DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) page 1018, Encyclopedia Britannica)


CREATION, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

Obviously, there are profound differences between the theory of evolution and the Genesis creation account. Those who accept evolution contend that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is evolution itself truly scientific? On the other hand, is Genesis just another ancient creation myth, as many contend? Or is it in harmony with the discoveries of modern science? (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pages 10-11; (2) page 1018, Encyclopedia Britannica)


DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/



DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single organism (macro-evolution). Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Is there evidence in the fossils proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they always referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

 

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS​

Definition of Scientific Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm



Definition of Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm



Definition of Scientific Fact:
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

 

Does anybody else find these error laden technicolor missives really patronizing?

 

Not so much patronising as boring, repetitive and quintessentially stupid. Semantic terpsichore of the lowest order.

 

Oh they're all that. It's one thing to be wrong. Everybody's wrong occasionally. But to be SPECTACULARLY wrong is less common. Adding a quiz to see if we were paying attention? Priceless.

 

I like the way science underwrites the credibility towards understanding as its natural premise.

Ya can't get that kind of love from a religious wingnut.

I rather like the thread. It shows that the best pursuit may be to find the missing fossils as a gift to mankind. At least the post offers an idea that truthful undertakings can exist in the quest to understand evolution and ourselves at the same time; find the missing fossil remains required to shut up the ignorant.

 

Great...another religious fanatic who thinks evolution means we should have croco-ducks...

 

I don't see anything in the above comments resembling a rebuttal. It seems they have none.

 

Your argument is ignorant and absurd. It does nothing more than show how little you know.

Here's a clue: evolution says nothing about one species turning into a completely different species (like a dog into a dolphin).

 

Perhaps you'd get a rebuttal if you posted your (barely) scientific thread in the science section, or on a science forum, rather than putting it in the religion part of PF.

 

And I suppose Alter2Ego you think that Creationism/Intelligent Design is somehow more scientific? Let's see, a theory that has reams of scientific evidence with some missing data, versus a hypothesis based on a book written several thousand years ago by some sheep herders. Hmm...

 

Didn't think people who could afford computers still doubted evolution.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DARK DAIMON:

Creationism is beyond science. It's known as miracle. That's why no scientist in sophisticated laboratories, in controlled conditions, have been able to duplicate it by creating life from non-life. Not that they haven't tried.

Richard Dawkins claimed life started off as slime in the sea and made it to land as the "common ancestor" of every living creature that has ever existed on planet earth. But before I go any further, let me give the dictionary definition of "accident." Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has UNDESIRABLE or UNFORTUNATE RESULTS."


Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said:

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."


Robert Jastrow added:

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."


Atheist Evolutionists rely upon the assumption that life resulted without a Creator. This theory insists that life on earth resulted from spontaneous generation (accidents in which things happened with no intelligent direction). They argue that from accidental CHAOS, lifeless chemicals became living, well-ordered, precise organisms.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins speculates in his book, The Selfish Gene, that in the beginning, Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightening, and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart; then they formed into AMINO ACIDS, some of which reached the sea and combined into protein-like compounds and became a LIFELESS "ORGANIC SOUP." Then according to Dawkins, a "particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident"--a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself and cluster together--by accident. These molecules wrapped a protective protein membrane around themselves--by accident--and generated the first living cell. While admitting that this was EXCEEDINGLY IMPROBABLE, Dawkins insists that it must have happened.

Thereby Dawkins defied logic by insisting that accidents--which, according to the dictionary definition, produce undesirable or unfortunate results--must have somehow done what he himself admits is "exceedingly improbable." (Source: The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, p. 16)

 

Scientists have. Actually, in one of my labs, they were working on that.

Such uneducated fools, they have.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:
Last time I checked it had not been done. Are we supposed to take your word for it when you haven't presented any evidence?

By the way, are you conceding that it required an intelligent, living person to ATTEMPT what you are claiming--while at the same time you argue that the complex universe happened without an intelligent person aka God? Is that what you're telling this forum?

 

Look it up for yourself. It was done for the first time quite a while ago. Many of the basic building blocks of life were created in a laboratory. Looking now at the commercial consequences, many living things are created from non-living things.

It happened under man-made conditions meant to replicate the conditions of the early earth. So in that sense, it's a likely response. I really don't know how you can be anti-science when you don't even know science. At least those that are anti-Obama/Romney know a little about the man.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- QUESTERR:
Go back and read my opening post and you will see what it says about a "common ancestor." Also be sure and look at the definition of "macroevolution" in my OP.

When a creature "evolves" to something "above the species level" it is no longer able to interbreed with whatever it supposedly evolved from (macroevolution). Charles Darwin predicted fossils would be found showing a squirrel on its way to a bat and a whale on its way to a bear (macroevolution). Present-day scientists in the pro-evolution world are still looking for the "missing link" that will show animals evolving into something entirely different from what they started off as (macroevolution). For the last 30 years, paleontologists that are pro-evolution have been whining about the lack of evidence in the fossils. Below are three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." (Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]" (Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." (Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

 

See, the problem you have, is that I know most of those people. Those scientists you promote to discredit evolution. And the problem with that is that they support evolution, different theories of it.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:

TRANSLATION: You have no evidence. You're simply spouting off. Now that I've called you out on it, you're trying to bluff your way out by insisting I go and find your evidence.

BTW: I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions regarding the implications of intelligent humans ATTEMPTING to create life from non-life. What does that indicate regarding the existence of the far more complex universe and the complex life forms within it--which atheists insist happened by itself? If it takes intelligent humans to attempt to create simple life forms (from non-life) in a laboratory, what logic is being used by atheists who insist the far more sophisticated universe and sophisticated forms of life "just popped up out of nowhere" by some accident? What are your thoughts on that?

 

Look up Fox's experiments on abiogenesis. I am not your teacher. Don't draw conclusions on how ignorant your posts are. There is no creation. Any educated person can tell you that. I told you already. REREAD my post. It takes humans to recreate basic conditions under more ancient times. DUH.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:

The person making the claim is responsible for presenting supporting evidence--thereby making his claims credible. Otherwise, his/her claims amount to talking loud and saying nothing. You will notice that whenever I make an assertion, I back it up with quotations from sources that I clearly identify.


Meanwhile, you still have not responded to the direct questions I asked you, as follows:

1. The fact that it takes intelligent humans to ATTEMPT to create life from non-life says what to you about the far more complex universe with millions of planets, with their own fields of gravity that keep them within their individual orbits?

2. The millions of planets are so well synchronized that we can be confident none of them will crash into each other. Did that happen by accident or design?

3. If it takes intelligent humans to ATTEMPT to create simple life forms from non-life, what does it say about the complex life forms here on earth that humans cannot duplicate? Did that happen by accident or design?

4. If it took intelligent, well-educated humans, in controlled laboratory conditions, to ATTEMPT to create simple life forms from non-life, how could complex life forms have resulted from spontaneous events aka accidents--meaning an intelligent Designer/God did not intervene and guide the outcome?


The fact that you have twice refused to respond to my direct questions along those lines is quite telling.

 

I could careless. I know I'm right, as does everyone else here. There's no point trying to convince someone like you.

I have already answered these. Please read my posts before you go on.

1. It takes humans to RECREATE already existing conditions. It takes humans to clone a sheep, sheep already existed. I don't think you understand that. It took scientists a lot of work to create natural conditions on the ancient earth. Those conditions existed, but do not any more. Thus, scientists worked to re-create them. They were once natural. Not sure how many different ways I have to word this for you.

2. By logic and basic physics, do you seriously deny chemistry, biology and physics? I can't believe this!

3. They successfully created them, by the way. There is no argument for creationism. Only fools believe it. Honestly, I wonder how many honestly can believe it. I recall back when I was a freshman in Biology, they took a survey of how many believed in creationism... It was something like 10%. After the end of the class of several thousand, that number was 0%. Not a single student believed in it by the end. It's simply basic 101 classes that can dispel such stupidity.

4. That's the same as 1.

 

Some more, perhaps.

Not sure if it was in Organic or Biochem, but I think second year courses are the ones that completely render creationism invalid.

Why does so much of higher-echelon life rely on glucose? It's the most stable of the simple carbohydrates. It's atomic positions are all equatorial around a fused heterocyclic cyclohexane. Because of its favorability in stability, it was most abundant. Being most abundant, organisms that were able to convert it were more successful. Those more successful organisms dominate to this day, don't they?

And there is evidence of organisms who didn't have the proper enzymes and methods for its digestion. They died out rather quickly. How would creationism explain that?

How do creationists explain glucose?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CATENACCIO:
No, you haven't answered any of my questions. In fact, you've gone out of your way to evade my questions. To top it off, you're now putting on the outraged act with "I can't believe this!"--exclamation sign included.

Humans did not always exist; remember? They supposedly evolved from apes. The apes supposedly evolved from a common ancestor that all other life forms "evolved" from. Below are more questions for you.

1. Where did this "common ancestor" come from? Who gave it life so that evolution could then proceed--before humans eventually "evolved" from whatever slime came out of the ocean?

2. According to delusional scientists in the pro-evolution camp, life started in the ocean. Richard Dawkins dreamed up a scenario that sounds like something from Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars combined. (See my post #13 on page 2 of this thread.) Is that how it happened?

3. Who put the millions of planets in the heavens and created distinct fields of gravity for each one so that they remain within their own orbit. Humans did that?

4. Who created the laws of speed and gravity so that humans were able to rely on those laws to develop air and space flight?

5. Who created the oxygen-carbon dioxide cycle so that humans inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, while trees inhale carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen for humans and other life forms? Who did that? Humans did that?

6. Who created plants, insects, birds, fishes, and humans (just to mention a few), which are complex life forms. How could complex life forms have evolved from slime that developed by itself in the oceans (or whatever latest theory the pro-evolution scientists dreamed up)?

7. Big Bang Theory is mere expansion of space. Mere expansion of space cannot account for the precision in the planets and their relationship with each other. How did the precision among the planets happen by itself--from the spontaneous, unguided expansion of space?

8. Evolution theory cannot account for the intelligence of humans and various living creatures. How did intelligent creatures result from what started off as something that was not intelligent (the slime that supposedly came out of the ocean after it came to life by itself, or whatever other mindless creature scientists have invented, the so-called "common ancestor")?


After you get through answering these latest questions, I have another round of questions for you. Maybe some of the atheists on this forum can help you out.

 

Only two of those questions are related to evolution. Why are you asking about abiogenesis and astrophysics?