Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Then macro evolution cannot work. Because selection only goes so far. If one species of humanoid doesn't morph into another, where did the other come from?

So magic doesn't work, so natural processes don't work? Yeah...you got logic down.

I don't have that issue of the X-Men, can you lay it out for me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then macro evolution cannot work. Because selection only goes so far. If one species of humanoid doesn't morph into another, where did the other come from?

Humanoid. Interesting choice of words.

Can you provide the references that describe this "morphing" you keep talking about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then macro evolution cannot work. Because selection only goes so far. If one species of humanoid doesn't morph into another, where did the other come from?

What does "selection only goes so far" mean? Can you describe the basis of this and what it means? What is preventing selection to act on populations and show me at what point the cessation of selection takes place?

Are you saying that at some point a population "morphs" into comic book superheroes, impervious to the environment?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No...I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue against. I just explained basic events that have happened.

No, you are arguing that these things happening essentially renders survival random. Excusing for a moment than any amount of logic applied to this idea demonstrates that it is totally false, what I am saying is that your argument would only work if environments constantly and deastically changed and species constantly went extinct.

But this is not the case. There are many environment which see relatively little change, and not all changes are so drastic that it would immediately wipe out any species not suitable for it. So your argument that environmental selection is "random" is just nonsense.

On top of this, your acknowledgement that changes in environment DO affect the survival of certain species renders your entire argument self-refuting. To believe that environmental factors can exist which can be detrimental to the survival of particular species, but not others, is to believe that survival in particular environments IS AT LEAST PARTIALLY BASED ON YOUR ADAPTABILITY TO THAT ENVIRONMENT: hence, survival is not random, and environmental selection is not random either.

 

[Jose Fly]

If a species that once existed, split into two genus' then one species became another one.

LOL......what?

Care to try again? This time, try and word it in a way that corresponds to some aspect of reality, please.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL......what?

Care to try again? This time, try and word it in a way that corresponds to some aspect of reality, please.

Maybe he can channel Jack Kirby and illustrate it for us.

 

[Valjean]

If a species that once existed, split into two genus' then one species became another one.

But not in a single step, just as a language doesn't split into other languages in a single step.

 

[Jose Fly]

And constantly getting nothing in return for those questions.

One of my favorites that creationists habitually ignore is "Have you even read the paper we're discussing?"

Sure, there are responses, but not answers.

I used to liken creationists' answers to questions to, after asking if it's raining outside, someone answering "peanut butter and jelly".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is the environment?

What are some changes to the environment that a population might encounter?

Does the ancestral population have to go extinct when a portion of that population is selected by the environment enough that the gene frequency of that portion changes significantly?

 

[Valjean]

I never said it did. Sigh.

Wildswanderer said: ↑
"When that particular environment constantly changes, of course it's random. An animal adapts to work in a certain environment and then environment changes...said animal goes extinct."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wildswanderer said: ↑
"When that particular environment constantly changes, of course it's random. An animal adapts to work in a certain environment and then environment changes...said animal goes extinct."

So I guess he did say it. Sigh

 

[Valjean]

Then macro evolution cannot work. Because selection only goes so far. If one species of humanoid doesn't morph into another, where did the other come from?

Selection only goes so far? How do the 'micro' changes know when to stop, so they don't accumulate into macro changes that go too far?
The morphing happens in tiny, accumulated steps. An Australopith doesn't suddenly give birth to a Homo.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The plural of genus is genera.

I shouldn't even have to be pointing out a detail like that in these discussions, but this is the second time in a little over a week that I have had to do it. It illustrates the difference in knowledge between the haves and the haven't got a clue.

OMG! That's so important! Thank you for pointing that out!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Selection only goes so far? How do the 'micro' changes know when to stop, so they don't accumulate into macro changes that go too far?
The morphing happens in tiny, accumulated steps. An Australopith doesn't suddenly give birth to a Homo.

So, now they do morph. Y'all really need to make up your minds.
You ever heard of putting lipstick on a pig?
No matter how much lipstick you smack on that Darwin pig, he doesn't look any better to people that aren't already indoctrinated.

 

[metis]

Let me just add that I have asked numerous people here for evidence of some sort of "wall" that stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution", and yet not one person over several years of me asking this same exact question has provided one shred of such evidence.

Logically, small changes can add up over time. One summer I was working at Chrysler Corp in final assembly, and I was involved at the beginning of that assembly process. If one didn't know better, they would have no idea what the finished product would even look like.

The ToE in no way negates the concept of Divine creation, thus any church or denomination that teaches that it does is simply not telling the truth, such as the fundamentalist church I first started attending as a child and left when in my 20's because of this and a couple of other reasons. My point is too many people are being misled to by their pastors on this, and many of these pastors know this according to a study several decades ago.

So, why do some of them do this? Largely for two main reasons according to the study, with one of them being that the leaders of the denomination expect them to deny the evolutionary process whereas the other is that the congregation itself expects them to deny evolution. If they ignore either, they could find themselves out of a job.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So I guess he did say it. Sigh

No, I never said that happens in every instance... It was an example of what can happen.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Logically, small changes can add up over time. One summer I was working at Chrysler Corp in final assembly, and I was involved at the beginning of that assembly process. If one didn't know better, they would have no idea what the finished product would even look like.

Yeah and I bet you had to add more parts to get from a wheel bearing to a full automobile. I worked lots of assembly lines. There was always a works prep that they had to supply the line.
The problem with macroevolution, is that the other parts, the additional information, isn't available.

 

[Valjean]

Of course a dog egg grows into a dog and a chicken egg grows into a chicken. Nothing odd there. But an egg from one species growing into a different species? Very scientific.

Science proposes no such thing. Such an occurrence would call the whole theory into question.
...but this has all been explained to you. Why keep bringing up the same straw man?

 

[Valjean]

But one cell animals becoming multi cell animals makes perfect sense. That's the entertainment.

It's well evidenced, and the mechanisms are known. So, yes, it makes sense.
"Goddidit," on the other hand...

 

[Rise]

Well there ya' go....evolution is observable and verified to exist. I guess we're done then!

You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.

The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.

Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time. Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens. Even though as concepts they are completely different.

The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.

So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.