Fallacies of Evolution

We see these events:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-genesis-scientists/

The difficulty in seeing them comes from evolution requiring time. So, the lifetimes of animals, for example, tend to be too close to our own lifetime to examine the generations required by evolution.

However, we DO see such changes occurring in bacteria, for example. And, that's the same kind of process.

 

MS Excel has an 'evolutionary' solver in it's Add-ins section.

 

I addressed the 'bacteria' posts.. there was nothing in them to indicate the macro claims. They are only 'micro' occurrences, with unique traits of adaptation by e-coli. But there was no change to the basic architecture of the organism, & this is still the basic claim of the ToE that has no evidentiary support. It is only asserted, & falsely speculated to be 'plausible'. But that is conjecture, not science.

 

Changes to the basic architecture of an organism require numerous changes in the DNA and will not occur in a single generation. What the ToE claims is that the small changes which we can observe will produce larger changes over many successive generations. You're expecting scientists to observe in just a few years what it took nature thousands or millions of years to accomplish. Unless you can produce a mechanism that limits the amount of genetic change that a species can accumulate over time, then ToE stands as the best explanation for the diversity of species.

 

The member you are communicating with requires physical proof presented to him in person to accept Evolution as possible. Unless you go to his home with a Cat and as you both watch it becomes a dog, fish, or monkey he will dismiss everything you present as stipulation, falsehood, conspiracy or some other trick and even if you did he might dismiss it regardless.
I too had attempted to educate and finally gave up upon realizing the purposeful ignorance may actually be a trolling game intent on creating frustration and decided not to be played in such a way.
Just a little advice and hope it helps.

 

I'll assume that your overrides your .

If I'm wrong - welcome back to the 13th Century.

 

This man carefully, continuously studied his hair to see it grow. He never observed it actually growing. So, lacking empirical evidence*, he was convinced it couldn't be growing.


* Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation

 

Fair enough, but usfan wants evolutionary biology to do as hard science did, by using a theory to split the atom. When they do, in biology he will agree with it the way he agrees with micro evolution, horizontal evolution.

It appears he is asking too much. Hell, just admit we do not know enough when it comes to evolutionary genetics, to replicate what happened naturally, and do as materialists always have to do, as Sheldrake said, and write a promissory note. With no due date.

I have no vested interests in this argument, for it does not matter to me what the truth is . But I would like to see the same kind of evidence that comes from hard science in regards to this macro evolution issue. And that simply does not exist. It is a theory filled with ideas that are not replicable. For a serious mind, this is a slight red flag. Why should we not expect from biology, what we expect from a hard science? That is what usfan is talking about. Fact is, his kind of evidence does not exist, and the proponents of ToE misdirect from it in every way one can imagine. So be honest and just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing admit the obvious. YOu can still believe in it, but you should at least understand, reasonably why he has issues with it. Even some biologists question what you believe in. You just do not listen to what they have to say. For it would be heresy. LOL

 

The last 13.8 billion years have been one huge experiment, you just have to figure out how to observe that experiment which is what science does for us. If you don't like what the science says then you might as well just become a philosopher and wallow in ignorance. If I apply the regression of ignorance to this, I can say that we have never directly observed a single atom, ever and therefore, I refuse to believe that they exist.

 

You missed the point.

You claimed that there was some problem with evolution creating new genes.

I gave you an article showing that evolution CAN create new genes.

The fact that it had to do with a more primitive life form is irrelevant.

We see new species coming into being in the lab. Also, the evidence from nature is crystal clear, as we see species strongly organized as per evolution and species in the process of coming into being.

This isn't just "plausible" - evolution is the only explanation, and has proven its worth by predicting what we will discover when finding life and evidence of life from all periods of life on earth.

There is nothing special about "macro" evolution other than time - we see new species come into being and from there the the different species will naturally evolve in different directions due to the various factors that guide evolution.

 

I don't give a flying Wallenda what usfan wants or agrees with.
You did not reply to post #671 so I'll ask again.
Where is the "magical" line that organisms cannot cross?
At what point do they hit this invisible wall that prevents them from evolving any further?
That is a question that you must answer if you are going to say that macroevolution is impossible.

 

Since you don't believe in mixed species, the foundation of evolution, then you don't
believe in evolution. By the way, mixed species is a scientific term.

That was easy.

 

As long as they are in the same species they can produce a propagating species. How are the others
prevented from reproducing? That doesn't make sense.

No. There is no evidence of this taking place, except on paper or theory. There's nothing to
support this.

The site shows only reproducing species that reproduce withing their own species. Every species
on that site is a complete species of it's own and the evidence of them creating a new reproducing
species doesn't exist.

 

You can't throw a proverbial cat without finding this.
Here are two pro-evolution sites.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2824596?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v080n04/p0554-p0567.pdf

See above.

Are you not aware of Tions and Ligers? How about Mules? They are mixed species. However,
they can't reproduce inside their species because the males are sterile.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to read what the site says. Saying something inadvertently isn't lying. In fact
lying isn't even implied.

 

In post #503 you said, and I quote;
"The fossil record does the opposite, as Charles Darwin said. The record does not contain
examples of the transition from one species to another. The fossil record actually shows
that evolution hasn't taken place."

Darwin said no such thing;you lied
Own it.

 

a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.: ​

So just who do you figure decided some purpose could be accomplished here that was worth billions of years of observation?

So they've acquired a time machine. Musta missed that.

 

Those are talking about multiple species of bird nesting and flocking together, not mating and creating "mixed" species. In other words, "mixed species" in those links means a mix of species in a nesting colony or flock.

Also, those are just sites for scientific papers. I'm not sure why you'd call them "pro-evolution" sites.

I'm well aware of them. By definition, being unable to produce further, fertile offspring means they don't constitute a species.

So, rather than showing me what "mixed species" means in ornithology, or in animal husbandry, can you explain what you mean by "mixed species" as relates to evolutionary biology? Just to keep us on track, the original question was about what distinguishes a transitional species from a non-transitional species.

 

Isolation is the easiest way to prevent reproduction, but there are other methods. Take all of the offspring of a single organism, divide them into two groups, then physically separate the two groups so they cannot breed together. If several generations later the two groups are unable to reproduce when breed together, they would be separate species.

There is ample evidence of this taking place both in the laboratory and in the wild.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2409766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/E5980.full

Look again. The site presents several examples of organisms that could once reproduce forming distinct groups that can not reproduce together, which are different species by the definition you offered.

 

Yes he did. Deal with it.Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated
organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of
the geological record. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280.
​

 

A liger and a Tion (or tigon) are a mixed species. Tion and Ligers are a species. P. leo × P. tigris

A transitional species is a species that's supposed to change from one species to another. According
to Darwin the geological record should show this. There is no evidence of this happening.

 

Mixed-species may be a scientific term but not in relation to evolution or to the way you have been incorrectly using it.

https://www.stlzoo.org/animals/enrichmenttraining/mixedspeciesexhibits/

Mixed-species exhibits provide an interactive and dynamic experience for the animals, visitors and Zoo staff. The animals are provided with enrichment through species interactions.

​

Holy Crap! The offspring of the ostrich and the giraffe is going to be an Ostraffe. If nothing else, it will have a long neck.


Care to continue to show your ignorance?

 

You've shown your ignorance of TOE. Now you are showing your ignorance of geology. What's next? Your ignorance of Heliocentricity?

 

They would still be the same species. I believe you're talking about a subspecies.

From what I read these sites are talking about adaptation and the second one isn't sure that this
is happening. It's a theory they've come up with.

 

They have a species-level taxonomic classification, yes. But the biological definition of a species requires the ability to produce further offspring. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, tions and ligers are basically just anomalies.There is no part that such organisms play in evolution other than genetic dead-ends. Surely you can see that these are not what evolutionary biologists mean when they refer to the idea of transitional species.

Again, what would you expect to see in a transitional species that you don't see in allegedly non-transitional species? You keep saying that there's no evidence for these things, but that's just an assertion if you can't even explain what you're looking for and not finding.

 

Darwin's writing style was to ask a rhetorical question and then give an answer.
The Quote Miner only quotes the question, not the answer that follows, in which Darwin states his belief that the geological record is incomplete,and then outlines which transitional forms he would expect to find if they're found at all.
- Jon (Augray) Barber
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

Paleontology was in its infancy in Darwin’s time and it’s been 150+ years.
Things have changed drastically. We have thousands of fossils demonstrating many different ‘transitions’. Amniote-synapsid-mammals, fish-amphibian, dinosaur-bird (birds are really feathered dinosaurs), land mammal-whale – you name it, we got it.

Even without any fossils whatsoever, Darwin would still have arrived at the answer to how life evolves. In Origin of Species Darwin presented a tidal wave of evidence presented so clearly and logically that no room for doubt remained. All anyone has to do is find a copy and read it. The transitional fossils that paleontologists find only strengthen the case for evolution.