DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[newpolitics]

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 animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. 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 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?

I have shown you to be arguing a misconception of evolution, as evidenced by your insistence that a whale would EVER evolve directly into a bear. This is a patently false notion since we know that whales evolved from land mammals back into ocean creatures, which is why they breath air, and not water. As such, your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms you pretend to define, and I need no further refutation. No sources, no evidence. Your "argument" (if you'd call it that) does not stand on its own: it is structurally invalid, because you are equivocating on definitions. That is all I have to show. Further, all you really did was post a bunch of definitions, and then ask three malformed questions, as if your questions were conclusions that necessarily followed from the definitions. You have not shown how these follow necessarily, so any assertions you make are unsubstantiated and require no direct refutation, because the underlying structure of your argument is invalid.

 

[turzovka]

1.) Yes, every creature evolved from Adam and Eve.

2.) Fossils are a tool of Satan to trick you. Any science having anything to do with fossils should be ignored, and those trying to use them are satan-worshippers.

3.) Whatever words they type and put to print, should be burned with a Bible put in its place.

Look please stop with the nonsense,the fossil record is better supported by creation not evolution.

The fossil record is the worst form of so called evidence your side brings up. Stasis in the fossil record and fossils found in the wrong strata is a very strong argument agains't your theory.

That's what I'm saying, those fossils are tools of Satan and the satan-worshippers need to be exposed for trying to poison our children's brains with science.

No, you're not. You are just running away from the tough questions and hiding behind the word "science."

We quickly acknowledge God could have easily used evolution as the tool to create and advance life. But one main reason we doubt it is because the fossil record says "never happened." Either that or God did a good job of hiding the evidence.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are facts to consider when dealing with macroevolution myth:

FACT 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 (macroevolution).


FACT 2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT 3: Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.


FACT 4: To avoid the problem of abiogenesis, members of the Religion of Atheism straddle the fence by claiming they are Christians. In that way, they can claim that God created the "common ancestor."

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are facts to consider when dealing with macroevolution myth:

FACT 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 (macroevolution).


FACT 2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT 3: Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.


FACT 4: To avoid the problem of abiogenesis, members of the Religion of Atheism straddle the fence by claiming they are Christians. In that way, they can claim that God created the "common ancestor."

This most certainly is true for Abiogenesis to have happened chemical evolution had to happen to answer the origins question. They have no viable explanation for origins that is why they avoid it like the plague. They were pretty excited after the miller and urey experiment until they realized it didn't prove anything. 1. it did not form a living cell. 2. it was done through a controlled environment. 3. An intelligent agent was used lol.

 

[Hollie]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are facts to consider when dealing with macroevolution myth:

FACT 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 (macroevolution).


FACT 2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT 3: Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.


FACT 4: To avoid the problem of abiogenesis, members of the Religion of Atheism straddle the fence by claiming they are Christians. In that way, they can claim that God created the "common ancestor."

This most certainly is true for Abiogenesis to have happened chemical evolution had to happen to answer the origins question. They have no viable explanation for origins that is why they avoid it like the plague. They were pretty excited after the miller and urey experiment until they realized it didn't prove anything. 1. it did not form a living cell. 2. it was done through a controlled environment. 3. An intelligent agent was used lol.

As skewed and as pointless as was expected.

The religious extremist continues in his confusion regarding "Life from non-life". The theory of how life began is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, and those studies are still relatively new. How life began will likely have unanswered questions for years to come. It is primarily an exploration of the conditions on the planet in the distant past.

Given developments in our studies of planetary cosmology, there will still be a requirement for testing, adaptations and knowledge to be gained in some of the models of the early earth.

Fundie zealots will default to "the gawds did it", answer. But as we know, that is not an answer at all. Now think, fundie zealot, you believe that one version of one construct of human invented gawds created man from clay he breathed life into. How did that gawd-awful breath create our physical universe from clay? Fundamentalist Christians can't address this.

Life from non-life? How can that be, except by special pleadings to magic, supernaturalism, fear and superstition, lol

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are facts to consider when dealing with macroevolution myth:

FACT 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 (macroevolution).


FACT 2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT 3: Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.


FACT 4: To avoid the problem of abiogenesis, members of the Religion of Atheism straddle the fence by claiming they are Christians. In that way, they can claim that God created the "common ancestor."

This most certainly is true for Abiogenesis to have happened chemical evolution had to happen to answer the origins question. They have no viable explanation for origins that is why they avoid it like the plague. They were pretty excited after the miller and urey experiment until they realized it didn't prove anything. 1. it did not form a living cell. 2. it was done through a controlled environment. 3. An intelligent agent was used lol.

As skewed and as pointless as was expected.

The religious extremist continues in his confusion regarding "Life from non-life". The theory of how life began is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, and those studies are still relatively new. How life began will likely have unanswered questions for years to come. It is primarily an exploration of the conditions on the planet in the distant past.

Given developments in our studies of planetary cosmology, there will still be a requirement for testing, adaptations and knowledge to be gained in some of the models of the early earth.

Fundie zealots will default to "the gawds did it", answer. But as we know, that is not an answer at all. Now think, fundie zealot, you believe that one version of one construct of human invented gawds created man from clay he breathed life into. How did that gawd-awful breath create our physical universe from clay? Fundamentalist Christians can't address this.

Life from non-life? How can that be, except by special pleadings to magic, supernaturalism, fear and superstition, lol

You need some new material.

 

[Hollie]

This most certainly is true for Abiogenesis to have happened chemical evolution had to happen to answer the origins question. They have no viable explanation for origins that is why they avoid it like the plague. They were pretty excited after the miller and urey experiment until they realized it didn't prove anything. 1. it did not form a living cell. 2. it was done through a controlled environment. 3. An intelligent agent was used lol.

As skewed and as pointless as was expected.

The religious extremist continues in his confusion regarding "Life from non-life". The theory of how life began is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, and those studies are still relatively new. How life began will likely have unanswered questions for years to come. It is primarily an exploration of the conditions on the planet in the distant past.

Given developments in our studies of planetary cosmology, there will still be a requirement for testing, adaptations and knowledge to be gained in some of the models of the early earth.

Fundie zealots will default to "the gawds did it", answer. But as we know, that is not an answer at all. Now think, fundie zealot, you believe that one version of one construct of human invented gawds created man from clay he breathed life into. How did that gawd-awful breath create our physical universe from clay? Fundamentalist Christians can't address this.

Life from non-life? How can that be, except by special pleadings to magic, supernaturalism, fear and superstition, lol

You need some new material.

You're befuddled. Thats obvious. I happen to find it comical that one of the typically pointless arguments you cut and paste from extremist christian websites is an attack aimed at evilution posed as a beginning of life argument. Extremist Christians are confused with regard to abiogenesis and the ToE. This confusion causes the extremists to thoroughly cheapen their attacks on science and causes them to chase a position that literally screams of ignorance.

It's quite obvious that the Christian extremist argument is burdened by many obvious paradoxes that are only resolved by appeals to special pleading, supernaturalism and superstition.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As skewed and as pointless as was expected.

The religious extremist continues in his confusion regarding "Life from non-life". The theory of how life began is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate field, and those studies are still relatively new. How life began will likely have unanswered questions for years to come. It is primarily an exploration of the conditions on the planet in the distant past.

Given developments in our studies of planetary cosmology, there will still be a requirement for testing, adaptations and knowledge to be gained in some of the models of the early earth.

Fundie zealots will default to "the gawds did it", answer. But as we know, that is not an answer at all. Now think, fundie zealot, you believe that one version of one construct of human invented gawds created man from clay he breathed life into. How did that gawd-awful breath create our physical universe from clay? Fundamentalist Christians can't address this.

Life from non-life? How can that be, except by special pleadings to magic, supernaturalism, fear and superstition, lol

You need some new material.

You're befuddled. Thats obvious. I happen to find it comical that one of the typically pointless arguments you cut and paste from extremist christian websites is an attack aimed at evilution posed as a beginning of life argument. Extremist Christians are confused with regard to abiogenesis and the ToE. This confusion causes the extremists to thoroughly cheapen their attacks on science and causes them to chase a position that literally screams of ignorance.

It's quite obvious that the Christian extremist argument is burdened by many obvious paradoxes that are only resolved by appeals to special pleading, supernaturalism and superstition.

Abiogenesis has been debunked only the hardline Ideologues still believe it was possible.

 

[Hollie]

You need some new material.

You're befuddled. Thats obvious. I happen to find it comical that one of the typically pointless arguments you cut and paste from extremist christian websites is an attack aimed at evilution posed as a beginning of life argument. Extremist Christians are confused with regard to abiogenesis and the ToE. This confusion causes the extremists to thoroughly cheapen their attacks on science and causes them to chase a position that literally screams of ignorance.

It's quite obvious that the Christian extremist argument is burdened by many obvious paradoxes that are only resolved by appeals to special pleading, supernaturalism and superstition.

Abiogenesis has been debunked only the hardline Ideologues still believe it was possible.

Debunked by who? Here again, you shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.

So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how the gawds breathed life into clay, thus creating mankind.

 

[theliq]

Im going to preface this by saying I am a Christian that believes that God made all of creation. Science simply tells us HOW He did it.

That being said, heres my answers you your questions

1) the evidence is not complete proof but it does point in that direction, yes.

2) No, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of Evolutioanry Theory. Whales didnt turn into bears, but the theory states they did share a common ancestor.

3. An example of this is happening right now down in the Gulf of Mexico. It seems that the BP Oil Spill and the Chemicals used to clean it up quite literally burned out the eyes of the shrimp that spawned there. But there was a species of eyeless shrimp. The shrimp with eyes have undergone a mass die off, though not a complete extinction. But now without the sighted shrimp as competition, the eyeless shrimp have started reproducing in incredibly large numbers.

So where one species dominated another now dominates. And were only about three generations of shrimp away from the toxic event.

What we will see over the course of the next decade after 30 or so generations will give us great data as to the validity or non validity of the theory. Will the eyeless shrimp continue to dominate, or will surviors with eyes return? Or will the eyeless shrimp actually develop eyes?


Good questions. Kudos.

Horrific and Invalid statement,as you are talking about Faith......not reality.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are facts to consider when dealing with macroevolution myth:

FACT 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 (macroevolution).


FACT 2: There is no evidence in the fossils (bones of long-dead animals) proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are (macroevolution).


FACT 3: Atheists have no explanation for how the "common ancestor" came to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then supposedly proceed. So they try to bypass that critical step by claiming evolution has nothing to do with how the "common ancestor" came to life. If they show up in this thread, you will see them doing what amounts to the usual song and dance along that line.


FACT 4: To avoid the problem of abiogenesis, members of the Religion of Atheism straddle the fence by claiming they are Christians. In that way, they can claim that God created the "common ancestor."

This most certainly is true for Abiogenesis to have happened chemical evolution had to happen to answer the origins question. They have no viable explanation for origins that is why they avoid it like the plague. They were pretty excited after the miller and urey experiment until they realized it didn't prove anything. 1. it did not form a living cell. 2. it was done through a controlled environment. 3. An intelligent agent was used lol.

ALTER2EGO -to- YOU WERE CREATED:

Not only did the Stanley Miller experiment not produce life from non-life, but it proved that it required the intervention of an intelligent being to guide the hoped-for outcome.

Atheists insist that life resulted from non-life by itself or by spontaneous means. If nothing else, Stanley Miller proved that the intervention of an intelligent being was vitally necessary in order for him to even get his failed results. In this instance, Miller himself was the intelligent being who had to intervene and guide the experiment.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Abiogenesis has been debunked only the hardline Ideologues still believe it was possible.

Debunked by who? Here again, you shouldn't presume that everything you read on Harun Yahya's website is necessarily true.

So, I was expecting that you would present your data debunking abiogenesis with a comprehensive and detailed account of how the gawds breathed life into clay, thus creating mankind.

ALTER2EGO -to- HOLLIE:

Abiogenesis theory (life coming to life from non-life by itself) was debunked in 1859 by Louis Pasteur and other scientists.


"In 1859, Louis Pasteur entered a contest sponsored by The French Academy of Sciences to examine the now hotly contested spontaneous generation [abiogenesis] controversy, the same year as the publication of The Origin of Species. In the contest, Pasteur decisively undermined the concept of spontaneous generation [abiogenesis]."
Darwin?s Framework, Self-Organization


You do understand the meaning of the word "undermined"; do you not? It means DEBUNKED. Since 1859, other scientists have likewise disproven abiogenesis theory. Stanley Miller's failed attempt in the 1950s is a perfect modern example of this.


BTW: You will find the above quotation at Paragraph 7 when you click the weblink.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just 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)

How about living in the present? Evolutionary scientists aren't going to defend a older version of the theory. The science has progressed and so has the theory. Read up on "punctuated equilibrium" and then get back to us. To defend Darwin's original ideas would be like expecting Newtonian mechanics to apply at relativistic speeds. Science has moved on. So should you.

There is NO scientific evidence that one species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. NONE.

 

[rdean]

Evolution picks up hitchhikers

Study shows unified process of evolution in bacteria

Scientists use yeast and bacteria for study because they can get thousands of generations in a short time. Republicans have taken this and turned into macro and micro evolution. But scientists know there isn't any "divide". It's all evolution. But Republicans swear they know the truth because science is a faith and scientists are liars.

But it's OK. A Republican explained it to me one time. Seems there is a difference between science and technology. They are completely unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[rdean]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just 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)

How about living in the present? Evolutionary scientists aren't going to defend a older version of the theory. The science has progressed and so has the theory. Read up on "punctuated equilibrium" and then get back to us. To defend Darwin's original ideas would be like expecting Newtonian mechanics to apply at relativistic speeds. Science has moved on. So should you.

There is NO scientific evidence that one species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. NONE.

You mean except for like horses and zebras or horses and donkeys or lions and tigers and, well, you can see where this is going.

Example, lions and tigers are able to breed, but the offspring has "bugs". Like the inability to stop growing. This happens because the species have "diverged" and that introduces genetic problems. In another couple of hundred thousand years of isolation, they won't be able to cross breed at all. That's the way evolution works. But of course, you're going to say that is wrong. Even with the evidence RIGHT THERE, it's still wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about living in the present? Evolutionary scientists aren't going to defend a older version of the theory. The science has progressed and so has the theory. Read up on "punctuated equilibrium" and then get back to us. To defend Darwin's original ideas would be like expecting Newtonian mechanics to apply at relativistic speeds. Science has moved on. So should you.

There is NO scientific evidence that one species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. NONE.

You mean except for like horses and zebras or horses and donkeys or lions and tigers and, well, you can see where this is going.

Example, lions and tigers are able to breed, but the offspring has "bugs". Like the inability to stop growing. This happens because the species have "diverged" and that introduces genetic problems. In another couple of hundred thousand years of isolation, they won't be able to cross breed at all. That's the way evolution works. But of course, you're going to say that is wrong. Even with the evidence RIGHT THERE, it's still wrong.

Any species that can breed with another is not a distinctly different species. As for horses there is no evidence that any horse of any type evolved into a none horse type. Nor cats that evolved into none cat types.

 

[theliq]

Im going to preface this by saying I am a Christian that believes that God made all of creation. Science simply tells us HOW He did it.

That being said, heres my answers you your questions

1) the evidence is not complete proof but it does point in that direction, yes.

2) No, thats a fundamental misunderstanding of Evolutioanry Theory. Whales didnt turn into bears, but the theory states they did share a common ancestor.

3. An example of this is happening right now down in the Gulf of Mexico. It seems that the BP Oil Spill and the Chemicals used to clean it up quite literally burned out the eyes of the shrimp that spawned there. But there was a species of eyeless shrimp. The shrimp with eyes have undergone a mass die off, though not a complete extinction. But now without the sighted shrimp as competition, the eyeless shrimp have started reproducing in incredibly large numbers.

So where one species dominated another now dominates. And were only about three generations of shrimp away from the toxic event.

What we will see over the course of the next decade after 30 or so generations will give us great data as to the validity or non validity of the theory. Will the eyeless shrimp continue to dominate, or will surviors with eyes return? Or will the eyeless shrimp actually develop eyes?


Good questions. Kudos.

I think you just hit upon something very fundemental about ID versus Evolution.

Let assume that some ID created a lifeform. The question from a scientist should be

How did the ID create that life form?

That should lead solidly into science, unless someone has the ID's phone number.


Note: evolution does not disprove the existance of a god, but tries to describe a method of how living organisms came to be in the physical universe. ID states that there was a creator and all lifeforms come from it--but does no describe how. A point I totally missed until I read Vidi's post. Who says that reading threads is a waste of time??

I could not agree with you more. On your entire post.

I will add: Science is not a threat to Faith. Science tells people the mechanisms of creation. It's up to the individual to decide if there is something else behind them.

Well Science is not a threat to Faith BUT Faith is a bloody threat to Science.......by the way,the Earth is not Flat.YET....steve

 

[Alter2Ego]

There is NO scientific evidence that one species evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species. NONE.

You mean except for like horses and zebras or horses and donkeys or lions and tigers and, well, you can see where this is going.

Example, lions and tigers are able to breed, but the offspring has "bugs". Like the inability to stop growing. This happens because the species have "diverged" and that introduces genetic problems. In another couple of hundred thousand years of isolation, they won't be able to cross breed at all. That's the way evolution works. But of course, you're going to say that is wrong. Even with the evidence RIGHT THERE, it's still wrong.

ALTER2EGO -to- RDEAN:

Horses, zebras, and donkeys are simply variations of the same species. That is the reason why they are able to interbreed. Lions and Tigers have not been proven to have evolved from anything other than what they started off as.

You posted the above several months ago. Exactly when do you intend to present evidence from the fossils record proving that any creature evolved from something else?