Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[Admiral Byng]

Show me macroevolution in practise and then we can talk about theory and fact.

Well, the evolution of the genus Homo we have been discussing is just one such example.

Only thing is it takes a couple of million years so the change is imperceptible unless you consult the fossil record. For example the humans that built Stonehenge are identical to us in evolutionary terms, being so "recent".

 

[cannot]

My statement is stupid?

yes

You can't form complete and coherent sentences

we were not discussing me

 

[Bennett.]

Well, the evolution of the genus Homo we have been discussing is just one such example.

Only thing is it takes a couple of million years so the change is imperceptible unless you consult the fossil record. For example the humans that built Stonehenge are identical to us in evolutionary terms, being so "recent".

That's awfully convenient.
Shame about the Cambrian explosion though although it is fun to see what goodies
people come up with to explain it.

 

[Admiral Byng]

That's awfully convenient.
Shame about the Cambrian explosion though although it is fun to see what goodies
people come up with to explain it.

The Cambrian Explosion is a perfect example of macroevolution in progress. It still took about 20 or 30 million years.

I'm not sure what the point of your question is now. The Cambrian Explosion is the perfect example of what you were asking for, now you are holing it up as an example to disprove itself.

 

[Roylion]

Show me macroevolution in practise and then we can talk about theory and fact.

Done that already. Go back and read it.

 

[Bennett.]

The Cambrian Explosion is a perfect example of macroevolution in progress. It still took about 20 or 30 million years.

I'm not sure what the point of your question is now. The Cambrian Explosion is the perfect example of what you were asking for, now you are holing it up as an example to disprove itself.

Really? So why do all the major groups of life that we know today that appear in the Cambrian fossils have no evolutionary ancestors? There are no new body parts or plans that appear later on in the fossil strata. What new animal plans have appears from the ever changing evolutionary wheel of fortune in the past few hundred million years? These creatures from the fossils of which many are extinct today are not primitive ancestors or proto whatevers, but are all living creatures in their own right with no evolutionary ancestor at all.

 

[Bennett.]

Done that already. Go back and read it.

No, you really haven't.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Show me macroevolution in practise and then we can talk about theory and fact.

"Show me the evidence,show me the evidence,show me the evidence" lolsa
But when asked for evidence of creationism......crickets.....tumbleweed....slow hand clap.......nothing!
You got nothing and you know it.
Science can be wrong,improved,superseded and most importantly,proud of and celebrate these facts.
Your belief and faith cannot!
That is the difference!
I think my eggs are safe!

 

[chelseacarlton]

this a stupid statement

if you are so certain about your theories produced by the man had reproduced with his first cousin then present the evidence in question

Can you please represent this question in a language we can all understand cannot?

 

[Long Live HFC]

that it is just a theory.

jesus christ. why is it that some people struggle so hard with what is an extremely basic concept?

evolution (ie species change over time) is fact.
the theory of evolution, explains the fact of evolution (via mutation, natural selection etc).

if, for example, the theory was actually called "the theory too difficult for morons to understand", it would be:

evolution is fact. the theory too difficult for morons to understand, explains the fact of evolution. the name of the theory is completely irrelevant to the fact (that species change over time) it is attempting to explain.

are we ****ing there yet?

 

[chelseacarlton]

jesus christ. why is it that some people struggle so hard with what is an extremely basic concept?

evolution (ie species change over time) is fact.
the theory of evolution, explains the fact of evolution (via mutation, natural selection etc).

if, for example, the theory was actually called "the theory too difficult for morons to understand", it would be:

evolution is fact. the theory too difficult for morons to understand, explains the fact of evolution. the name of the theory is completely irrelevant to the fact (that species change over time) it is attempting to explain.

are we ******* there yet?

Nice answer Mr Huxley

 

[Long Live HFC]

There is still room for subjectiveness is scientific theory also, and often times scientific theory is superseded by a new theory.
So we believe science gives us facts. We're taught them and told they are truth only to be told 20 years later that some theory was actually wrong and we at given a new truth.

which real-world examples do you feel best support your assertion here? improvements or amendments to scientific theories do not automatically change the facts the theories are attempting to explain. relativity (for example) replaced newton, but newton's laws are still correct up to a point. it's certainly not the case that being "superceded" made them wrong.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Really? So why do all the major groups of life that we know today that appear in the Cambrian fossils have no evolutionary ancestors? There are no new body parts or plans that appear later on in the fossil strata. What new animal plans have appears from the ever changing evolutionary wheel of fortune in the past few hundred million years? These creatures from the fossils of which many are extinct today are not primitive ancestors or proto whatevers, but are all living creatures in their own right with no evolutionary ancestor at all.

I can't help you if you insist on a false interpretation. There are plenty of major animal groups that appear after the Cambrian, like insects, fish, reptiles, birds and mammals - animals that dominate the planet today. They derived from their Cambrian ancestors, who in turn developed from more primitive pre-Cambrian ancestors. Pre-Cambrian fossils are very rare and hard to find though, because they are generally soft-bodied and only rarely get preserved. Evolution doesn't have to be uniform and gradual, it sometimes goes in bursts and lulls.

EDIT - and that was without mentioning flowering plants, which first appear about 400 million years after the Cambrian.

 

[Roylion]

No, you really haven't.

Yes I really have. Its just that you either don't understand macroevolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest. Do you imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, you'll be able to gain more support for your position / agenda which is more in accordance with the will of God / Christian doctrines?

Macroevolution:

1. genetic change sufficient to form new species. 2. evolution on a scale above the species level.

Macroevolution is used in the evolutionary community to mean a speciation event, which of course is the smallest scale of 'macroevolution'. Evolutionary changes which do not result in speciation are thus microevolutionary changes.

Speciation has been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between chimpanzees and humans chimps all having 24 pairs of chromosomes , and humans having 23 pairs. Some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years.

Some other examples.

• While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

• Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

• The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.

• The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.

• The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. The new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

 

[Bennett.]

Yes I really have. Its just that you either don't understand macroevolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest. Do you imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, you'll be able to gain more support for your position / agenda which is more in accordance with the will of God / Christian doctrines?

Macroevolution:

1. genetic change sufficient to form new species. 2. evolution on a scale above the species level.

Macroevolution is used in the evolutionary community to mean a speciation event, which of course is the smallest scale of 'macroevolution'. Evolutionary changes which do not result in speciation are thus microevolutionary changes.

Speciation has been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between chimpanzees and humans chimps all having 24 pairs of chromosomes , and humans having 23 pairs. Some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years.

Some other examples.

• While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

• Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

• The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.

• The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.

• The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. The new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

So a plant was able to evolve in to a brand new plant.

Wow. Game, set and match.

 

[Roylion]

So a plant was able to evolve in to a brand new plant.

That's correct. A new species of plant. Speciation. Macroevolution in action. Getting it yet?

Just like "bryophytes" which are a group that contain plant species that do not flower and do not produce seeds (moss is an example) are different species from another group of plants "spermatophytes," which are seed plants. Flowering plants and conifer trees are examples of "spermatophytes". Many fruits and vegetables are also part of the seed plant variety.

Are conifer trees and moss different species? They're both plants.

And of course it's just like humans and chimpanzees are different species of hominid. Or dogs and cats are different species of mammals.

Wow. Game, set and match.

Excellent. Nice to see you agree that evolution (both macro- and micro-) are fact.

 

[Long Live HFC]

So a plant was able to evolve in to a brand new plant.

Wow. Game, set and match.

really? that's your reponse?

 

[Bennett.]

really? that's your reponse?

How would you like me to respond?

 

[chelseacarlton]

really? that's your reponse?

How would you like me to respond?

Admitting defeat was a good start on the road to proper enlightenment.
Congratulations Bennett.

 

[Total Power]

How would you like me to respond?

With a well thought out response? you expect plants to grow a limb or something? speciation has been observed several times, i posted several evidences in the evolution thread. take, for example, horses and donkeys. They are related to one another in the sense that they are both equines, and they can breed with one another to produce live offspring. These offspring are commonly called mules. Mules, however, are all sterile. The genes they get from their disparate parents do not recombine in a manner that allows meiosis to work.

How long did it take horses and donkeys to become different species? We dont know precisely, but the most recent known common ancestor to both horses and donkeys existed 4-4.5 million years ago. Making a "new species" is not a speedy process when the creatures in question are as large and complicated as horses or people. Bacteria, however, are the Formula 1 racecars of evolution because their generations are so short. You can induce speciation in bacterial populations in less than a week (as measured by genome sequencing and comparison to see how similar individuals are). This happens all the time in hospitals, when fairly innocuous strains of bacteria, like S. aureus, become resistant to many different antibiotics.

so to answer your question, there have been countless new species created by placing stresses on populations in the last few decades. Not many of them are visible to the naked eye, however. Your most likely candidates are going to be uncomplicated creatures, like some species of mollusks, insects, small plants (orchids are popular hybridization targets), and microbes. (considering the scale of time of evolution is huge).

 

[madmug]

With a well thought out response? you expect plants to grow a limb or something? speciation has been observed several times, i posted several evidences in the evolution thread. take, for example, horses and donkeys. They are related to one another in the sense that they are both equines, and they can breed with one another to produce live offspring. These offspring are commonly called mules. Mules, however, are all sterile. The genes they get from their disparate parents do not recombine in a manner that allows meiosis to work.

How long did it take horses and donkeys to become different species? We dont know precisely, but the most recent known common ancestor to both horses and donkeys existed 4-4.5 million years ago. Making a "new species" is not a speedy process when the creatures in question are as large and complicated as horses or people. Bacteria, however, are the Formula 1 racecars of evolution because their generations are so short. You can induce speciation in bacterial populations in less than a week (as measured by genome sequencing and comparison to see how similar individuals are). This happens all the time in hospitals, when fairly innocuous strains of bacteria, like S. aureus, become resistant to many different antibiotics.

so to answer your question, there have been countless new species created by placing stresses on populations in the last few decades. Not many of them are visible to the naked eye, however. Your most likely candidates are going to be uncomplicated creatures, like some species of mollusks, insects, small plants (orchids are popular hybridization targets), and microbes. (considering the scale of time of evolution is huge).

But plants do grow limbs.
Trees
Honestly though, as much as I've found your posts very interesting & very easy to follow, you are 'preaching' to the happy clapper brigade.
Its said 'none are so blind as cannot see'. Its a pity they seem not to be educated enough to see the difference in a belief in God, & science. They are stuck in the mindset of their religiocultural system.
The bible was written by men mostly 100 years after JC was around. We've had religious wars of domination ever since.
We get stories of the Christians & Lions. But not much of the Abrahamic religious imperialism of the next 2000 years. The brutality aimed at cultural domination. It still continues today.
So instead of arguing science. Perhaps they should question their own knowledge of the history, psychology & Sociology involved in their own brand of 'belief'.
Maybe a God v Brand of religious organisations thread.
Or God v ignorance inherent in religion.
Or Gods love v religious intolerance/violence.

Anyway.

 

[cannot]

Excellent. Nice to see you agree that evolution (both macro- and micro-) are fact.

the theory of evolution doc

 

[Roylion]

the theory of evolution doc

Are your powers of basic comprehension that limited that you cannot understand what I have already said on the subject of evolution as 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory'?

Are the two terms and the difference between them really that difficult for you to understand?

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Trolling in other words.

Yet again, the link of what I said is here.

Re-read what I said. Carefully. Slowly. Follow the words slowly with your finger if you must. Pronounce them out loud if it further helps.

If there's too many words for you, then just read the bits in bold. Carefully. Slowly.

 

[cannot]

Are your powers of basic comprehension that limited that you cannot understand what I have already said on the subject of evolution as 'scientific fact' or 'scientific theory'?

Are the two terms and the difference between them really that difficult for you to understand?

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse? Trolling in other words.

Yet again, the link of what I said is here.

Re-read what I said. Carefully. Slowly. Follow the words slowly with your finger if you must. Pronounce them out loud if it further helps.

If there's too many words for you, then just read the bits in bold. Carefully. Slowly.

thats not a very nice tone from a teacher

would you speak to your student in such a manner?

 

[Roylion]

thats not a very nice tone from a teacher

would you speak to your student in such a manner?

I'm not dealing with 'my' student. Just someone who either deliberately, or through a lack of basic comprehension, fails to acknowledge basic concepts. And continues to display that repeatedly.