How many here believe in evolution?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
*sigh* I know Im stealing some of my own thunder now, because Im gonna post part of my critique in this post instead of posting all of my objections in one thread. But I suppose I have to since I wasnt able to get enough time off at work today.


Here we go...

I can hear the thunder pealing in the background. Probably not unlike the thunder following the lightning that triggered life in the primordial soup.

The problem MT is exactly what you posted there. Let me highlight it for you.
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine.

Now, when you look at it like that, you get the impression that these people are pretty sure of their theory...right? That they have something *really* good backing them up?

Or it could just be a statement of common sense. Genes combine within a species because there is breeding within a species. They diverge (in relation to each other) when a species is separated because there is no breeding happening to combine them. That isn't even biology sir, its common sense.

What you are looking at is the proof of macroevolution btw.

A few observations might be in order.
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se. What we have instead is...something.

You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.

Note the key phrase "synthesists claim that the same process [...] (as in microevolution) can be extraploated to between species changes.

Clearly MT Clearly not even you can accept this as evidence. Basically what he is saying is "some people think that what we see in microevolution should also be true when it comes to macroevolution.

If you are asking whether I accept this paragraph as evidence then no. It would seem that you do however.

Oh, and by the way...according to my dictionary here:
extrapolate= to guess or think about what might happen from information that is already known.

To guess or think...

We can take a break here and you can explain how this works with the scientific model if you want, or we can move on to...

Extrapolate - To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.

Do you honestly think you made a point by describing "infer from known information" as a guess?  - Silly Steve.

2) Apparently the statement I described above has led to a switch in the burden of proof. Normally it is up to the one making a statement to substantiate his statement. Or, to use the scientific method. It is up to the one presenting the theory to show that it is compliant with observations.  Here, we are told that since "synthesists claim that the same process [...] can be extrapolated to macroevolution" should be accepted as a fact unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered

That is totally absurd. Totally...it is absurd on so many levels that...I dont know what to say really. And remember MT,
THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.

My evidence? The evidence that macroevolution occured has been presented to you. Once again you are attacking the entire idea of Evolution based on the wording of this web site. More than silly. Pathetic.

"Some people think that they are right and therefore it is up to the people demanding evidence to prove that they are wrong. "

Now, you tell me MT. Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method? [/B]

Do you think it is possible that there was a common ancestor(s) for both dogs and cats?

Earthworms and Insects?

Starfish and Humans?

Where does your "macroevolution" point begin to fail? At the Phylum level? At the Genus Level? Somewhere in between?

To answer your question, Yes. I think Evolution stands up very well to the scientific method.

[mrfish]

well here's one estimate of the earth's species:

Bacteria..................... ......................... 4,000
Protoctists (algae, protozoa, etc)......... 80,000
Animals, vertebrates.................. ......... 52,000
Animals, invertebrates................ .... 1,272,000
Fungi........................ ......................... 72,000
Plants....................... ....................... 270,000

Total number of described species... 1,750,000
Possible nr. with unknown species: 14,000,000

here's the footnote for you nit-pickers:

from the United Nations publication: UNEP-WCMC (2000). Global Biodiversity: Earth's living resources in the 21st century. Cambridge, World Conservation Press.

so in about 1.4 million cubic feet we could fit all this?

how about the food for all those animals?

8 people fed all of this menagere for 10 months?

there was only one window and one door how did they deal with the loads of crap those animals produced?

how did the prey animals keep from getting eaten?

none of the species died of illness thus eleminating a species in 10 months of unsanitary confinement?

how did all the species find their way form mt. ararat to south america and australia.

also - what about koalas and pandas and other specialty animals- did they have a lot of eucalyptus and bamboo around noah's house .....come on...

as far as your theory about all these species first being created by god then evolving like mad over the last 10,000 years or so (at most) since the flood uhhhhh......don't hink you're gonna find a lot of support there. to the 2-3 thousand years ago this sounded reasonable but today.....

but you're on a roll mac, keep goin'

[Apache]

Originally posted by mrfish
well here's one estimate of the earth's species:

Bacteria..................... ......................... 4,000
Protoctists (algae, protozoa, etc)......... 80,000
Animals, vertebrates.................. ......... 52,000
Animals, invertebrates................ .... 1,272,000
Fungi........................ ......................... 72,000
Plants....................... ....................... 270,000

Total number of described species... 1,750,000
Possible nr. with unknown species: 14,000,000

here's the footnote for you nit-pickers:

from the United Nations publication: UNEP-WCMC (2000). Global Biodiversity: Earth's living resources in the 21st century. Cambridge, World Conservation Press.

so in about 1.4 million cubic feet we could fit all this?

how about the food for all those animals?

8 people fed all of this menagere for 10 months?

there was only one window and one door how did they deal with the loads of crap those animals produced?

how did the prey animals keep from getting eaten?

none of the species died of illness thus eleminating a species in 10 months of unsanitary confinement?

how did all the species find their way form mt. ararat to south america and australia.

also - what about koalas and pandas and other specialty animals- did they have a lot of eucalyptus and bamboo around noah's house .....come on...

as far as your theory about all these species first being created by god then evolving like mad over the last 10,000 years or so (at most) since the flood uhhhhh......don't hink you're gonna find a lot of support there. to the 2-3 thousand years ago this sounded reasonable but today.....

but you're on a roll mac, keep goin'

Where did you get 10,000 years from?

mrfish, you're a goof ball, but you like charcoal grilled steak, so can't be all bad.

[mrfish]

10,000 years is me being generous - some biblical geneologies hold the world at about 6,000 years old. even there the records are so debatable that i'm sure that'd spark another 2000000 post thread .

lol- gotta go install that lightning rod now.

[Apache]

Originally posted by mrfish
10,000 years is me being generous - some biblical geneologies hold the world at about 6,000 years old. even there the records are so debatable that i'm sure that'd spark another 2000000 post thread .

lol- gotta go install that lightning rod now.

Stop the press! mrfish is using that which he doesn't believe in in his arguments. I notice you reference God and the bible alot. Why is that, seein' how they don't exist or are irrelevant?

BTW, liked your last post to funked in the "religion linked" thread.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by crowMAW
I agree with you that some objectively verifiable and testable evidence should be provided to back up this theory...here it is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are 29 evidences, including a link to a critique of the evidences and a rebuttal.

I challenge you to provide the same level objectively verifiable and testable evidence for your theory of creation.  Note, evidence is not the same as showing that no other theory is viable.  It must be affirmative evidence that God did it.

Simple

http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp

Now maybe we should just stop throwing sources at eachother? There is a very simple questions in my post. Are you saying that the theory of macroevolution as I presented it (and please note that I took that definition straight from talkorigins.org, a very fanatic pro-evolution theory site), are you saying that that theory is based on a good scientific method?

[mrfish]

it's easy- one of my main 'things' is that i don't think christians really know their own religion for the most part. just whatever interpretation they were fed- man if they are catholics or mormons, half the stuff they believe isn't even in the bible!

they get caught up in the social aspects of it and what the preacher's interpretation is and rarely devote any real scholarship to the bible and all it's implications if you believe it.

jesus was a biblical scholar and only got as far as he did because he knew the prophecies and stories inside out - you should follow his lead if you believe in him i say.

if something is true then it should survive critique- i simply state what the bible says- if you believe it and it's nonsense then it makes my argument for me.

species aren't going to evolve that drastically in a few thousand years-> that's what you'd need to believe to be consistent with the bible-> voila! it implies that some other way was the real way and evolution is incomplete but provides a better account so i think the biblical version should be discarded.

i'm not a christian today because i spent about 15 years studying the bible daily and taking it seriously. the biggest dare i have is for christians to read the bible as an adult. ie- reading it critically from the first page to the last revelation.

if it still seems reasonable after close study well....some people need religion i guess.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Or it could just be a statement of common sense. Genes combine within a species because there is breeding within a species. They diverge (in relation to each other) when a species is separated because there is no breeding happening to combine them. That isn't even biology sir, its common sense.

[/b]
MT, should I interpret this that you are saying that the evidence for macroevolution is common sence?

You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.

[/b]
All those "numerous examples" have been debunked. They are not examples of macroevolution no matter how much you want them to be. Now, I promise you that for every source you can dig up, I can find one stating the complete opposite. I bet that you can do the same thing too. So maybe we should stop throwing sources at eachother, and instead discuss the matter at hand right now...?

If you are asking whether I accept this paragraph as evidence then no. It would seem that you do however.

[/b]
THANK YOU.

My evidence? The evidence that macroevolution occured has been presented to you. Once again you are attacking the entire idea of Evolution based on the wording of this web site. More than silly. Pathetic.

[/b]
*sigh* once again, no evidence has been presented. This is not based on the wording on a web site. You go ahead MT and find the theoretical explanation model for macroevolution. You will find that no matter where you look, it is the same explanation (I looked over several pro-evolution web sites before writing my post). They all come back to the same thing. Basically it is, "we can observe microevolution, and we dont see why the same should not apply to macroevolution". But at least it is some comfort that you agree that the talk origins website-definition is full of toejam.

Where does your "macroevolution" point begin to fail? At the Phylum level? At the Genus Level? Somewhere in between?

[/b]
I dont understand what you mean.

To answer your question, Yes. I think Evolution stands up very well to the scientific method.

so are you aware that you did not answer my question. Just out of curiosity MT..why is that? Does it hurt so bad to say "yes, what they wrote there is BS and it has nothing to do with the scientific method"?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Simple

http://www.trueorigins.org/theobald1a.asp

Please re-read the challenge.  This is the antithesis of affirmative evidence for the theory of creation.  This is the critique I mentioned in my previous post, which is a demonstration of why evolution is not a viable theory.

Also note that there is a rebuttal to Camp's critique on the website I noted.  I find it interesting that Theobold is willing to post critiques of his work on his page yet Camp is not willing to do the same...I wonder why.

There is a very simple questions in my post. Are you saying that the theory of macroevolution as I presented it (and please note that I took that definition straight from talkorigins.org, a very fanatic pro-evolution theory site), are you saying that that theory is based on a good scientific method?

Is it based on scientific method? Yes.  Your previous question was:

Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method?

I didn't bother with this question as it is obvious that it would no longer be a theory if it had been proven by application the scientific method.

Quickly, lets give a definition

scientific method: a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses

Observations have been made and a theory has been offered.  Now that theory is being tested against reality.

Regarding the definition of macroevolution...you only clipped the definition but you did not go on to clip the discription of the mechanism by which macroevolution works.  That mechanism is hypothesized elsewhere on talkorigins.  The mechanism is microevolution as described in Dr. Theobold's article.

[crowMAW]

MT wrote
You have been given numerous examples already. Time to pull your head out of.... the sand.

Hortlund wrote
All those "numerous examples" have been debunked. They are not examples of macroevolution no matter how much you want them to be. Now, I promise you that for every source you can dig up, I can find one stating the complete opposite. I bet that you can do the same thing too. So maybe we should stop throwing sources at eachother, and instead discuss the matter at hand right now...?

Actually, I would like to see the sources "debunking" those observed examples.  Especially, the example regarding the 2/89 Scientific American article titled A Breed Apart.

*sigh* once again, no evidence has been presented.

As MT stated...you have been enundated with evidence that you choose to ignore rather than test for accuracy.

[DadRabit]

S!

If evolution were true.  Why are there still monkeys?

Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG  Swift to Avenge

[takeda]

If evolution were true. Why are there still monkeys?

Because a long, long time ago... there was a group of "protomonkeys" hangin'  on a tree, half of them were "evil atheistic scientific progressive protomonkeys" and decided to go down to the ground to look for some new better stuff to eat, those are your very-great-grandparents

The other half, the conservative protomonkeys, keepers of the 'ole hang-on-the-tree traditions stayed up there, so their very-great-sons are still there being hairy and eating bananas.

There's no need to get rid of an entire population to get it "evolved" into another thing, and different parts can get separated and evolve into different things.

So your question doesn't have any sense... you can see it if you change it to:

if evolution is right why are our cousins still around?

Why wouldn't they?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by DadRabit
If evolution were true.  Why are there still monkeys?

Transitional species do not necessarily have to disappear for evolution to take place.

Imagine two colonies of the same species of primate in two locations (A & B).  An environmental change causes Colony A to be isolated from Colony B.  The environmental conditions are now different for the two colonies.  For Colony A, imagine that the natural selection pressures result in gradual evolution into a proto-human.  For Colony B the natural selection pressures have not changed, so they do not evolve.  The results are monkeys and humans.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by DadRabit
S!

If evolution were true.  Why are there still monkeys?
 

Obviously because God wanted it that way - makes much more sence than any of that smarty-pants science talk.

[DadRabit]

S! crowMAW

ok, but how did the species get to A or B in the first place?  

Tactical Officer
99TH ASTAG  Swift to Avenge