 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 848
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | If by 'reproduced in front of you', you mean that nobody has ever witnessed macroevolution, then this is wrong. We have. But our evidence for macroevolution is even stronger than that. |
Great!
By all means provide a link to macoevolution witnessed in the human population. Or, even a link to macoevolution showing that a bird has evolved into something other than a bird.
You equivocate on your macroevolution....let's see, what did you call it, oh yeah......evidence. Ha!
Speciation between birds (one bird producing another) is not what the evolution vs. creation debate is about! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
By all means provide a link to macoevolution witnessed in the human population.
|
I never said that macroevolution was witnessed in humans, but that it has been witnessed BY humans.
Humans have witnessed *speciation* plenty of times. Fruit flies is one example. Without any genetic engineering, and just with selection pressures they were able to create different populations which won't and can't reproduce with each other.
Then we've got all of the different species of canines. We turned the mighty wolf into the tiny hairless, rat-like chihuahua (and plenty of other weird breeds of dogs) in a matter of centuries, which is basically instantaneous when viewed in terms of geologic time.
The chihuahua and the wolf certainly look like different species (i.e. are different on the 'macro' level) moreso than, say, red squirrels and gray squirrels, even though wolves and chihuahuas can reproduce, whereas red squirrels and gray squirrels can't. (On that note, lions and tigers can reproduce as well, although clearly something 'macro' has happened between those species.)
But the really interesting one is dogs, wolves, and dingos. Dogs and wolves and reproduce. Dogs and dingos can reproduce. But wolves and dingos can't, which means that they objectively are different species.
That's macroevolution, and it has been witnessed.
And from there if you start including the fossil evidence and evidence from microbiology, then the case becomes irresistibly compelling to all but the most religiously-biased people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 848
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P wrote: | | Fruit flies is one example. Without any genetic engineering, and just with selection pressures they were able to create different populations which won't and can't reproduce with each other. |
That's not what the creation vs evolution debate is about. This is a technical cop-out.
Show a case where a fruit fly evolved into something other than a fruit fly.
| P wrote: | | I never said that macroevolution was witnessed in humans |
I never said you said it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1533
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
Show a case where a fruit fly evolved into something other than a fruit fly. |
See, that's the thing - we call them both fruit flies. The nomenclature is what's throwing you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | P wrote: | | Fruit flies is one example. Without any genetic engineering, and just with selection pressures they were able to create different populations which won't and can't reproduce with each other. |
That's not what the creation vs evolution debate is about. This is a technical cop-out.
Show a case where a fruit fly evolved into something other than a fruit fly. |
I don't think you get it. You don't HAVE to show a fish evolving into a bird in order to show that macroevolution happens. All you have to show is that natural selection can do two things:
1. Cause speciation (which it has: Dingos and fruit flies), and
2. Make animals look *really* different (which it has: Wolves vs. chihuahuas and lions vs. tigers).
Let's say we use the same selection technique which was used to produce chihuahuas from wolves, and then apply that to dingos to produce hairless, scrawny dingo-chihuahuas. Clearly this can be done in an eye blink in terms of geologic timescales. This would give us little rat-like animals which CAN NOT reproduce with wolves and in fact don't resemble wolves very closely at all in terms of size or appearance.
How is that not a good example of macroevolution?
And if that's not enough, then we can keep applying selection pressures to make them change more and more and more. We can keep doing this until you finally concede that macroevolution has happened.
And none of this is even touching on all of the other VERY GOOD and VERY COMPELLING evidence for macroevolution, such as atavisms, the fossil record, and the microbiological evidence. Once you throw all of that in, then it becomes completely unreasonable to deny macroevolution.
| Dust wrote: |
| P wrote: | | I never said that macroevolution was witnessed in humans |
I never said you said it. |
That's what it sounded like when you wrote this:
| Dust wrote: |
By all means provide a link to macoevolution witnessed in the human population. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 848
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | And if that's not enough, then we can keep applying selection pressures to make them change more and more and more. We can keep doing this until you finally concede that macroevolution has happened. |
Such pressure has been applied in the canine population for thousands of years. And what has been procuced? Canines.
Canines beget canines.
Fruit flies beget fruit flies.
Is there any evidence to the contrary? And I am not talking about assumptions based on facts. The facts are, Canines beget canines, Fruit files beget fruit flies.
Entire human populations have been isolated from one another, to such a degree, that they have developed unique traits, characteristics, and features.....yet not one documented case of speciation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're not listening. We've seen selection pressures cause speciation. We've seen selection pressures cause massive physical changes in animals. Put those together and you've got speciation and massive changes. What is macroevolution? Speication and massive changes.
Your argument that repeated microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution is a classic slippery slope:
Generation 1 is almost the same as generation 2. Generation 2 is almost the same as generation 3. Generation 3 is almost the same as generation 4 .....
Generation 999,999 is almost the same as generation 1,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore generation 1 is almost the same as generation 1,000,000.
It's a complete fallacy.
Your not being able to see that compounded small changes eventually lead to big changes is really bad. We've seen the small changes cause speciation. We've seen the small changes cause massive changes in physiology.
We've got the fossil record which completely corroborates that this happened in the past with all species, including our own.
We've got DNA evidence which completely corroborates that this happened in the past with all species, including our own.
The fact that you can still deny macroevolution in the face of this MOUNTAIN of COMPELLING evidence is an impressive testament to the power of religion to bias one's thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Tiger
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 848
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who's denying macroevolution?
Birds produce Birds they can't mate with....there's your macroeveolution.
fruit flies produce fruit flies they can't mate with....there's you macroeveolution.
Canines produce canines they cant't mate with....there's you macroevolution.
Humans, who have developed distinctive differences over large periods of time, can all mate with one another if they like.....macroevolution has taken a vaction? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Who's denying macroevolution?
Birds produce Birds they can't mate with....there's your macroeveolution.
fruit flies produce fruit flies they can't mate with....there's you macroeveolution.
Canines produce canines they cant't mate with....there's you macroevolution.
Humans, who have developed distinctive differences over large periods of time, can all mate with one another if they like.....macroevolution has taken a vaction? |
So why is it that when we take homonid fossils and put them in order of how old they are with the oldest first, they progressively stand more and more upright, and their brains become progressively bigger and bigger?
How come you and I and every other human alive has inactive DNA for a tail?
How do you explain these things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5711
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Canines produce canines they cant't mate with....there's you macroevolution. |
Domestic dogs are descended from wolves. Dingos are descended from domestic dogs.
Wolves can breed with domestic dogs. Domestic dogs can breed with dingos. Wolves cannot breed with dingos.
Yeah, they're all canines, but there's been a speciation event between wolves and dingos to the point that wolves and dingos are different enough that they can no longer breed.
And this was only within the last 13-17,000 years or so.
| Dust wrote: | | Humans, who have developed distinctive differences over large periods of time, can all mate with one another if they like.....macroevolution has taken a vaction? |
Macroevolution doesn't just happen. Different isolated groups of humans would have to be put under highly different selection pressures for an extended period of time.
And this did happen over time, that's why we've found the wide variety of hominid fossils we have. But there was a genetic bottleneck near the end of the Late Pleistocene (10,000+ years ago) that killed off all of the other human species and left at most 10,000 or so homo sapiens sapiens.
The changes in canines occured because of selective breeding, and even in 10,000 years it's still not clear where to draw the species line between wolves and domestics and dingos.
It's a slow process, but there's no reason why microevolution (which, I assume, you accept) can't cause macroevolution over time.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | So why is it that when we take homonid fossils and put them in order of how old they are with the oldest first, they progressively stand more and more upright, and their brains become progressively bigger and bigger? |
Let's get this over with:
 "Because the dating arguments are nothing but assumption laid upon assumption" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6665
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's a slow process, but there's no reason why microevolution (which, I assume, you accept) can't cause macroevolution over time. |
Is this the truth behind TOE?
This statement reads a lot different than the assertions of some regarding the 'factuality' of macroevolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | It's a slow process, but there's no reason why microevolution (which, I assume, you accept) can't cause macroevolution over time. |
Is this the truth behind TOE?
This statement reads a lot different than the assertions of some regarding the 'factuality' of macroevolution. |
Only if you're *trying* to read something into it which isn't there. Without putting words into FFT's mouth, I am quite sure that he does not see the case for macroevolution to be a, 'There's no reason why it can't happen, and therefore it happens.' argument.
Seriously, how do you guys explain atavisms? How do you explain that all of the DNA ever examined on Earth from any species looks precisely like what you'd expect from billions of years of natural selection? How do you explain the fossil record, which shows homonids walking progressively more upright and having bigger brain cases as time progresses? And it isn't just humans; we see analogous trends in the ENTIRE fossil record for ALL life. How can that be if macroevolution is fiction???
How do you explain all of this???
Why isn't there even a shred of physical evidence that we were created? Why are we mammals? When, as you claim, God created us by fiat, how come he chose for us to be mammals? If God created us in His image, then does that mean He's a mammal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
And by the way, the argument that canines breeding with canines will only ever produce canines (or its analogous argument for any other species) was shown to be false.
In order for this to be true, there would have to be no way for new genes to be introduced to a population. If this was impossible, and if mating is just some way of reshuffling genes, then the gene pool of any species would not change.
However, it has been shown conclusively that there are all sorts of different mutations which introduce brand new genes into a gene pool.
So the argument that species of one kind will only produce others of their own kind has been scientifically refuted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6665
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Only if you're *trying* to read something into it which isn't there. Without putting words into FFT's mouth, I am quite sure that he does not see the case for macroevolution to be a, 'There's no reason why it can't happen, and therefore it happens.' argument. |
That's really not the issue at all. FFT made a true statement in regards to the Theory of Evolution:
| Quote: | | It's a slow process, but there's no reason why microevolution (which, I assume, you accept) can't cause macroevolution over time. |
I'm simply pointing out that the truth of this viewpoint is much more accurate scientifically and philosophically than the definitively incorrect assertions that macroevolution is a fact.
| Quote: | | Why isn't there even a shred of physical evidence that we were created? |
We exist.
| Quote: | | Why are we mammals? When, as you claim, God created us by fiat, how come he chose for us to be mammals? |
I fail to see any relevance to any argument, at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5711
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Only if you're *trying* to read something into it which isn't there. Without putting words into FFT's mouth, I am quite sure that he does not see the case for macroevolution to be a, 'There's no reason why it can't happen, and therefore it happens.' argument. |
Correct.
| RevJP wrote: | That's really not the issue at all. FFT made a true statement in regards to the Theory of Evolution: | FFT wrote: | | It's a slow process, but there's no reason why microevolution (which, I assume, you accept) can't cause macroevolution over time. |
I'm simply pointing out that the truth of this viewpoint is much more accurate scientifically and philosophically than the definitively incorrect assertions that macroevolution is a fact. |
The theory that macroevolution has occured and is the explanation for the difference between ancient and modern life is extremely well-founded.
What I've simply pointed out is the vacuousness of accepting microevolution but claiming that macroevolution is impossible.
| RevJP wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Why isn't there even a shred of physical evidence that we were created? |
We exist. |
This isn't evidence. I may as well say that our existence is evidence of Last Thursdayism. It's so absent of any indicators of what it's supposedly evidence for that it's worthless.
| RevJP wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Why are we mammals? When, as you claim, God created us by fiat, how come he chose for us to be mammals? |
I fail to see any relevance to any argument, at all. |
Yeah to be honest I don't get this one either. Unless he means to point to the fact that biologically we're not really different from other mammals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
