also building that life could have begun in a much simpler chemical environment than formerly thought. For instance, the first cells may have used inorganic sulfur and iron compounds as energy sources to make their own ATP instead of taking it up from their surroundings.
[I would like to see some supporting evidence; I’ve been seeing a lot of claims, often speculative, hence theoretical in nature; however, it is only the role of a scientific textbook to provide what is known and the current theories, and not necessarily how the knowledge was developed or obtained.]
It is also plausible that some organic compounds reached Earth from space. In 2000, Indian scientists reported computer models showing how molecules such as adenine, an ingredient of DNA, could form by reactions of cyanide in the clouds of gas between stars. These simulations would explain why some meteorites that have crashed to Earth contain organic molecules. But whether the primordial Earth was stocked with organic monomers made here or elsewhere, the key point is that the molecular ingredients of life were probably present very early.
[“The key point is that the molecular ingredients of life were probably present very early.” And for all that speculation, that was the point? These molecular ingredients are?]
(P.S. It’s important to note that most textbooks, including science textbooks have bias (probably not your physics and math textbooks so much, but any textbook that addresses a subject of non-factual, theoretical nature. Tearing apart the conclusions made by my author of my psychology textbook is great fun, because psychology (all sciences, but psychology in particular) looks at trends. The author of my psychology textbook and is a big fan of evolution, and it is true that evolution conveniently helps provide some answers regarding human behavior. Our genes do have a major effect on our nature; approximately 60% to 40% nature over nurture, although there are too many variables affecting personality, etc. to really come to conclusions; of course, there are always anecdotal cases, which act conversely to the trends. As much as we would like to think so sometimes, science (and evolution) is not goal oriented; we may only look at the trends.)
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy understanding of Darwinian Evolution is that all species share a common ancestry.
You misunderstand macroevolutionary theory. According to it, organisms remain in the same groups they descended from, so yes, dogs with breed dogs, just as in the past, the first mammals produced mammals, the first vertebrates produced vertebrates, and dogs are still vertebrates and mammals.
For instance - Fish produced Amphibians, Amphibians produced Reptiles, Reptiles produced Mammals.
Since I learned this I think I have heard more talk about reptiles evolving into birds.
Originally posted by whiteroseThe problem of the survivability of some transitional forms has to be considered. Take the transition from scales to feathers in the transition between reptiles to birds.
I think you are confused about the concept of macroevolution. It is not some separate evolutionary concept, but simply microevolution over a long period. I assume you accept microevolution (if you don't, I think you are beyond help), so if it exists in the present, why shouldn't it have existed in the past?
Oh, and don't give me an answer that involves ch ed for. It's not a hard concept, really, and definitely does not require divine direction.
If a reptile like creature with scales gradually evolved into a bird like creature with feathers, there are survivability issues which require some more explanation. Inbetween repitle and bird you have a creature which doesn't fly nor has true scales. At least the mechanisims for survival are yet to be discovered.
If the transition were made and such creatures lived millions of years, why don't we see abundantly more fossil evidence of it. If they didn't survive well, was the transition successfully made? If we interpret that the transition was successfuly made in this way I think the evidence of a halfway house should be abundant and not scant.
My advice to evolutionists would be to look rather into abrupt and sudden transformations. I think something more abrupt than puctuated equilibrium is what I would have in mind as a possibility.
Originally posted by jaywillHave you ever heard of the concept of ecosystems? Just because something wouldn't survive in the ecosystem you live in, doesn't mean it has no survivability in the ecosystem in which it evolved. Take, for example, the kiwi. It is a bird that cannot fly, and it does not survive well in its current ecosystem because it is easy prey for all sorts of ground dwelling carnivores. However, in the environment in which it evolved there were no ground dwelling carnivores, but only carnivorous birds. Therefore, in its original environment, being flightless was an asset as it could hide from birds of prey. Therefore, it had very good survivability it its original environment, but as the environment changed its survivability decreased.
The problem of the survivability of some transitional forms has to be considered. Take the transition from scales to feathers in the transition between reptiles to birds.
If a reptile like creature with scales gradually evolved into a bird like creature with feathers, there are survivability issues which require some more explanation. Inbetween repitl ...[text shortened]... mething more abrupt than puctuated equilibrium is what I would have in mind as a possibility.
Originally posted by whiteroseGood point.
Have you ever heard of the concept of ecosystems? Just because something wouldn't survive in the ecosystem you live in, doesn't mean it has no survivability in the ecosystem in which it evolved. Take, for example, the kiwi. It is a bird that cannot fly, and it does not survive well in its current ecosystem because it is easy prey for all sorts of ground dw ...[text shortened]... ility it its original environment, but as the environment changed its survivability decreased.
The Kiwi and the Penguin don't fly. But they do have feathers and not inbetween feathers and scales body parts which present problems which need some contemplation at least.
For eons we supposedly have some animals with something inbetween feathers and scales.
Do you have any suggestion why fossil evidence of such should not be abundant rather than scant?
Originally posted by jaywillhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
Good point.
The Kiwi and the Penguin don't fly. But they do have feathers and not inbetween feathers and scales body parts which present problems which need some contemplation at least.
For eons we supposedly have some animals with something inbetween feathers and scales.
Do you have any suggestion why fossil evidence of such should not be abundant rather than scant?