[quote]pookie wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder what’s the point of these threads.
If people unfamiliar with evolution are really interested in learning more, there’s tons of resources on the web and in libraries. Access and read.
In the newsgroup alt.binaries.e-book, someone has just dumped every issue of Scientific American from 1993 to present in PDF format. Download and read.
As a bonus, you’ll also be able to read on nutrition, vegetarianism, nuclear weapons, neanderthals, bulking up, string theory, the Big Bang, fusion, and many, many other topics that come up from time to time on these threads.
[/quote]
[quote]deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.[/quote]
not quite…
evolutionary theory proponents would say the theory is observable, repeatable, and (possibly) refutable through fossile records…
now whether the theory of evolution is a fact or not I niether know nor care…
but if you’re going to argue against an idea, it’s best to not create an easily disposed of ‘straw man’…
argue against the evolutionary theory proponent’s strongest argument, not some bullshit watered down version of it.
[quote]deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
[/quote]
You would be wrong then. Evolution is most certainly observable–macro or otherwise. Macro can be generalized by micro evolution–they are the same thing. If you think that evolution isn’t happening look at the human species and at sexual selection. Who is breeding and who is not–over many generations this will definately be an observable; whether or not we will evolve into a subspecies is questionable becasue we will have to live long enough as a species inorder to do so. Micro and macro evolution are only seperated by the number of generations before differences in the parent species can be observed.
[quote]deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
Calling evolution a fact does not make it so any more than calling creation a fact makes it so. The scientific method cannot be applied to either one.
The above mentioned fruit fly experiment shows adaptation, not evolution. The fruit fly did not become a bluejay, it “survived and grew”. No reasonable creationist or ID proponent would refute adaptation or microevolution occurs.
I would agree that these “arguments” are pretty pointless. They deteriorate into a pissing match more than anything useful.
[/quote]
macroevolution? Please explain how you mean that.
I think I understood the Fruit fly experiment differently.
By fact I mean, take the dog breeding example and by you being the agent of selective pressure rather then the environment, pick a dog with a certain charectiristic, say you get a pup that was born with short legs, breed them and then of their offsprin sellect for the shortest legged animals and eventually you can get to a do with legs much shorter then their “anscestors”
I wrote this quick but perhaps I got my point across.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
You would be wrong then. Evolution is most certainly observable–macro or otherwise. Macro can be generalized by micro evolution–they are the same thing. If you think that evolution isn’t happening look at the human species and at sexual selection. Who is breeding and who is not–over many generations this will definately be an observable; whether or not we will evolve into a subspecies is questionable becasue we will have to live long enough as a species inorder to do so. Micro and macro evolution are only seperated by the number of generations before differences in the parent species can be observed.
[/quote]
Wouldnt a group of humans have to breed independantly for a really long time to develop a sub-species.
Side note:(not that any on this thread does) its amazing how many people misunderstand what species designates. I knew a college grad who thought black people and white people where different species.
evolutionary theory proponents would say the theory is observable, repeatable, and (possibly) refutable through fossile records…
[/quote]
That was sort of my point…they can “say” anything they want, the larger problem is proving it. As far as fossil records, these are highly problematic, in that the fossils that should be there, so called “transition” fossils, are not. There are huge leaps in “development” between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You would be wrong then. Evolution is most certainly observable–macro or otherwise. Macro can be generalized by micro evolution–they are the same thing. If you think that evolution isn’t happening look at the human species and at sexual selection. Who is breeding and who is not–over many generations this will definately be an observable; whether or not we will evolve into a subspecies is questionable becasue we will have to live long enough as a species inorder to do so. Micro and macro evolution are only seperated by the number of generations before differences in the parent species can be observed.
[/quote]
I am not sure where you are headed with your “sexual selection” argument.
The only fact is that we have never observed one species evolve into another. Time is indeed the issue. This is why I stand by what I said. Evolution cannot be observed, repeated or refuted. If it cannot be proven via the scientific method, is it science at all? Is not this the same argument against creation?
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
Calling evolution a fact does not make it so any more than calling creation a fact makes it so. The scientific method cannot be applied to either one.
The above mentioned fruit fly experiment shows adaptation, not evolution. The fruit fly did not become a bluejay, it “survived and grew”. No reasonable creationist or ID proponent would refute adaptation or microevolution occurs.
I would agree that these “arguments” are pretty pointless. They deteriorate into a pissing match more than anything useful.
macroevolution? Please explain how you mean that.
I think I understood the Fruit fly experiment differently.
By fact I mean, take the dog breeding example and by you being the agent of selective pressure rather then the environment, pick a dog with a certain charectiristic, say you get a pup that was born with short legs, breed them and then of their offsprin sellect for the shortest legged animals and eventually you can get to a do with legs much shorter then their “anscestors”
I wrote this quick but perhaps I got my point across.[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from, but what you are describing is not evolution. You can breed that dog forever to enhance whatever characteristics you desire, but will it ever eventually become a cat?
Perhaps the starting point of a rational discussion is to define evolution…
[quote]deanec wrote:
Jersey5150 wrote:
deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
Calling evolution a fact does not make it so any more than calling creation a fact makes it so. The scientific method cannot be applied to either one.
The above mentioned fruit fly experiment shows adaptation, not evolution. The fruit fly did not become a bluejay, it “survived and grew”. No reasonable creationist or ID proponent would refute adaptation or microevolution occurs.
I would agree that these “arguments” are pretty pointless. They deteriorate into a pissing match more than anything useful.
macroevolution? Please explain how you mean that.
I think I understood the Fruit fly experiment differently.
By fact I mean, take the dog breeding example and by you being the agent of selective pressure rather then the environment, pick a dog with a certain charectiristic, say you get a pup that was born with short legs, breed them and then of their offsprin sellect for the shortest legged animals and eventually you can get to a do with legs much shorter then their “anscestors”
I wrote this quick but perhaps I got my point across.
I understand where you are coming from, but what you are describing is not evolution. You can breed that dog forever to enhance whatever characteristics you desire, but will it ever eventually become a cat?
Perhaps the starting point of a rational discussion is to define evolution…[/quote]
Thats where the inference comes in. If you can eventually breed a chiuaua sp.? from a wolf then why not over the course of billions of years go from one organism to another that looks nothing like it.
When you look withing all living things you seen things in common. DNA firstly…there is not one single living thing that does not have DNA. In addition to numerous other simmilarities.
Sorry for the grammer and spelling I am typing quickly.
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
deanec wrote:
I would argue that macroevolution is not a theory at all; it is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and therefore cannot be defined as fact or theory. It is probably more appropriately called a hypothesis.
You would be wrong then. Evolution is most certainly observable–macro or otherwise. Macro can be generalized by micro evolution–they are the same thing. If you think that evolution isn’t happening look at the human species and at sexual selection. Who is breeding and who is not–over many generations this will definately be an observable; whether or not we will evolve into a subspecies is questionable becasue we will have to live long enough as a species inorder to do so. Micro and macro evolution are only seperated by the number of generations before differences in the parent species can be observed.
Wouldnt a group of humans have to breed independantly for a really long time to develop a sub-species.
Side note:(not that any on this thread does) its amazing how many people misunderstand what species designates. I knew a college grad who thought black people and white people where different species.
[/quote]
Agreed! to observe differences in humans it would take a long time because it comes down to the average length of time betweeen generations and for humans we are talking about ~20 years/generation times 10,000 generations or so (200,000 years).
It seems resonable to suggest that evolution is happening to some extent in the short term. I use sexual selection as an example. Modern medicine has made it possible for those unable to get pregnant to give birth. It is reasonable to suggest that this is having a huge impact on the gene pool. We are no longer subject to natural selecion at a medical level (diseases and virusus do not impact population much in the industrial countries). Think about it…we are litterally “pissing in the gene pool” (that’s a Henry Rollins euphamism not mine). Allowing genes to by pass selection becasue medical science has allowed for it is technilogocal adaption which ultimately affects our evolution as a species.
[quote]deanec wrote:
That was sort of my point…they can “say” anything they want, the larger problem is proving it. As far as fossil records, these are highly problematic, in that the fossils that should be there, so called “transition” fossils, are not. There are huge leaps in “development” between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line.[/quote]
anyone can say anything they want…this statement has no bearing on the argument …
evolutionary theory proponents would argue that the fossil records are not problematic at all…they would argue that transition fossils are there (for instance…fossil records show horses going from having three toes to two toes to one)…and finally that here are no huge leaps in development between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line…
if you want to disprove the theory of evolution the burden of proof in on you…not the other way around…who are you trying to convince? scientists working in the field or your fellow church members?
if you’re out to convince your fellow fundamentalist church members there’s no need to come up with an argument at all…they’ll believe what you say with no evidence what-so-ever…
but if you’re trying to convince scientists working in the field of evolutionary study then so far your argument againt it is not only weak but VERY weak.
Thats where the inference comes in. If you can eventually breed a chiuaua sp.? from a wolf then why not over the course of billions of years go from one organism to another that looks nothing like it.
When you look withing all living things you seen things in common. DNA firstly…there is not one single living thing that does not have DNA. In addition to numerous other simmilarities.
Sorry for the grammer and spelling I am typing quickly.[/quote]
Why not? That is the billion dollar question, but it is only a question, not the answer.
I think I’ll go see if I can apply enough selective pressure over enough time to cause my biceps to evolve…
[quote]DPH wrote:
deanec wrote:
That was sort of my point…they can “say” anything they want, the larger problem is proving it. As far as fossil records, these are highly problematic, in that the fossils that should be there, so called “transition” fossils, are not. There are huge leaps in “development” between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line.
anyone can say anything they want…this statement has no bearing on the argument …
evolutionary theory proponents would argue that the fossil records are not problematic at all…they would argue that transition fossils are there (for instance…fossil records show horses going from having three toes to two toes to one)…and finally that here are no huge leaps in development between those that are thought to be in our ancestral line…
if you want to disprove the theory of evolution the burden of proof in on you…not the other way around…who are you trying to convince? scientists working in the field or your fellow church members?
if you’re out to convince your fellow fundamentalist church members there’s no need to come up with an argument at all…they’ll believe what you say with no evidence what-so-ever…
but if you’re trying to convince scientists working in the field of evolutionary study then so far your argument againt it is not only weak but VERY weak.[/quote]
I’m sorry, I don’t remember bringing religion into this conversation, and if I did, I am not sure why it is germane to the discussion.
I find you argument interesting, that it is up to me to disprove evolution. I did not formulate the hypothesis, I am not necessarily trying to disprove anything. Is it up to you to disprove ID? True science is not afraid to be viewed with a critical eye. Saying the same unprovable things over and over do not make them valid. My pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in the “theory” was not a personal attack on you, yet you use what you apparantly think is a perjorative, “fundamentalist church members”. Take it easy…
Thats where the inference comes in. If you can eventually breed a chiuaua sp.? from a wolf then why not over the course of billions of years go from one organism to another that looks nothing like it.
When you look withing all living things you seen things in common. DNA firstly…there is not one single living thing that does not have DNA. In addition to numerous other simmilarities.
Sorry for the grammer and spelling I am typing quickly.
Why not? That is the billion dollar question, but it is only a question, not the answer.
I think I’ll go see if I can apply enough selective pressure over enough time to cause my biceps to evolve…[/quote]
Ok that last part is funny only if you know thats not the way “selective pressue” is used in Evolutionary theory.
The idea that all life is related to a common ancestor is strongly supported by the fact that every single living thing without exeption has DNA, and numerous other cellular simmilarities.
In addition whats the alternative? Intelligent design? Its proponents claim it fits the “gaps” in Darwins theory.
Their theory is full of issues I wont address here. You cant just say see a lack of evidence for evolution cannot be evidence for Int. design.
For example demonstrating that their is no evidence that Joe killed Susy doesnt mean you can not say Tom must have done it.
[quote]deanec wrote:
I’m sorry, I don’t remember bringing religion into this conversation, and if I did, I am not sure why it is germane to the discussion.[/quote]
I was asking you who you are trying to convice with your argument…the question is germane to the discussion because your argument will convince no one but a fundamentalist…
but you are trying to disprove evolution …and rather poorly I might add…if you want to discredit the theory show scientific proof, not your opinion…
ID is not a theory…it’s mythology …and I feel no need to disprove your beloved mythology…
[quote]
True science is not afraid to be viewed with a critical eye. Saying the same unprovable things over and over do not make them valid. My pointing out what I perceive to be flaws in the “theory” was not a personal attack on you, yet you use what you apparantly think is a perjorative, “fundamentalist church members”.[/quote]
I could care less if the evolutionary theory is true or not…I was merely pointing out that you argument against it is total crap and won’t be taken seriously by any scientist working in the field…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is reasonable to suggest that this is having a huge impact on the gene pool. We are no longer subject to natural selecion at a medical level (diseases and virusus do not impact population much in the industrial countries). Think about it…we are litterally “pissing in the gene pool” (that’s a Henry Rollins euphamism not mine). Allowing genes to by pass selection becasue medical science has allowed for it is technilogocal adaption which ultimately affects our evolution as a species. [/quote]
The problem I see with this is that it limits natural selection to a very narrow view (although I’m not sure that’s the core of what you are getting at). It also seems to indicate that there is some goal to our human evolution, rather than the random (perhaps) process it is.
By that I mean that since these people have found ways of allowing their genes to pass one way of selection doesn’t prevent it from being natural selection. Survival of the fittest must surely favour those who can adapt, whether consciously or not, to any situation, be it physical, environmental, or medical…
To the guy who mentioned the lack of transitional fossils, I though Gould wrote about that?
[quote]DPH wrote:
because your argument will convince no one but a fundamentalist…
[/quote]
Are these the same fundamentalists that don’t need convincing?
Is this fact, or your opinion?
I find it difficult to believe that a person that does not care one way or the other would waste time arguing with someone of whose ilk he obviously disdains.
[quote]pomanatschool wrote:
What you are describing in your reference to dog breeding is micro-evolution. A species develops certain traits through selective breeding. This is observable, and fundamentally true. It is variation in the expression of genetic traits.[/quote]
If micro-evolution continues for a long enough period of time, it becomes macroevolution. Evolution does not occur in bounds, but in baby-steps. We just haven’t been around long enough to breed a new species of dog.
It is not observable in real time. And yet I see the evidence for macro-evolution every single day; I see trees, people, cats, dogs, birds, squirrels, all on my way to work.
So very different, that chimpanzees and man share about 97% of their genetic material. Men and bacteria share about 35%.
It seems that the most common mutation is the neutral one, it neither benefits nor harms.
Ahem! Bi and tri cellular organisms do, in fact, exist. On this Earth. Today. Algae of the genus Gonium exist as bi- or quadri-cellular colonies. Bicellular organisms are rare however. That’s because once you have the capacity for multicellularity there is no advantage in maintaining only two cells. Having two cells gives you all the disadvantages of both multicellularity and unicellularity. Even in a flat sheet 6 cells is far more efficient.
I might check it out. Especially since I recently reread The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins (can I plug this book any more!?), who very clearly explains why life is complex, but not irreducibly so. He also explains the necessary steps by which simple cells became complicated cells, which then got together to make even more complicated living creatures, which eventually became more complicated and ended up being the animals we see today.
PS: I’ve read a few posts that mention the fossil record, without taking a few important facts into account. Please bear in mind that just because there are gaps in the fossil record, doesn’t mean that species “jumped” from one to another in any miraculous fashion. It is very difficult to produce a fossil, and it’s also very difficult to find one, so to find any fossils at all is extremely lucky. Remember that the absence of proof is not proof of absence. There are probably hundreds of thousands of species whose fossils we will never find. And please, please, please remember: There are NO missing links as such, because evolution (speciation) does not happen in big steps. Somebody mention horses hooves further up. Well, there is no single intermediate animal between the extinct 3-hooved horse (that actually had 5 hooves, or toes, on its front legs, and 3 on the back), and today’s single-hooved species. The 2-hooved horse is simply one of a long line of horses that evolved from the 3-hooved kind, and which eventually evolved into the single-hooved, modern horse.
I listened to a graduate professor discuss this- the difference is a diference of culture between apes and humans. Humans have this way of thinking that is just so obvious to us, we never think about it. Put simply, we emply ‘cumulative thinking’. We can do something for one reason, and think about how it would work with something else.
Simply put, some human, a long time ago, watched his fellow humans beat nuts with rocks they had found. That guys realized that if they used the rocks to shape other rocks, they would get sharp rocks, to break open nuts faster. Apes can’t make that connection.
