Genesis Creation vs. Macroevolution Myth

[White Crane Feather]

I would say that prions and viroids are so primitive that they are not even lifeforms, yet are self replicating without any cellular machinary whatsoever. Also, life being created in a lab lends no credence to a creator unless the experiment is set up in such a way that would make it impossible without intelligence. Did forgetting about E. coli cultures and leaving them to starve for weeks give any evidence that intelligence is required for adaptive mutagenesis just because it happened in a lab? No, because E. coli can starve anywhere.

Hahaha prions are a mentos in a 7 up bottle, and viroids have pretty complex sets of RNA. Non of that explained complexity. E coli, can and does starve in many places especially dead people but that's not what I was talking about was it?

I never said inteligence is Required. I only suggested that because you want to explain away things from a certain philosophical point of view Does not mean its right. A prudent precaution. I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Seeker79

[Alter2Ego]

1. Genetics show that all life decends from a common ancestor.

2. Someone hasn't been paying attention. Every ancestor has produced genetically related offspring.

The evolutionary theory has never stated humans came from a "completely different" animal.

3. The Evolutionary theory is founded on the fact life exists on earth, it does not explain the origin of life.

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

Correction: Evolution theory is inescapably linked to abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself). In fact, Charles Darwin proposed abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) theory even after he was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of his time.

Darwin, in a February 1, 1871, letter to his friend, Joseph Dalton Hooker, suggested that the original spark of life may have begun in a:

"...warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

Darwin went on to explain in that same letter that:

"...at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

http://www.daviddarl.../D/DarwinC.html

In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God). Even after his abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of the time, Darwin persisted in his abiogenesis theory. And since it is Darwin's version of evolution that modern evolution theory is based on, abiogenesis is what all atheists are stuck with.

[shrooma]

Off topic shrooma, but do you change your avatar pic like every ten minutes or something?

.

no dude, what I was trying to do was post a pic of my ugly visage, and then swap it for a valmorphasized image, a là team america, but the pic was too large to fit a profile photo, so I just stuck a pic of last year's mushroom picking highlights in there instead, as I couldn't think of anything else offhand in my drunken stupor, but now you come to mention it amigo, there'll be lots of different pics heading your, and everyone elses way!

and you've only got yourself to blame.....

:-D

[shrooma]

but back on topic,

god sucks! darwin yaay!

.

discuss.

:-)

[Copasetic]

ALTER2EGO -to- RLYEH:

Correction: Evolution theory is inescapably linked to abiogenesis theory (life coming to life by itself). In fact, Charles Darwin proposed abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) theory even after he was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of his time.

...

No it isn't and repeating it over to yourself doesn't make it true. This is called a strawman. Understand what is?

And who gives a flying duck fart if Darwin also proposed other hypotheses? Look, science isn't like your religion *snip* Old scientists aren't ancients to be worshiped or revered. Their ideas and writings aren't holy. We mind as well get out the fiddle and dance on their graves for all we care. In science we acknowledge their ingenuity and discoveries, but that's it.

You fundies have your worlds so gd mixed up, you think everything operates in the tiny little boxes you guys live in. You all seem to labor under this fetid delusion that modern scientists worship old scientists and I can only assume that is because how your fundie worldview requires you think. Ancient inerrancy is a plight *snip* Please don't reach for the rest us as your ship sinks.

Edit: BTW, I know you creationists are special *snip* but you do realize that you guys are actually the ones proposing spontaneous generation right?

And no Darwin didn't propose spontaneous generation--Which has a specific definition and use that is not synonymous with abiogenesis. I mean your open salvo was how "evolutionists" and scientists are these terrible, dishonest people. Yet here you are either too dumb to realize you don't understand the terms you are talking about or misusing them anyway (surprise surprise a dishonest creationists?!!!!!! Come to find out that is 'bout as common as bears ****ting in woods. Who'd-a thunk!).

Edited May 4, 2013 by Paranoid Android
Removed personal insults

[Rlyeh]

In other words, Darwin excluded the Creator and proposed abiogenesis (nonliving matter coming to life by itself, without the intervention of an intelligent God). Even after his abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur and other scientists of the time, Darwin persisted in his abiogenesis theory. And since it is Darwin's version of evolution that modern evolution theory is based on, abiogenesis is what all atheists are stuck with.

Wrong, Darwin proposed a hypothesis. I'll repeat it again because you're a bit daft, evolution does not explain the origin of life.

[Rlyeh]

I never said inteligence is Required. I only suggested that because you want to explain away things from a certain philosophical point of view Does not mean its right. A prudent precaution. I'm a skeptic of skeptics. As soon as one identifys bias , then one must pay careful attention to the others rhetori. There is not as much evidence for materialistic philosophy as some seem to think.

Yet your own confirmation bias is as plain as day. If you're not parroting statements from scientists you're twisting them.

[Alter2Ego]

http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

'Microevolution' is a tried and true fact. There is no denying that.

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world. The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature. For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND. Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents. That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution." In reality, the animal did not evolve at all. It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.

[White Crane Feather]

Yet your own confirmation bias is as plain as day. If you're not parroting statements from scientists you're twisting them.

I certainly have a bias, we all do. But it has not been confirmed, I assure you. Also I'm not a scientist, so yes everything I learn is from them. I'm not sure how else you could talk about science without parroting scientists unless of course you are one. Are you? Even then a scientist would be mostly be "parroting" others unless it's a new idea. I havnt twisted anything.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Seeker79

[+Link of Hyrule]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world. The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature. For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND. Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents. That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution." In reality, the animal did not evolve at all. It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.

You're right on one thing - there is no such thing as micro-evolution. There is just evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time. Over the course of thousands and millions of years, micro changes become so numerous that they can no longer be considered the same species as another species that was once similar (perhaps the environments they lived in were two completely different ones, and now 150 thousand years later they meet up again but can no longer be considered the same).

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution. This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people. This is not inconsistent with the creation accounts of Genesis (for further details, here is a link to a post I made last year on a non-historical approach to creation). In my estimation, the only reason to not accept evolution is a preconception that God must have done it another way (six days of creation). Otherwise there is just too much evidence. Evolution has become a Scientific Theory, and that is not easy to do unless there is an absolute boatload of evidence to accompany it (a Scientific Theory is not a Philosophical theory, it's not a guess - remember, Gravity is also a Theory).

I don't think the Christian God is incompatible with an acceptance of evolution. Certainly I don't think it's enough to be condemned to hell for such a view (not that you have condemned me to hell, I'm just saying )

Welcome to the forums, Alter-2-Ego, hope you enjoy it around here

~ Regards, PA

Edited May 4, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Arbenol]

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution. This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people.

Hi PA. Just out of curiosity, I've often wondered what 'theistic evolution' actually means.

I see a few problems with it. It appears to suggest that evolution is goal directed. That is, God used it as a tool to create humans.

So, do you believe that God set up the initial conditions so that humans would ultimately and inevitably evolve?

Or, has God periodically intervened to ensure it stayed 'on course'?

Or, did God wait to see what the first intelligent species evolved was?

Also, this implies that humans are the intended result of evolution. So, what now? Does evolution stop? If mankind are His chosen people, then do you believe there is no other life in the universe? Is it likely God has other 'chosen' species elsewhere?

And finally. Do you believe that evolution can proceed without a guiding hand? ie 100% a natural process.

Sorry for all the questions, but it's something I've long been interested in. To my understanding, evolution is a purely natural process whereby selective pressures act on random variations. Stephen Jay Gould believed that if you rewound the clock and run it again, evolution would take a different course - due to the complex relationship between the variables making it totally unpredictable. So, believing that God has directed it is, in fact, not consistent with accepting the validity of the theory. (as I see it)

[Alter2Ego]

'Macroevolution' is simply 'microevolution' spread throughout many, many generations coupled with other factors. Small changes over time equal big changes.

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

Not only is there no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world, but the equally fabricated term "macroevolution" aka MYTH has long since been debunked by the lack of evidence in the fossils record. In other words, nothing evolved--neither "micro" nor "macro" or anything else in between. All living creatures were created by Jehovah as-is, according to their KIND, and endowed with the ability to produce variations of their own KIND. In fact, pro-evolution scientists have been lamenting the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossils for decades. Below are a two examples of them doing the usual lamentations regarding the non-existence of evidence in the fossils.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

Edited May 4, 2013 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

You're right on one thing - there is no such thing as micro-evolution. There is just evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time. Over the course of thousands and millions of years, micro changes become so numerous that they can no longer be considered the same species as another species that was once similar (perhaps the environments they lived in were two completely different ones, and now 150 thousand years later they meet up again but can no longer be considered the same).

I'm a Christian who believes in Theistic Evolution. This is the belief that God used evolution as his chosen vehicle to bring forth creation and his ultimate goal, mankind as his chosen people. This is not inconsistent with the creation accounts of Genesis (for further details, here is a link to a post I made last year on a non-historical approach to creation). In my estimation, the only reason to not accept evolution is a preconception that God must have done it another way (six days of creation). Otherwise there is just too much evidence. Evolution has become a Scientific Theory, and that is not easy to do unless there is an absolute boatload of evidence to accompany it (a Scientific Theory is not a Philosophical theory, it's not a guess - remember, Gravity is also a Theory).

I don't think the Christian God is incompatible with an acceptance of evolution. Certainly I don't think it's enough to be condemned to hell for such a view (not that you have condemned me to hell, I'm just saying )

Welcome to the forums, Alter-2-Ego, hope you enjoy it around here

~ Regards, PA

Thanks for the welcome. Literal hellfire torment is not a Bible teaching.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Hi PA. Just out of curiosity, I've often wondered what 'theistic evolution' actually means.

I see a few problems with it. It appears to suggest that evolution is goal directed. That is, God used it as a tool to create humans.

Hi arbenol. I'll answer your question/s as best I can but just like scientists I don't claim to have all the answers

So, do you believe that God set up the initial conditions so that humans would ultimately and inevitably evolve?

Or, has God periodically intervened to ensure it stayed 'on course'?

Either could have happened. I'd probably lean to the former reason (if God knows all and created all, he could set it up from the very beginning to reach the point it is today), but some proponents of Theistic Evolution propose God intentionally intervened at times (the most common of these ideas being the creation of man from an ape-ancestor). I don't know if I agree with such or not. Either way, I don't think it really affects my understanding of God.

Or, did God wait to see what the first intelligent species evolved was?

No, I do not believe this. The implication is that God did not know what was going to happen, so when humans evolved and began to "sin" (go their own way) it was a surprise to God and therefore he had to make a quick Plan B and chose Jesus to die for us. The death and resurrection of Jesus was God's plan from the beginning, so he had to know that humans would be his creation.

Also, this implies that humans are the intended result of evolution. So, what now? Does evolution stop? If mankind are His chosen people, then do you believe there is no other life in the universe? Is it likely God has other 'chosen' species elsewhere?

Evolution likely won't stop. It is a process. But we are the pinnacle of evolution. At some point in the future, I believe Jesus will return and usher in the destruction of this world and the creation of a new one.

As to life on other planets, the universe is so large I have to assume that life has evolved elsewhere. I am agnostic on whether they are God's chosen or not. I suspect if they make their way to our planet (or we make our way to theirs) then we'll have a whole new Missionary industry available as we attempt to convert our new found neighbours.

And finally. Do you believe that evolution can proceed without a guiding hand? ie 100% a natural process.

I believe that God is in control of everything in our world, and if he stopped then the universe would literally dissolve and the universe cease to exist. But as a natural process, sure evolution will continue.

Sorry for all the questions, but it's something I've long been interested in. To my understanding, evolution is a purely natural process whereby selective pressures act on random variations. Stephen Jay Gould believed that if you rewound the clock and run it again, evolution would take a different course - due to the complex relationship between the variables making it totally unpredictable. So, believing that God has directed it is, in fact, not consistent with accepting the validity of the theory. (as I see it)

Since I believe in a creator who controls all, then I agree that evolution is a natural process, but because the creator does exist, he is in control of those natural processes. Unless God is incapable of manipulating the natural processes of our universe, but that would seem to imply that it wouldn't really be God, wouldn't it?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Thanks for the welcome. Literal hellfire torment is not a Bible teaching.

I know. I've written an extensive essay on the issue. I suppose you could say I'm an Annihilationist, but I don't like to label myself so specifically. Nevertheless, what I meant to imply in my comment is that I do not think the issue of creation and evolution is a Salvation issue. We can believe or not believe in evolution and still accept Jesus as our Lord (if one were so inclined to become Christian).

[Rlyeh]

I certainly have a bias, we all do. But it has not been confirmed, I assure you.

Is that meant to be a joke or you really think thats what confirmation bias means?

Also I'm not a scientist, so yes everything I learn is from them. I'm not sure how else you could talk about science without parroting scientists unless of course you are one. Are you? Even then a scientist would be mostly be "parroting" others unless it's a new idea. I havnt twisted anything.

You're right you're not, you parrot scientists that conform to your preconcevied ideas, in many cases it is their opinions and hypotheses.

BTW Seeker, twisting my words in the first 2 sentences of your post kind of makes the words "I havnt twisted anything" rather empty.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Rlyeh

[S2F]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

Not only is there no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world, but the equally fabricated term "macroevolution" aka MYTH has long since been debunked by the lack of evidence in the fossils record. In other words, nothing evolved--neither "micro" nor "macro" or anything else in between. All living creatures were created by Jehovah as-is, according to their KIND, and endowed with the ability to produce variations of their own KIND. In fact, pro-evolution scientists have been lamenting the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossils for decades. Below are a two examples of them doing the usual lamentations regarding the non-existence of evidence in the fossils.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

2. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

As another poster stated, there really is no 'micro' or 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution. I was merely using the terms you chose in your OP to state a point (hence the paraphrasing of the terms). Furthermore every fossil is a transitional fossil. If you or I were to become fossilized, our fossils would be transitional. Evolution doesn't stop for a break every few thousand years to say 'that's good enough for now'. It is a continual process and one that skeletal fossils only show a very small portion of.

I can tell you aren't here for discussion, you seem like you think you have it all figured out already. Far be it from me to try and change your mind about evolution. I would kindly expect the same from you about creationism.

[Alter2Ego]

As another poster stated, there really is no 'micro' or 'macro' evolution. There is only evolution. I was merely using the terms you chose in your OP to state a point (hence the paraphrasing of the terms). Furthermore every fossil is a transitional fossil. If you or I were to become fossilized, our fossils would be transitional. Evolution doesn't stop for a break every few thousand years to say 'that's good enough for now'. It is a continual process and one that skeletal fossils only show a very small portion of.

I can tell you aren't here for discussion, you seem like you think you have it all figured out already. Far be it from me to try and change your mind about evolution. I would kindly expect the same from you about creationism.

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven. Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record. I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much. In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Alter2Ego

[S2F]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven. Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record. I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much. In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

The fact that you are completely wrong about what a scientific theory is is quite telling.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Pay special attention to the second sentence there.

[+Link of Hyrule]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven. Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record. I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much. In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

So you are sceptical that gravity exists? That also is just an unproven theory, isn't it? Edit: maybe if I put it in CAPS, Bold, and Underlined it makes it any better - the THEORY of Gravity! Edited May 4, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[S2F]

So you are sceptical that gravity exists? That also is just an unproven theory, isn't it?

That's the great thing about gravity and by extension, science: It still works even if you don't believe in it.

[Arbenol]

Hi arbenol. I'll answer your question/s as best I can but just like scientists I don't claim to have all the answers

Thanks for that. I appreciate you taking the time. I'll have to think on this a bit more.

[Rlyeh]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven. Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record. I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much.

When did hard to find evidence become no evidence? Both your sources admit the evidence exists.

As for a scientific theory

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[Copasetic]

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world. The term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase that simply refers to variations of the exact same creature. For instance, wolves can interbreed freely with dogs, redwolves, coyotes, and jackals to produce fertile offspring or variations of themselves because they belong to what the Bible refers to as the same KIND. Their resulting offspring is not evolution but instead are simply variations of their parents. That's what scientists in the pro-evolution camp refer to as "microevolution." In reality, the animal did not evolve at all. It is still the same wolf-like creature it started off as.

Since you're acting like your bible is some kind of science text book, time to put up or shut-up.

Define kind

These are simply quote mines, yet more of your dishonesty. Funny how that works isn't it? You claim some moral high ground here and yet you are the only one who's shown themselves to be dishonest.

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

Not only is there no such thing as "microevolution" in the real world, but the equally fabricated term "macroevolution" aka MYTH has long since been debunked by the lack of evidence in the fossils record. In other words, nothing evolved--neither "micro" nor "macro" or anything else in between. All living creatures were created by Jehovah as-is, according to their KIND, and endowed with the ability to produce variations of their own KIND. In fact, pro-evolution scientists have been lamenting the lack of evidence for macroevolution in the fossils for decades. Below are a two examples of them doing the usual lamentations regarding the non-existence of evidence in the fossils.

1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.

• A critical analysis of the scientific material in the book: Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
  

See, also, Troy Britain's "Feedback" article at Talk.Origins Archive: June 2001 Feedback

- J. (catshark) Pieret

But on the previous page Raup writes:

We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.

Note that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact". And on page 25 he writes:

What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which

does

show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. [Emphasis in original]

And later on the same page:

So natural selection as a process is okay. We are also pretty sure that it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare.

It should be obvious by now that what Raup is arguing against is not evolution, but gradual evolution in all cases.

Link

2. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

[Following right after]

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

[snip discussion of boid snakes, pocket gophers, kangaroo rats and pocket mice]

"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .

[snip discussion of non-Darwinian theories of discontinuous change in species.]

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

A more correct citation would be:

Gould, Stephen J. 1980.

"The Return of Hopeful Monsters"

in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.

Link

ALTER2EGO -to- SLAVE2FATE:

There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution"--which covers everything under the heading of "evolution THEORY."

A theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses (educated guesses) that can be disproven. Furthermore, there is no evidence in support of macroevolution THEORY in the fossils record. I quoted two pro-evolution sources that admitted as much. In other words, repeating yourself and telling me what you believe, while you have failed to produce credible evidence showing that all creatures in existence evolved from a common ancestor, is supposed to prove what? That you believe in science fiction?

Repeating the same lie doesn't make it more true the second time around. You want to debate the science? Than man up and do that. It would help though if you first a little idea of what you were talking about. A theory in science isn't a guess. It has a specific definition. A theory is well test explanation for a natural phenomena.

Here educate yourself(I'm a link).

Next you need to get your terms correct about evolution itself. What you want to talk about is called the modern synthesis. In your ignorance, like many a creationist, you've incorrectly assumed that "evolutionary theory" has been static since the days of Darwin. Remember, ancient inerrancy is something you worship, not science.

Another link that will be useful for you to educate yourself: Evolution 101

And finally lets put your money where your mouth is and discuss some evidence for evolution;

Alright Creationists,

Now that I'm well fed and oiled (why does Dos Equis go so well with Mexican food?), I'd like to continue our discussion by asking you to address, refute and better explain a very strong piece of evidence for evolution. I'd also like to add my apologies, I believe in my post outlining the 3 evidences I'd like you to address I accidentally wrote "biography" instead of biogeography.

Biogeography is, loosely, the study life's geographical distribution on earth. The first person to really put together the significance of the distribution of species was none other than the infamous Charles Darwin, creationist enemy numero uno

What Darwin noticed was some peculiar trends, which when taken in light of the hypothesis of his day (that species were created separately in their geographical local), made little sense.

Why are almost all mammals in Australia marsupials, while placental mammals dominate the rest of the world? Why does the fauna and flora of South America resemble so much, that of Southern Africa? Why are there no amphibians on tropical islands when they do so well in those types of environments (except for those introduced by man)? Why are the only native mammals in New Zealand bats? Why do island archipelagos have such unbalanced flora, not representative of continental mainlands? Why would a creator stock similar and near identical environments with animals that were superficially the same, while fundamentally different?

Naturalists of Darwin's day couldn't explain these trends and it wasn't until Darwin published his life's work that they could be answered. The answer of course is the main course of this topic; evolution. Darwin proposed that the answers to biogeography could be explained by the dispersal of organisms to new local and subsequent evolution of new species in those places: aided by the occasional advance of glaciers forming land bridges. Of course Darwin wasn't totally right. He and his contemporaries knew that the earth was not static, but they never could have guessed just how much the earth changes. Today, we know that the continents themselves move around the face of the globe. We explain these phenomena with Plate tectonics.

The order Struthioniformes contains the large, flightless birds we find distributed across the globe; including the ostrich, emu, rhea and extinct moa and elephant birds. How could these so similar birds traverse oceans and deserts, areas of hostile of environments to their forms and come to the distribution we see today? More importantly why would a creator; create forms so similar yet so distinct forms in the same ecological niches across the globe? The answer it turns out is easily answered if evolution is true. There existed a super southern continent, called Gondwana. Gondwana began to break up around 170 million years ago. Around 130 million years ago Africa and S. America began to separate from each other and eastern Gondwana (Australia, Antarctica and India). It is here the ancestor to all Ratites likely arose. It provides us with much a more evidenced (through DNA, fossils and molecular biology) explanation than special creation.

Another great example that creationists need to explain is with the plants called Succulents; The cacti and euphorbs (See pictures in previous post to Prodigy). It often takes a train specialist to tell the difference. Why then would a creator put the cacti in new world deserts while putting the euphorbs in old world deserts? Doesn't putting two species, so similar into two to near identical environments seem wasteful? You may argue here creationists, that there are differences between new world and old world deserts, and I'd agree. However, why then when one puts cacti (new world plants) into old world deserts do they do so well? So well that they often out-compete the native euphorbs? As any old timer Australian can attest, with the mishap of the American prickly pear cactus.

Another great example is marsupials and this again pins the tail on the creationist lie that evolutionary theory doesn't yield predictions. Marsupial mammals which reign in Australia have many placental counterparts (see the example above with the thylacine and wolf). Another great example is the rabbit and bilby,

It's not that marsupials are better at life in Australia than their placental counter parts; in fact the poor bilby is being displaced by rabbits, despite the efforts of many rabbit eradication programs in Australia. Again, if there was a special creation event, why would a creator choose to make different kinds of animals, which act alike, look alike and work alike but are so fundamentally different? Why not put rabbits in the role of the bilby? Or bilbys across the world instead of rabbits?

Evolution through convergent features explains this. Through common ancestry, speciation and selection (similar environments and niches invoke similar selective pressures), convergent evolution answers these questions.

Marsupials began to show up in the fossil record around 70-80 million years ago in North America and began their southward migration. Remember that during this time Gondwana had began to break up and the Americas were no longer directly connected to Australia. South America's tip was connected to Antarctica, which was in turn still connected to Australia and New Zealand. This means that marsupials voyaged down South America, across Antarctica (which was warm in those days) and into Australia where they evolved into the many forms present today. We know this bridge disconnected around 30 million years ago. We can predict then, with biogeography and evolutionary theory that we should find fossils of marsupials in Antarctica around 30-40 million years ago. Low and behold when paleontologists went looking, they found them. On continental islands off the coast of Antarctica they have now found several species of marsupial that date between 35 and 40 million years old.

Islands make for a great laboratory for evolution and the study of species radiations in island archipelagos. So let's talk about briefly, some general tenets of island biogeography. Large islands are more species rich than small ones, while islands closer to landmasses are richer than remote ones. Mountainous (high altitude) islands are more rich than low altitude ones. As islands in archipelagos age, they become more species rich.

So how do islands acquire biota across the barrier that oceans and seas provide? Through numerous methods, such as phoresy (sticking to another organism), wind dispersal (grow wings or be tiny) or contain a protective coating which mitigates the hostile effects of the ocean.

The Hawaiian archipelago provides many great examples of these types of adaptive radiations. I'd like to look at the creepy case of spiders, particularly the Orsenwelles spiders endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. There are 13 distinct species which all derive from a common ancestor who colonized the islands.

The islands increase in age according to this picture;

The most southeasterly islands being the youngest and most volcanically active.

The distribution of spider species on the islands can be seen in this diagram;

Using our "common sense" tenets above, we can construct a cladogram of species radiations;

We also have molecular phylogeny data available to confirm the cladistic radiation of Orsenwelles spiders on the island archipelago;

So why again, would a designer or creator go to such trouble as to make it look like one form has been taken and modified over time in accordance with its distribution? Why go to such trouble, when designing from the top down a designer could use the same species in the same role?

Well there it is (well that is only an extremely small sample of the evidence from biogeography, but it's a lot to type!). What I'd like is for any creationists to; address the questions contained within the post, to falsify evolutionary theory's penchant for explaining biogeography (remember as you saw in the post, evolutionary theory is a predictive, or good, scientific theory) and explain why a designer or creator better explains biogeography.

I'll be sure to post this up on my wall for future creationists to pull their hair out over to address, if those of you participating on this topic are unable to do so

Edit: Whops! Forgot a source, spider and Hawaiian island pictures courtesy;

Hormiga G, Arnedo M, Giliespie R. 2003. Speciation on a Conveyor Belt: Sequential Colonization of the Hawaiian Islands by Orsenwelles Spiders (Araneae, Linyphiidae). Systematic Biology 52(1):70-88.

Edit 2: Added some links!

Link

Please address.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Copasetic

[White Crane Feather]

Is that meant to be a joke or you really think thats what confirmation bias means?

I was worried you diddnt

In only have a few of my own ideas, most come from scientists, or philosophers.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Seeker79