CDZ Evolution: Valid Science, or Hoax?

[usfan]

What is 'micro evolution' versus 'macro evolution' other than larger gradual changes?
Dogs evolved from Wolves- man may or may not have had a hand in that evolution- but man is very involved in the current evolution of dogs. But the evolution of dogs from Wolves happened within the time frame of homo sapiens.

1. It is the central difference between macro/micro, or vertical vs horizontal changes. Micro, or horizontal changes is merely variability within the life form. That is observable science. But the ASSUMPTION that since things can change WITHIN their genetic parameters means they can jump into more complex parameters is NOT science. It is not even possible, according to the modern science of genetics. Macro evolution was fine as a 19th century theory of origins, but it is a bit out of date. Yet, the zealous defenders hold to it with more passion than any religious proselytizer.
2. There is a lot of variability within the dog breeds, which includes the wolf. The wolf is not necessarily the parent species, but is merely another 'breed' of dog, that was naturally bred in the wild, like the jackal, the dingo, & many other dogs. But not dog has 'evolved' into a horse, or added any variability to become a distinctly different animal. Dogs can breed with each other, even when their sizes are dissimilar. I am unfamiliar with any breeds that are reproductively isolated, but there could be some. But again, all that shows is 'devolution' as less & less genetic material becomes available.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evolution relies two absurd and impossible facts: that random events organized the nonliving into the living and that a random mutation will alter the DNA of a creature in a precise manner at the exact time the precise mutation is needed to cause the creature to survive and procreate.

As I've stated countless times, the odds of the first occurring are a number with 6,000 zeros in it to one. Moreover on planet Earth, life only uses left-handed amino acids, righthanded ones are a dead end and will either not function or cause the cell to function improperly.

I don't care if the obviousness of a Creator offends anyone's sensitive feelings.

Exact time? Give or take a few hundred thousand years. But what you said sure sounded plausible.

Say its a million years.

How many times a second would an event have to occur, if the odds against it were E5,700 to 1.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Evolution relies two absurd and impossible facts: that random events organized the nonliving into the living and that a random mutation will alter the DNA of a creature in a precise manner at the exact time the precise mutation is needed to cause the creature to survive and procreate.

As I've stated countless times, the odds of the first occurring are a number with 6,000 zeros in it to one. Moreover on planet Earth, life only uses left-handed amino acids, righthanded ones are a dead end and will either not function or cause the cell to function improperly.

I don't care if the obviousness of a Creator offends anyone's sensitive feelings.

Exact time? Give or take a few hundred thousand years. But what you said sure sounded plausible.

Say its a million years.

How many times a second would an event have to occur, if the odds against it were E5,700 to 1.

Exact time. You said that.

Evolution isn't a question any more. You've missed the boat.

 

[usfan]

Your baseless claims are not "evidence".
You can claim that the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't amount to "evidence".
Produce links with credible support for your claims or they are de facto nonsense.
The links provided support my position. If you cannot be bothered to read the links then you have disqualified yourself from your own thread.

Have a nice day.

1. I explained the term. That is the best i can do. It was just the usage of 'origins' not some 'baseless claim'.
2. Links are not evidence, but deflections, when you cannot debate the issue. You get desperate, & think an appeal to outside 'experts' will save you. I'll post sources from time to time, if & when we get to actual debating of evidence. But at this stage, assertions are offered, which do not prove anything. What you claim by assertion i can dismiss by assertion.
3. If you are tired of this 'debate' already, i think you may be in over your head. It will require some knowledge of the ToE, & not just assumed belief.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Some organizations will go to great lengths to protect their revenue stream.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your baseless claims are not "evidence".
You can claim that the moon is made of green cheese but that doesn't amount to "evidence".
Produce links with credible support for your claims or they are de facto nonsense.
The links provided support my position. If you cannot be bothered to read the links then you have disqualified yourself from your own thread.

Have a nice day.

1. I explained the term. That is the best i can do. It was just the usage of 'origins' not some 'baseless claim'.
2. Links are not evidence, but deflections, when you cannot debate the issue. You get desperate, & think an appeal to outside 'experts' will save you. I'll post sources from time to time, if & when we get to actual debating of evidence. But at this stage, assertions are offered, which do not prove anything. What you claim by assertion i can dismiss by assertion.
3. If you are tired of this 'debate' already, i think you may be in over your head. It will require some knowledge of the ToE, & not just assumed belief.

You are an expert in the subject matter. You've been schooled in all of the things a nutbag must say to try and convince someone that we did not evolve from lower life forms. You expect others to debate you when your information is bullshit. Nobody's going to go down that rabbit hole with you. This matter has been closed for some time. We evolved. We were not created in anyone's image.

 

[Syriusly]

What is 'micro evolution' versus 'macro evolution' other than larger gradual changes?
Dogs evolved from Wolves- man may or may not have had a hand in that evolution- but man is very involved in the current evolution of dogs. But the evolution of dogs from Wolves happened within the time frame of homo sapiens.

1. It is the central difference between macro/micro, or vertical vs horizontal changes. Micro, or horizontal changes is merely variability within the life form. That is observable science. But the ASSUMPTION that since things can change WITHIN their genetic parameters means they can jump into more complex parameters is NOT science..

What the hell do you mean by 'more complex parameters'?

You have spouting lots of stuff- but you haven't supported any of your claims and you just sound like you are copying off of an anti-evo website.

Dogs evolved from wolves- Dogs are now a completely different species- they can still cross breed with wolves, but they are still a distinct species. Is that Micro or Macro evolution- or are both terms scientifically irrelevant?

 

[usfan]

Sorry. That debate is over. Evolution has been proven.
At some point....sane people accept things.

Yes, i know that is what you believe, but it is my contention that you are misled.. you believe a falsehood, dressed up in scientific terms, but without any real evidence. At one time 'science' thought the earth was flat. Leeches took out bad blood. We are no more at the pinnacle of knowledge than we were before, We have a deeper knowledge base, but much of it is wrong, as we discover every year.

My challenge here is not for a religious defense of sacred cows, but a critical examination of the ToE as it is taught, as FACT in almost every human institution. IMO, it is fading, as many intelligent people are seeing the holes, & realizing it has little to prop it up except for faith.

Could it be that you were sold a bill of goods? Could it be that the status quo is wrong, as they have been many times in the history of man? Science is a good thing. It gives us the tools to examine things, to see if something is valid or not. It does not demand unquestioning faith. Religions do that.

 

[usfan]

The OP has provided absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims that the rigorous scientific method which is constantly peer reviewed is wrong.

All the OP has done is make baseless allegations that it is wrong.

The onus is on the OP to prove that it is wrong.

The OP can't prove their position because everything the OP has posted is straight out of the creationist songbook.

/thread fail

Fine. Dodge the issue. Don't provide any facts. Assume the evidence. It matters none to me. This is just an exercise in critical thinking & logic, using science & observable reality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sorry. That debate is over. Evolution has been proven.
At some point....sane people accept things.

Yes, i know that is what you believe, but it is my contention that you are misled.. you believe a falsehood, dressed up in scientific terms, but without any real evidence. At one time 'science' thought the earth was flat. Leeches took out bad blood. We are no more at the pinnacle of knowledge than we were before, We have a deeper knowledge base, but much of it is wrong, as we discover every year.

My challenge here is not for a religious defense of sacred cows, but a critical examination of the ToE as it is taught, as FACT in almost every human institution. IMO, it is fading, as many intelligent people are seeing the holes, & realizing it has little to prop it up except for faith.

Could it be that you were sold a bill of goods? Could it be that the status quo is wrong, as they have been many times in the history of man? Science is a good thing. It gives us the tools to examine things, to see if something is valid or not. It does not demand unquestioning faith. Religions do that.

No.

 

[usfan]

What the hell do you mean by 'more complex parameters'?
You have spouting lots of stuff- but you haven't supported any of your claims and you just sound like you are copying off of an anti-evo website.
Dogs evolved from wolves- Dogs are now a completely different species- they can still cross breed with wolves, but they are still a distinct species. Is that Micro or Macro evolution- or are both terms scientifically irrelevant?

I think you are in over your head, too. Even among evolutionists, the claim is that dogs & wolves had the same common ancestor, not that dogs evolved from wolves.

 

[Syriusly]

Prove any of what you have stated.
A well known example are the Galapagos finches. There is a well documented study in their 'micro evolution' as you call it- which apparently is evolution you can see happening within your life time- of finches in the Galapagos. During years drought, surviving finches tend to have one type of beak- but during years with more water, the surviving finches tend towards beaks of a different type.
Their diversity doesn't change- the genes are still there- but as the environment pressures the species different beaks structures help with survival.
Extend that reasoning to hundreds of thousands of years within an isolated population, with specific environmental pressures and you end up with the kinds of drift that is seen in the Galapagos.

1. I am not making the fantastic claim. The burden of proof is on those concocting the theory to provide evidence & observable, repeatable experiments to support the theory.
2. Finches remained finches. Their variability was already there. There is nothing to suggest that some mysterious process 'created' new genes to help them adapt. In nature, the opposite is observed. Life forms that do not have the variability to adapt, die out. They go extinct. Your finch example is that of natural selection, which is observable & testable, but it does not support the leap into increasing complexity.
3. Thousands or millions of years do not supply any mechanism for increasing complexity. That is just asserted, without evidence. Time & chance are not mechanisms, they are wishful thinking. Observable, repeatable science says that these kinds of vertical changes are impossible. Fish do not grow legs & become reptiles. Reptiles do not change their scales into feathers. Humans have retained the same mitochondrial gene, in every human being. We are descended from the same parent, and have not evolved separately on the planet.
4. Genetic drift is a lessening of available traits. Reproductive isolation occurs until the child species is too isolated & removed from other 'cousin' species. That only proves that DEvolution is possible, where a species loses so much variability it bears little resemblance to the parent. But, did those traits already exist, within the parent species? Or were they somehow 'created' by the life form. If the latter is claimed, some kind of mechanism has to be defined, observed, & repeated to be considered valid science. Otherwise, it is speculation.

Well that is a whole bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

Chief among them:

Observable, repeatable science says that these kinds of vertical changes are impossible.

There is no such science.

 

[Syriusly]

What the hell do you mean by 'more complex parameters'?
You have spouting lots of stuff- but you haven't supported any of your claims and you just sound like you are copying off of an anti-evo website.
Dogs evolved from wolves- Dogs are now a completely different species- they can still cross breed with wolves, but they are still a distinct species. Is that Micro or Macro evolution- or are both terms scientifically irrelevant?

I think you are in over your head, too. Even among evolutionists, the claim is that dogs & wolves had the same common ancestor, not that dogs evolved from wolves.

Not over my head- but I will agree that there is disagreement as to which wolf dogs evolved from.

At least I understand the concept of evolution- which you refuse to.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What the hell do you mean by 'more complex parameters'?
You have spouting lots of stuff- but you haven't supported any of your claims and you just sound like you are copying off of an anti-evo website.
Dogs evolved from wolves- Dogs are now a completely different species- they can still cross breed with wolves, but they are still a distinct species. Is that Micro or Macro evolution- or are both terms scientifically irrelevant?

I think you are in over your head, too. Even among evolutionists, the claim is that dogs & wolves had the same common ancestor, not that dogs evolved from wolves.

All life on earth shares a common ancestor.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Everyone is in over their head!

 

[usfan]

You are an expert in the subject matter. You've been schooled in all of the things a nutbag must say to try and convince someone that we did not evolve from lower life forms. You expect others to debate you when your information is bullshit. Nobody's going to go down that rabbit hole with you. This matter has been closed for some time. We evolved. We were not created in anyone's image.

No problem. For some reason, when anyone questions someone sacred tenets of faith, they get very testy. Why is that? I know you don't have any evidence. So you rely on arguments of authority, ad hominem, & other logical fallacies. You can keep your faith.. i'm not trying to shake your beliefs. I am just a fan of science & the scientific method, & hate to see it degraded with religious notions.

 

[usfan]

All life on earth shares a common ancestor.

So you assert. But that is the point of this thread, is it not? What evidence do you have for this belief?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are an expert in the subject matter. You've been schooled in all of the things a nutbag must say to try and convince someone that we did not evolve from lower life forms. You expect others to debate you when your information is bullshit. Nobody's going to go down that rabbit hole with you. This matter has been closed for some time. We evolved. We were not created in anyone's image.

No problem. For some reason, when anyone questions someone sacred tenets of faith, they get very testy. Why is that? I know you don't have any evidence. So you rely on arguments of authority, ad hominem, & other logical fallacies. You can keep your faith.. i'm not trying to shake your beliefs. I am just a fan of science & the scientific method, & hate to see it degraded with religious notions.

Look at you.....such a cute little feller. Passive aggressive behavior isn't normally found in those who are great fans of science. What's your excuse?

 

[usfan]

The actual process of adaptation is a narrowing of the genetic code. Fewer & fewer brown rabbits are born in snowy regions, because the white ones hide better & survive predators. Adaptation makes fewer options available to the genetic code. Scientists, breeders, & farmers use that narrowing of the genetic code to create strains in genetic research. They depend on the high walls of genetics to make their research possible. This is in direct conflict with the macro theory, where increasing complexity is allegedly happening. You should not be able to narrow the genetic code, because it would always be jumping to new complex levels. But that is not what happens, so you are left with a speculative belief system.. A leap of faith, using faulty reasoning & bad science to prove something that is in direct conflict with the mechanism you claim that does it.

Do you think the mainstream, scientific or political establishment has ever been wrong in the past? Could they be wrong in the future? Could they be wrong, now? Consider other possibilities. Be skeptical. Question authority.

 

[LoneLaugher]

All life on earth shares a common ancestor.

So you assert. But that is the point of this thread, is it not? What evidence do you have for this belief?

It's settled science, pal. Do some reading. I rely on the experts. The experts have made this clear to all of us.