Evolution is obvious

[Ouroboros]

macro evolution is unobservable.

Not completely true.

Here's the thing. We can't observe stars either, or galaxies. The stars we see are hundreds of thousands of years old, the farther away, they're millions of years old. What I mean is that the light you see, it's not the light that is coming from the star right now. The stars we see might not even exist at this moment. They existed in the past, but we don't know if they do now. But we can look at the old light from the stars and make conclusions about their existence.

Same goes for the fossil record. We can't see a macro-evolution of one species to another today. It's not enough time span. But, we can see it in the fossil record. But not only there, we can see how it works genetically right now, and understand why it happened in the past. We can see that it did happen, why it happened is what the theory is about.

If you cant observe something you cant' test it and therefore you can't prove it.

Air. Oxygen. Gases. Gravity. You can't see gravity. You can see the effects of gravity, but you can't see gravity itself. You can test things you can't see and observe, but even so, macroevolution can be observed in the fossil record, and that's why scientists are trying to figure out why and how.

The whole science of biological/physical evolution started with the discoveries of the strata and fossils. It was because the changes of species in the fossil record could be observed that the whole field of research started. Not the other way around. It wasn't like "let's invent evolution and macroevolution. We have no evidence, and never will, but now we have this anti-religion science we're going to use!" That's not how it happened at all.

One of the first discoveries was that the history of Earth had multiple catastrophes. Whole species went extinct and new species entered the scene. The whole strata is full of this. We're talking many huge events killing of whole ecological systems and then being replaced by complete new ones, but with species that were just slightly different and obviously (can observe) the closer relationship with an earlier species, but without actually being that same one. This is the problem. This is the observation. The conclusion is that the were modified. Perhaps God is creating constantly by erasing whole species and replacing them with new, similar looking ones? Sure. That was one of the first theories, but that didn't hold up either. And so on...

That macroevolution is true, there's no doubt. The problem is rather "how". And that was partially solved by Watson, Crick, and Wilkins. Which is a different story.

So how do you know it happens the way macro-evolution describes when it can't be tested or observed?

Macroevolution can be observed in the past history, looking at paleontological evidence. Macroevolution also fit the radial distribution of species. Macroevolution also fits in the traces of relationships you can see in genetic code. We can only test it on very small dataset of genetic change, so it will take maybe 50-100 years before we can document the first larger evolutionary changes.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

macro evolution is unobservable. If you cant observe something you cant' test it and therefore you can't prove it.

Macro-evolution isn't unobservable. It's just not directly observable(most of the time, anyway save for fast reproducing organisms like bacteria).

Crimes scenes are rarely ever directly observed. Forensic scientists have to rely on indirect observations to deduce an event that they weren't present to witness.

Also, if we want to be nit-picky, can anything really be directly observed? If I look at a bird outside my window, I'm really just seeing photons the bird is reflecting, and I'm also seeing the bird slightly in the past as light takes time to travel. My mind then infers that the animal must be there, but I'd say it's still an inference in the end. I'm simply seeing the indirect effects of the bird and it's material property of reflecting photons. On top of that, I'm only seeing a small band of EM frequencies reflecting off of the bird. Most of the available information I miss out on due to limited senses.

 

[outhouse]

macro evolution is unobservable. If you cant observe something you cant' test it and therefore you can't prove it.

So how do you know it happens the way macro-evolution describes when it can't be tested or observed?

:biglaugh:


Your denial is noted.

Can you explain why Evolution is taught in every major university around the world as higher education and as advanced science surrounding biology???

And your mythology is outlawed from school children so that we dont poison their minds in science classes???

 

[Gordian Knot]

Here's an interesting thought. Suppose we create a version of creationism out of, say, the Koran. Or the Kabbalah. Or the Upanishads. They all have their own creation myths. We could then teach those in our classrooms alongside science. Surely everyone would be just as okay with one of those versions, right?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Here's an interesting thought. Suppose we create a version of creationism out of, say, the Koran. Or the Kabbalah. Or the Upanishads. They all have their own creation myths. We could then teach those in our classrooms alongside science. Surely everyone would be just as okay with one of those versions, right?

R'amen!

 

[Ouroboros]

Macro-evolution isn't unobservable. It's just not directly observable(most of the time, anyway save for fast reproducing organisms like bacteria).

Ooops. At first I read your post wrong there. I though you said macro isn't observable. Totally missed the un-.

Anyway, I wanted to add some thoughts about the observed macroevolution.

Through the history of the biological life on Earth, there's been so far 5 large mass extinction events. Each one of them erasing up to 90% of all life forms and species. In other words, only 10% of species surviving each time. But from the rubbles of these events, new species came to the scene. Species that looked different than the old ones, and with time, more and more different, more and more diversity. The species count increased each time between the extinction events.

There are only two possible answers.

1) God created new species after each event and during the time between the events, and he created them with shared features with pre-existing species, but enough modifications each time to make it obvious that it was a new species.

2) Macro-evolution.

The 1st one, we have no Biblical explanation or reference. The Bible suggests that God only created species once, not 5 times, or intermittent creations at all.

The second one, we see evidence that fits in how species are spread around the world (radiation) and shared genetic code.

In other words, #1 fails in lack of explanation of observation. #2 is successful because it explains it and fits other data.

Macro-evolution is true.

 

[outhouse]

Here's an interesting thought.

How so??

We could then teach those in our classrooms alongside science. Surely everyone would be just as okay with one of those versions, right?

Why teach mythology in a science class??????

 

[Ouroboros]

How so??

Why teach mythology in a science class??????

I think Gordian Knot was being facetious and not actually seriously suggesting it.

It's more like if we're supposed to introduce Christian mythology into science class, why not introduce all the other non-Christian mythologies as well? Of course the Christians wouldn't like that very much.

 

[Gordian Knot]

What Ouroboros said!

 

[metis]

macro evolution is unobservable. If you cant observe something you cant' test it and therefore you can't prove it.

So how do you know it happens the way macro-evolution describes when it can't be tested or observed?

If you have a watch on, look at it and tell us if the hour hand is moving. If you observe it for several seconds, unless you're Superman, you'll not be able to see it move. However, after a much longer time has elapsed, then you can tell that indeed it has moved.

With the observance of speciation, along with the fossil record and the results of genome testing, we know with certainty that the "hour hand" has moved.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you have a watch on, look at it and tell us if the hour hand is moving. If you observe it for several seconds, unless you're Superman, you'll not be able to see it move. However, after a much longer time has elapsed, then you can tell that indeed it has moved.

With the observance of speciation, along with the fossil record and the results of genome testing, we know with certainty that the "hour hand" has moved.

That's a good analogy.

It's also like watching a plant grow. You can't see it grow, but days later, it's bigger.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Or humans growing for that matter.

It's like a child concluding that he'll never be an adult because he can't notice himself growing while looking at a mirror.

 

[viole]

Thank your for answering.

So basically it is not the change of one kind of species into another ?

So that doesn't necessarily mean that there is macro evolution until you prove it. We can't prove one an jump to other. No ?

Would you call

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000....

microevolutions a microevolution?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

microevolutions a microevolution?

I think you meant "microevolutions a macroevolution."

In calculus, you learn about Rheimann Sum. It's the concept of "macro" from "micro". When I learned how it worked, I could see how evolution fits math.

Small changes become large changes. In a sense, integrals are macro-treatment of the micro of functions.

 

[Pegg]

Should we release all criminals who were found guilty via the findings of deductive work because you can't prove something you can't directly observe?

how do you know they are criminals?

Many people in jail are innocent. They are the victims of false allegations or 'circumstantial' evidence.

Just type in 'innocent man in jail' into google and you'll find plenty of them.

 

[Riverwolf]

how do you know they are criminals?

Many people in jail are innocent. They are the victims of false allegations or 'circumstantial' evidence.

Just type in 'innocent man in jail' into google and you'll find plenty of them.

Your response avoids my question, not answers it.

Unless, of course, you are basically answering "yes", because you believe deduction to be pure bunk.

Is that the case?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's genetic "adaptation". In other words, changes of genotype. Which means phenotype changes as well. Which means, there's no boundary between variation of genes and expression of the same into variation of species.

You said in another thread about retaining info in evolution. My understanding of evolution is basic, but I know that if something is noninjurious it can be retained. Give me an example please of something retained in a physical way and also as regards DNA etc.

Secondly, does that mean that genes or DNA can be retained for later? If so how? How does it know it will need it? Why does it retain it? For how long? If it dies eventually, why? Why not straight away?

This is in line with the questioning on the ''me thinks it is a weasel'' of Dawkins. Even he admits that evolution does not have a target phrase to compare with, so what is he proving.

Clearly it is possible that random mutations could evolve and clearly it is possible that the best survive and the worst die. But I want to know whether it can retain info for later. Because if it can, it just got a whole lot easier!

Would appreciate some help please.... no big words now

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My understanding of evolution is basic, but I know that if something is noninjurious it can be retained. Give me an example please of something retained in a physical way and also as regards DNA etc.

The human appendix is an obvious example.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Evolution is obvious.

I don't think it is obvious to a lot of people, they struggle with the trial-and-error messiness of adaptation and the geological time scales involved.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The human appendix is an obvious example.

I am thinking more in the past than now. And i really want to know whether genes etc can be stored to be used later.