Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Ouroboros]

Sherman,

You believe in theistic evolution, correct?

 

[Shermana]

Sherman,

You believe in theistic evolution, correct?

Not in the sense you're probably thinking.

I believe in Theistic Epigenetics.

One starting "kind" can result in multiple variations of that "kind".

 

[secret2]

Not in the sense you're probably thinking.

I believe in Theistic Epigenetics.

One starting "kind" can result in multiple variations of that "kind".

Putting on "quotation marks" doesn't change the fact that "kind" is a weasel word.

 

[Sculelos]

Not in the sense you're probably thinking.

I believe in Theistic Epigenetics.

One starting "kind" can result in multiple variations of that "kind".

The more I think about it the more it seems to be any product of evolution would have to be based on plant viruses sense any evolutionary changes would have to happen at the same time with a broad amount of specimen effected at the same time to occur, like I said micro-evolution is impossible as any kind is defined by certain perimeters that if they stray too far from they will die or go sterile. However it's certainly possible to change the DNA sequence of a creature (through perhaps a DNA binding Virus) to make it change to another creature as fast as energy absorption allows.

 

[Shermana]

Putting on "quotation marks" doesn't change the fact that "kind" is a weasel word.

I don't think you understand what "weasel word" entails, I was trying to explain my view in relation to Biblical terms, but that may have gone over your head.

 

[Shermana]

The more I think about it the more it seems to be any product of evolution would have to be based on plant viruses sense any evolutionary changes would have to happen at the same time with a broad amount of specimen effected at the same time to occur, like I said micro-evolution is impossible as any kind is defined by certain perimeters that if they stray too far from they will die or go sterile. However it's certainly possible to change the DNA sequence of a creature (through perhaps a DNA binding Virus) to make it change to another creature as fast as energy absorption allows.

Indeed, large-scale micro-evolution that involves drastic changes will cause sterility, imbalance, or inability to adapt to any environment outside of the new one. However, we've seen Epigenetics in action already. And this goes with what I said about how there's not enough time for Macro-Evolution, even with hundreds of millions of years, it would take many billions. But I get the impression you're somewhat agreeing with my stance if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Sculelos]

Indeed, large-scale micro-evolution that involves drastic changes will cause sterility, imbalance, or inability to adapt to any environment outside of the new one. However, we've seen Epigenetics in action already. And this goes with what I said about how there's not enough time for Macro-Evolution, even with hundreds of millions of years, it would take many billions. But I get the impression you're somewhat agreeing with my stance if I'm not mistaken.

I agree 100% if your saying that a kind can have multiple traits that spread out throughout the 'Kind'. I agree 0% if you say DNA can slowly change over time as time leads to nothing except for decay so the more time you have to change the more chance the 'Kind' has to fail completely and go extinct so time is an enemy to evolution and would harm any attempts more-so then help any.

If we are talking about something else like a binding virus that changed cows to produce say pig offspring it is completely possible, however saying that any change would take place immediately and would take absolutely no time at all to happen.

In this way you could actually change Ostrich eggs to Dinosaur eggs overnight if you had the tech to create a binding virus, or you could create tadpoles that morphed into something else besides a frog. However the only way you could do that is if you doubled or tripled DNA strains. The theory of micro-evolution fails in every way possible as observed in real life.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not in the sense you're probably thinking.

I believe in Theistic Epigenetics.

One starting "kind" can result in multiple variations of that "kind".

That is indeed how it happens, with the proviso that there is no more than one kind of life.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Lotus Artificial Life - No Speed Limit For Evolution

Please quote something from this article that you feel somehow disproves it.

This is a review of the three different theories. At the end It clearly states the summary.

In summary, future cosmological discoveries may eventually show that a speed limit to evolution as a whole will eventually be reached at some point in the distant future. For the moment, I think we can fairly safely say that there is no overall speed limit for the evolutionary process in sight.

They also state several times about how the limited research of each case is not wide spread enough to apply in a general way. Each were highly specilized and the claims brought in were simply not true or they claimed things beyond the scope of what they had evidence for. Do you want more?



Here are the correctly dated fossils that we use to trace our own human evolution. I like evolution as a fun topic to research a lot. Human evolution is something I have spent a lot of time on so if you have questions on that then please ask.



List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This clearly depicts the changes across time.



Here is a larger page showing a list of all the transitional fossils that are used to map our evolutionary chain for things other than just humans.



List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Here are some videos that will explain the reason why several creationist arguments are....well bogus.

[youtube]9V_2r2n4b5c[/youtube]
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism - YouTube
Though the audio could be better.


This is a really good one that talks about Darwin specifically and his original theory. We have since found a lot of evidence since that all support the theory.

[youtube]cC8k2Sb1oQ8[/youtube]
Evidence of Evolution: - YouTube




Same guy. He does good work in his videos. This goes past just Darwin
[youtube]ooGKYediys8[/youtube]
Evidence for Evolution - YouTube


One of my favorite people Neil deGrassee Tyson. He is not someone who self identifies as an Atheist. It really shouldn't matter to you at all but for whatever reason it does. This is a 40 minute video where he goes in depth as to why ID is just....not science.



[youtube]epLhaGGjfRw[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson- Debunks Creation (Intelligent Design) - YouTube




And here is scishow. Its one of the best youtube informative videos. Hank has several up but here is one of them.



[youtube]ROwKq3kxPEA[/youtube]
Facts about Human Evolution - YouTube








And lastly life on earth has been evolving for billions of years. Not just millions or hundreds of millions. So that pretty much blows your time limit out of the water.

 

[Sculelos]

I wanted to add that weight and bone densities would naturally make certain creatures float or sink to certain depths more-so then others if that was the cause of fossilization, and remember that bones will eventually decompose if left exposed to air.

Saying more then that, you don't necessarily get more complexity out of more depth. It's true today if you go into the Ocean you will actually find much more complex life-forms in the deep then you will on the surface so complexity is not a measure of age nor evolution as it's present in modern day life.

Damage of genomes is wide-spread and can and will cause many physical anomalies. However they will almost certainly never be functional as a real body part would be as the body has no built in nerves to use limbs produced by mutant genomes.

I would like to point out as well that Human skeletal remains have been found many times buried in the same areas at the same depth as Dinosaur bones even occasionally found inside the Dino bones chest cavity. (hmmm wonder how it got there )

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I wanted to add that weight and bone densities would naturally make certain creatures float or sink to certain depths more-so then others if that was the cause of fossilization, and remember that bones will eventually decompose if left exposed to air.

You have the most interesting views on the world

Saying more then that, you don't necessarily get more complexity out of more depth. It's true today if you go into the Ocean you will actually find much more complex life-forms in the deep then you will on the surface so complexity is not a measure of age nor evolution as it's present in modern day life.

I agree with this actually.

Damage of genomes is wide-spread and can and will cause many physical anomalies. However they will almost certainly never be functional as a real body part would be as the body has no built in nerves to use limbs produced by mutant genomes.

I would like to point out as well that Human skeletal remains have been found many times buried in the same areas at the same depth as Dinosaur bones even occasionally found inside the Dino bones chest cavity. (hmmm wonder how it got there )

Can I get a link to this information because if this ever happened it would mean evolution is wrong and 99% of scientists would recant themselves.

 

[Sculelos]

Can I get a link to this information because if this ever happened it would mean evolution is wrong and 99% of scientists would recant themselves.

And this is exactly why nobody will ever publicize humans and dinosaur remains found together. The proof is out there yet if it is publicized it will always be criticized as a hoax.

In short humans believe what we want to believe even if we find contradicting evidence the natural reaction is to simply ignore it, say it's a hoax or try to explain it in a way that merges with our other views.

Examine for yourself but keep in mind this doesn't prove anything but just provides visual data.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Din...6&bih=667&sei=fgnuUYLHGOGviQKy2IHwBw#imgdii=_

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And this is exactly why nobody will ever publicize humans and dinosaur remains found together. The proof is out there yet if it is publicized it will always be criticized as a hoax.

In short humans believe what we want to believe even if we find contradicting evidence the natural reaction is to simply ignore it, say it's a hoax or try to explain it in a way that merges with our other views.

Examine for yourself but keep in mind this doesn't prove anything but just provides visual data.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Din...6&bih=667&sei=fgnuUYLHGOGviQKy2IHwBw#imgdii=_

We'll I'll say this. Science isn't this giant conspiracy theory that you seem to think it is. They actually care about whats "true". Far more than anyone else in the world probably. They fight every day to discern the truth of this world with evidence based assertions with reason and logic. If there were major discoveries like this then they would be all over the news. In the person who could disprove evolution would be the most famous scientist sconce Einstein.

However when we look at it from the point of view that hoaxes DO exist and that we have to find out whats true. In the past some scientists have even fallen prey to fake fossils. Though after rigorous testing we were able to find out that they are in fact false and discern them from real fossils. When a hoax comes up then we test it and find out its a hoax.

Its also noteworthy that these hoaxes with human remains in photographs with dinosaurs only exist after Photoshop....

 

[Ouroboros]

Not in the sense you're probably thinking.

I believe in Theistic Epigenetics.

One starting "kind" can result in multiple variations of that "kind".

So when did humans come into exitenced and how?

 

[freethinker44]

And this is exactly why nobody will ever publicize humans and dinosaur remains found together. The proof is out there yet if it is publicized it will always be criticized as a hoax.

If it isn't publicized than how do you know about it? Are you part of some secret society that finds amazing discoveries that would completely change the way we view the world, and then hides them from everyone for fear of people not believing you?

All science is criticized. Intense criticism is part of the process in becoming known fact. If someone makes a scientific discovery, it will be criticized thoroughly, and if it's a hoax it will be debunked thoroughly. If you have the truth you have nothing to hide from, all the criticism in the world can't make a truth untrue.

Saying these discoveries are not being publicized because of criticism is ridiculous. Obviously the claim was made, because we are talking about it. If a claim is made, especially one that flies in the face of known facts, not publicizing or offering any proof is what make people laugh it off as a hoax. Clearly they wanted people to believe them, because they made the claim, but they offered no proof because the fact is, there isn't any proof and that is why they are called a hoax.

 

[Curious George]

Barluenga M, Stölting K, Salzburger W, Muschick M, Meyer A. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature [serial online]. February 9, 2006;439(7077):719-723. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. Speciation (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA,
2004).

Dieckmann, U. & Doebeli, M. On the origin of species by sympatric speciation.
Nature 400, 354–-357 (1999).

Govindarajulu R, Hughes C, Bailey C. PHYLOGENETIC AND POPULATION GENETIC ANALYSES OF DIPLOID LEUCAENA (LEGUMINOSAE; MIMOSOIDEAE) REVEAL CRYPTIC SPECIES DIVERSITY AND PATTERNS OF DIVERGENT ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION. American Journal Of Botany [serial online]. December 2011;98(12):2049-2063. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

Reznick D, Ricklefs R. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature [serial online]. February 12, 2009;457(7231):837-842. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012.

RYMER P, MANNING J, GOLDBLATT P, POWELL M, SAVOLAINEN V. Evidence of recent and continuous speciation in a biodiversity hotspot: a population genetic approach in southern African gladioli ( Gladiolus; Iridaceae) P. D. RYMER ET AL. SPECIATION IN AFRICAN GLADIOLI. Molecular Ecology [serial online]. November 2010;19(21):4765-4782. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed July 21, 2012

Thought I'd add a couple for the "evolution happens" group.

But will any of the "evolution is wrong camp" please explain what differentiates a "kind" from another?

I understand there are alternate theories to neo-darwinism, but all relevant theories, even those that support intelligent design acknowledge that evolution has and does occur. If you don't agree with neo-darwinism there are several other theories that account for gaps in knowledge, but evolution happens. There is no arguing this fact. How or why... sure argue away, but evolution occurs, speciation or kind differentiation or whatever strikes your fancy occurs.

 

[johnhanks]

And in what way do creationists use the word differently than any one else? I thought the definition of macroevolution was fairly clear- and it isn't that creationists dispute the definition of macroevolution, but rather that they dispute whether it occurs.

Biologically competent people know that the terms micro-and macroevolution refer to differences in scale (i.e. are quantitative separators). Creationists want them to be differences in kind (i.e. qualitative separators): that way they can (however reluctantly) allow that one happens while continuing to deny the other.

People fail to realize there is no such thing as macro evolution. There is just evolution, period.

This is true to the same extent that there is no such thing as millimetres and light years, there is just distance, period. Just as a light year is just a very large number of millimetres, we know the degree of change people call macroevolution really is just very many accumulated small genetic changes - i.e. many cumulative microevolutionary events.

But we do ourselves no favours sniffily telling creationists the terms mean nothing when those benighted individuals can smugly point to their use by professional biologists in academic literature. We would do better patiently to point out their status as purely quantitative descriptors.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thought I'd add a couple for the "evolution happens" group.

I'm pretty sure that adding the location after "academic search premier" isn't necessary here (because, among other things, I don't even cite the database when I reference or quote from journals, so it can't be necessary or I'd be doing something wrong; also, is it really located in MA? I'll be looking this up).

Also, for the "evolution happens" group, the only thing that needs to be added is "the sciences". Because evolution isn't just a theory, it's a fundamental part of multiple fields and involves an enormous amount of different theories, processes, empirical observations and logical conclusions, etc. Without it, we wouldn't have bioinformatics or biophysics, evolutionary psychology, certain algorithm types in computational intelligence fields, and a slew of other fields that most aren't aware exist. Because in the vernacular, "theory" tends to mean "a framework and approach in the sciences", not "something that you might get when you test a hypothesis".

And now I can't recall what academic search premier was before the update. It still has multiple databases but there used to be a name for what is now the "premier" upgrade.

 

[Curious George]

I'm pretty sure that adding the location after "academic search premier" isn't necessary here (because, among other things, I don't even cite the database when I reference or quote from journals, so it can't be necessary or I'd be doing something wrong; also, is it really located in MA? I'll be looking this up).

Also, for the "evolution happens" group, the only thing that needs to be added is "the sciences". Because evolution isn't just a theory, it's a fundamental part of multiple fields and involves an enormous amount of different theories, processes, empirical observations and logical conclusions, etc. Without it, we wouldn't have bioinformatics or biophysics, evolutionary psychology, certain algorithm types in computational intelligence fields, and a slew of other fields that most aren't aware exist. Because in the vernacular, "theory" tends to mean "a framework and approach in the sciences", not "something that you might get when you test a hypothesis".

And now I can't recall what academic search premier was before the update. It still has multiple databases but there used to be a name for what is now the "premier" upgrade.

No your quite right, I should not be citing the database, but I feel as though you might be the only person to read the articles, it probably did me no good to cite them in the first place. If the database has changed since I last used it, I do not know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No your quite right

I'm wrong. These days you're supposed to include everything from the date and time accessed to the doi number. But my posts are too wordy to include all that without going over the limit, so I was merely making excuses for my improper citation methods.