What is Evolution Article

[Ijustwantpeace]

So I am extremely skeptical of the whole evolution story. This is not based on my christian beliefs as I believe the bible and evolution are not irreconcilable. I have a few Christian friends who believe in the bible and evolution, and have a real faith.

I simply have an extremely hard time believing it. As I think it is largely speculative, and takes empirical evidences and makes gross(large not nasty) assumptions.

For example I'm reading this article on live science, it suppose to be an article that explains the theory of evolution(as I'm trying to become more educated on the topic), but instead I get the story of the supposed evolution of the whale.

If you feel so inclined please read this article with a skeptical eye and try to notice all the assumptions and speculations I believe it makes and promotes as fact.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: Definition & Evidence

Do you see what I mean? Or does this article seem intellectually equitable to you?

I'm not saying this is the best evidence for the theory, and I'm not completely uneducated on the topic. I have read large swaths of Talkorigins and other evolution promoting website. However, the more I read the less I believe.

This is not a substantive rebuttal of the theory of evolution. This is just a minor articulation of my skepticism on the theory of evolution.

Just to clarify I believe in Micro-evolution.

 

[Bunyip]

Well ok, so you believe in micro evolution?

So you concede that evolution is a fact, but question its limits in speciation right?

How then do you deny macro-evolution (speciation) when it has been observed many times?
Or are you defining macro evolution differently than biologists do?

 

[Bunyip]

First up we need to agree on definitions ok?

Evolution is commonly defined as changes in allele frequency over time in biology.

MICRO evolution is a taxonomic distinction that describes evolutionary changes within a species. (Like dogs and wolves being the same species).

MACRO evolution is a taxonomic distinction that describes evolutionary changes above the species level. (Like lions and leopards being the same family, but different species).

The theory of evolution is the explanatory theory.

Ok?

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

First up we need to agree on definitions ok?

Evolution is commonly defined as changes in allele frequency over time in biology.

MICRO evolution is a taxonomic distinction that describes evolutionary changes within a species. (Like dogs and wolves being the same species).

MACRO evolution is a taxonomic distinction that describes evolutionary changes above the species level. (Like lions and leopards being the same family, but different species).

The theory of evolution is the explanatory theory.

Ok?

I believe micro evolution as you define it( I also define it the same way) as observable.

I believe macro evolution as you define may be possible, ie lions and leopards or any inter-family mutation.

I don't believe (or am highly skeptical of) cross family mutations. Which is how I would define macro evolution.

 

[Bunyip]

You do not believe that lions and leopards share ancestry

Why not?

Speciation has been observed - what is a cross family mutation?

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Well ok, so you believe in micro evolution?

So you concede that evolution is a fact, but question its limits in speciation right?

How then do you deny macro-evolution (speciation) when it has been observed many times?
Or are you defining macro evolution differently than biologists do?

When has it been observed many times, and I have feeling we will either disagree that it is significant speciation(cross family speciation), or that these observations are truly empirical. Unless, you have an example I am not familiar with.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

So you don't believe in Ligons or mules?

Why not?

Speciation has been observed - what is a cross family mutation?

I believe in both....

 

[Bunyip]

Ok.

But you don't believe lions are related to leopards?
That woukd be macro-evolution right?

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Cross family mutation- My own invention, basically means that I don't believe in things like reptiles evolving into birds etc

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Ok.

But you don't believe lions are related to leopards?
That woukd be macro-evolution right?

No, I do believe lions and leopards are both Felidae. Lions and leopards making babies is not sufficient evidence in my mind to believe in macro evolution as I define it.

 

[Bunyip]

But that is not a cross family mutation. That is the emergence of a new class.

So you are defining 'macro-evolution', not as evolution above the species level - but at the class level right?

So ok. You deny evolution at the class level - like reptiles to birds, but accept it at the species and family level?

So Chimps, humans, gorrilas are all micro evolution by your definition and you accept it because it is evolution within a sub-family. But you doubt that birds evolved from reptiles?

 

[Bunyip]

Cross family mutation- My own invention, basically means that I don't believe in things like reptiles evolving into birds etc

Would you mind if I ask a favour at this point? Please do not invent your own terms, it will make any debate here pointless.

So by cross family mutation, you mean the emergence of a new class. Let's stick to that please.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

But that is not a cross family mutation. That is the emergence of a new class.

So you are defining 'macro-evolution', not as evolution above the species level - but at the class level right?

So ok. You deny evolution at the class level - like reptiles to birds, but accept it at the species and family level?

So Chimps, humans, gorrilas are all micro evolution by your definition and you accept it because it is evolution within a sub-family. But you doubt that birds evolved from reptiles?

Yes and no. Yes I don't believe in evolution at the class level. I do not think it is observable.

But no, I don't buy that humans evolved from apes. I don't think that is observable. Though I do think it is more plausible than birds to reptiles.

In retrospect I should have said I believe in aspects of Micro-Evolution.

It is large jump full of assumptions and speculation from believing in mules and ligers to chimps evolving into humans.

Thank you for taking the time to come to agreement on common terms.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes and no. Yes I don't believe in evolution at the class level. I do not think it is observable.

But no, I don't buy that humans evolved from apes. I don't think that is observable. Though I do think it is more plausible than birds to reptiles.

In retrospect I should have said I believe in aspects of Micro-Evolution.

It is large jump full of assumptions and speculation from believing in mules and ligers to chimps evolving into humans.

Thank you for taking the time to come to agreement on common terms.

You are contradicting yourself - first you say that you do not see changes within a family as macro evolution (like chimps, humans and gorillas) and that you acceot micro evolution.

Then you say that macro-evolution is a change like that from reptiles to birds.

Well which is it? You are accepting that species within the same family are related in one post and then denying it in the next.

 

[outhouse]

The problem is, evolution is fact. There is no debate.

We are only trying to help educate theist a bit stubborn to overcome their bias they were more then likely born into.

Micro-Evolution Is evolution, it is like picking one second out of a year, and trying to describe the year by focusing on the one second. The year is context. Millions to be exact.

. I do not think it is observable.

Sorry, it is.

I don't buy that humans evolved from apes

we evolved from primates it is about factual.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes and no. Yes I don't believe in evolution at the class level. I do not think it is observable.

But no, I don't buy that humans evolved from apes. I don't think that is observable.

Well evolution doesn't suggest that we evolved from apes. We are apes.

Though I do think it is more plausible than birds to reptiles.

In retrospect I should have said I believe in aspects of Micro-Evolution.

It is large jump full of assumptions and speculation from believing in mules and ligers to chimps evolving into humans.

But nobody is claiming that? We did not evolve from chimps and we are apes..

Thank you for taking the time to come to agreement on common terms.

 

[psychoslice]

The evolution theory might not be totally true, but it makes a hell lot of sense compared to what Christians believe, and to me its ignorant to not to see that fact.

 

[outhouse]

The evolution theory might not be totally true, .

What part of evolution is a constant process with different speeds, of all life don't you understand?


What could not be totally true?


It is fact.

 

[Ijustwantpeace]

Well evolution doesn't suggest that we evolved from apes. We are apes.

But nobody is claiming that? We did not evolve from chimps and we are apes..

Just read an article on it, sorry, I don't believe we evolved from primates is what I should have said.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps I can put it more clearly.

You said that a class level transition ( birds, reptiles ) is MORE plausible than a sub-family transition ( chimps, humans).

How is a HIGHER level transition MORE plausible than a lower one?