CDZ Evolution: Valid Science, or Hoax?

[orogenicman]

The only differences between micro evolution and macro evolution are the amount of time it takes for one versus the other to occur, and the fact that neither are scientific terms, being inventions of creationists, not evolutionary scientists. Moreover, evolution doesn't strictly explain how species adapt to their environment. Evolution is a scientific explanation for the origin of species. It is the process by which different types of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. That process knows no boundaries in time, even though time is a vital part of the process.

So you assert. In the previous post i address the false equivalency of this argument. There is a MAJOR difference between simple variability, & the assertion that major leaps can be made between distinct genetic types. Appealing to time has no scientific validity, as no mechanism has been defined or observed that can make this even possible, whether you have millions of years, or minutes.

So I assert? So the scientific community asserts. All of it. Evolutionary scientists do not make distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution because there are none other than the time it takes for one to occur over the other. The evolution of species is what you call "microevolution" whereas the evolution of new genera or above is what has been labeled macroevolution. It is a false dichotomy. In reality, they are one and the same. They occur via the exact same evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection working on the genomes of life forms passed on from parent populations to offspring populations). The only difference is the length of time it takes for one to occur over the other. The only reason creationists attempt to make this distinction is because they know full well they cannot make a valid scientific argument against the origin of species, and because they object to the facts of the ancient age of the Earth; and since it takes so much longer for new genera to emerge than for species to emerge, they cannot accept anything that runs counter to their young world beliefs. So they reject their own pre-defined label of macroevolution. It is the ultimate straw man argument and has no scientific merit simply because there is no evidence to support it.

If you ignore all the evidence to the contrary, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. You are trying to restate the watchmaker analogy, an argument that was refuted over 80 years ago. There is such a mechanism that explains how life evolved; and that mechanism it is natural selection. But evolution has no arrow, nothing that requires one species to be more complex than the one that precedes it. One look at the fossil record will show you that some species become LESS complex than their ancestors, while others become more complex. It all depends on to what the species is adapting. If a species is adapted to life both on land and in the water, and the water dries up in the region as it becomes more arid, and continues to become more and more arid, the adaptations for life in water will, over time, become non-functional, or disappear altogether. Genetically, however, the genes for adaptation to life in the water will still be there in its genome, but have become non-functional. If the region becomes a wetlands once again in another era, those genes could reactivate, and allow for a new species that is once again adapted to life in water. We see this in frogs as well as other species.

So you assert. Natural selection only explains variation. It does not contain any mechanism to allow the vertical jumps to more complexity, as is proposed. We know a lot more about genetics than we did in the 1800s, & it is not so simple to create 'The Island of Dr Moreau'.

So the entire scientific community asserts. Natural selection explains ALL of the diversity of life. It not only explains how species can become more complex, it also explains how species become less complex. Yes, we do know a lot more about genetics than we did in the 1800s. Which is why no one (but you, that is) is arguing from the point of view of 19th century literature.

There is also no evidence of less complexity. Species can devolve into less variability, with fewer traits at their disposal for adaptation, but they do not change genomes or move down the evolutionary scale. A horse remains a horse. It does not become a monkey or a fish.

Indeed, because if a horse could become a monkey, that would refute evolution. You've managed to present two straw man arguments in one post. That indicates a rare talent for bullshit. The ancestors of whales possessed rear limbs because they were land living quadrupeds that, over time, evolved into semi-aquatic species, that eventually evolved into fully aquatic species, evolving not only new species, but new genera and new families as well. During this transition (which, by the way, is very well documented in the fossil record), hind limbs and pelvic region are reduced in size and functionality until we get to the fully aquatic species, which have but residual limbs, all internal, completely non-functional because they don't need them anymore. This is not an example of so-called devolution, since there is no such concept in evolutionary science. It is an example of natural selection acting on genes via epigenetic switches to modify body parts. In this case, the limb bones were redundant, and not only unneeded, but were actually impeding the new species ability to swim after pray. we see the consequences of these changes not only in the gross anatomy of all of the transitional species leading up to the whale, we see it in the genome of whales themselves.

Now, before you attempt to counter this evidence, you must know that I have worked on whales, and have a broad knowledge of their biology. Here is one specimen (in the background) that I studied in minute detail and am expert on this specimen:

You only assert that there are 'genes for adaptation'. That is another argument with the 'looks like' qualifier. If there is a gene for a particular trait, it will be in the dna. If some dna 'looks like' something from another dna, that is coincidental, & can not be shown to be causal.

I made no such assertion. Genes do a lot of things. The most important thing from the stand point of evolution is that they can be turned on or off via other genes that apparently do nothing else but regulate the functionality of dna. These epigenes are a vital part of the evolution of species.

One of the major rules of the scientific method is this:
'Correlation does not imply causation'.
If you make a claim of causation, you need evidence. Merely noting similarity in looks, or making assumptions about any correlation is not valid science.

And if that was what I was doing here, you might have a point. Since everything I have presented is backed by thousands of scientific papers written by thousands of scientists wrt countless field observations, experiments, and laboratory results, and since you have presented no evidence whatsoever to support any of your claims, I'd say that you are the one violating that principle.

Claiming that there are all these genes that only need to be 'activated' is sci fi. There is no observable evidence that this is even possible, yet you assert it.

Welcome to the real world, pal.

Epigenetics It s not just genes that make us British Society for Cell Biology

The assertion that animals create genetic material to adapt is fantasy. They do not. If an animal does not have the variability within it existing genetic code, it dies & goes extinct. THAT is what we observe, not the random creation of new adaptation traits.

We are what we eat. In this case, we are what the genome of the flora and fauna that live within us contain, genetically. Ever here of exogenous retroviruses? Horizontal gene transfer? These are all real, well documented phenomenon. But they are not what I was talking about. Read the article at the link above.

The biological theory of evolution does not, nor was it intended to explain the origin of life. It is only intended to explain the origin of species. If you want to discuss the origin of life, I suggest you start a new thread, because this one is about evolution.

The correlation is always made, & i included the point. But if you want to leave it out, along with any implications from it, that is fine with me. Some people are more invested in abiogenesis, & insist on including it. I was mostly trying to cover my bases, & keep my ducks in a row.

What correlation, where? Perhaps you should pick another type of bird to keep in a row. I highly recommend Darwin's finches.

 

[orogenicman]

I call evolution a religion, because it is based on faith, assertions, & dogmatic, unscientific assumptions.

You call evolution a religion because religion is all you know, and because you don't know enough about evolutionary science to treat it any other way.

It has a mysterious, unknown, undefined 'power' that 'creates' life, like any religious view of origins.

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don't understand the science does not mean it is not science. Perhaps instead of wasting your time posting meaningless ad hominem over the internet, you actually took some biology courses, you might actually learn something.

It is not ad hominem, but an accurate description.

Declaring science a religion does not make it so. Try again.

If you want to validate this belief system as a scientific fact, it is up to you to demonstrate, with repeatable scientific tests, the possibility of this 'theory'.

And those tests are out there in the scientific literature by the bucket loads. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them if you want to have a meaningful conversation on this subject.

]The burden of proof is on those making the fantastic claim, which the ToE is doing.

You've got it backwards, pal. The biological theory of evolution is the most successful scientific theory in all of history, and the most broadly accepted. Try again.

I am questioning the assumptions. I am disputing the assertions of 'fact'.

No one is saying that you cannot question science. Scientists do it all the time. But they back up their questioning with verifiable data. Got anything like that?

You are making the claim that life can move freely within the genetic parameters that dna provides.

From the perspective that all species are transitional, that is true.

But we know that the genetic code is a high wall, & that life forms do not flit about randomly, creating traits, & moving up or down in the evolutionary ladder. That is merely asserted. It is not genetically or scientifically possible, with our current data set.

I hate to break it to you, but Gregor Mendel proved these principles to be true in 1866.

But merely dodging the points of logic, & skirting the lack of evidence for the claim is not only unscientific, but shows the religious nature of the belief system. Cries of 'Blasphemy!' are very common in these kinds of 'debates' & they are evident here. My points here have been dispassionately logical, & i've listed in numbered points & made challenges to prove the claims made.

Don't project your failings on others. it is unprofessional.

'I don't know' is a valid conclusion in any scientific inquiry. Sometimes, the data does not compel a conclusion, so you keep looking. I am NOT required to have a better alternative, to dispute your claims. I can examine your claims on their own merit, without having to compare it to other theories or speculations.

And I would say that you are making a valid conclusion about your own scientific inquiry. You don't know. You don't know because you don't have the scientific education and experience to know better. I hate that for you.

But you are right. Scientific paradigms stand or fall on their own merit. The Theory of evolution has successfully withstood the test of time for over 150 years. Creationism? Is a fools errand that is not only not backed up with science, but is not science at all. It is a religious belief and nothing more, as the SCOTUS has correctly determined.

 

[orogenicman]

As stated elsewhere, this type of semantics abuse obscures communication. When words get twisted this way, they lose their meaning.
Religion is religion.
Science is science.
Theory is theory.
Faith is faith.
Belief is a choice.

It is fine to define terms, which i have done.

You don't get to redefine terms for which everyone else already has working definitions.

 

[orogenicman]

Natural selection: Reducing variability, not increasing it.
The primary condition for speciation is reproductive isolation. That is one of the primary factors in defining a species, that they do not reproduce with other different species. The horse has a genetic link to other horse descendants. These all indicate a narrowing of the genetic material.. a 'devolution' if you will. A donkey came from the same parent species as the horse & zebra, but they are not able to reproduce fertile offspring.. they CAN reproduce, but the progeny is sterile.. like the mule.

Wow, the confusion here is simply astounding. Donkeys can and do produce fertile offspring. They are not hybrids. I can tell you weren't born in a barn. Again, making up scientific sounding words such as "devolution" is not science. Try to get it right next time. Perhaps take a class or work in a stable or something.

Donkey - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

By the way, it is against the rules to copy and paste someone else's work and not provide a citation. That is called plagiarism.

 

[usfan]

So I assert? So the scientific community asserts. All of it. Evolutionary scientists do not make distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution because there are none other than the time it takes for one to occur over the other. The evolution of species is what you call "microevolution" whereas the evolution of new genera or above is what has been labeled macroevolution. It is a false dichotomy. In reality, they are one and the same. They occur via the exact same evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection working on the genomes of life forms passed on from parent populations to offspring populations). The only difference is the length of time it takes for one to occur over the other. The only reason creationists attempt to make this distinction is because they know full well they cannot make a valid scientific argument against the origin of species, and because they object to the facts of the ancient age of the Earth; and since it takes so much longer for new genera to emerge than for species to emerge, they cannot accept anything that runs counter to their young world beliefs. So they reject their own pre-defined label of macroevolution. It is the ultimate straw man argument and has no scientific merit simply because there is no evidence to support it.

When you have no evidence to make a claim, you appeal to authority to bail you out. This is a scientific discussion, not a democratic vote on what is the best science. If the science is valid, we can see it. Logic & the scientific method is fine for me. I do not need the majority view presented, as if that carries weight. The majority have often been wrong, as they are now.

The micro/macro is not a false dichotomy, it is a false equivalency. There is a BIG difference between observable, repeatable variation WITHIN a species, & the imagined leaps from one to another. THAT is the major problem the ToE fails to address. They ASSUME it to correlate, but it does not.

 

[usfan]

Wow, the confusion here is simply astounding. Donkeys can and do produce fertile offspring. They are not hybrids. I can tell you weren't born in a barn. Again, making up scientific sounding words such as "devolution" is not science. Try to get it right next time. Perhaps take a class or work in a stable or something.
to copy and paste someone else's work and not provide a citation. That is called plagiarism.

You are deliberately twisting my meaning. The infertile offspring were mentioned as mules.
I source any quote, if i make one. I also provide links to any quotes, if i make them. My words are my own, & your false accusations have no bearing & do not refute my points.

 

[orogenicman]

So I assert? So the scientific community asserts. All of it. Evolutionary scientists do not make distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution because there are none other than the time it takes for one to occur over the other. The evolution of species is what you call "microevolution" whereas the evolution of new genera or above is what has been labeled macroevolution. It is a false dichotomy. In reality, they are one and the same. They occur via the exact same evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection working on the genomes of life forms passed on from parent populations to offspring populations). The only difference is the length of time it takes for one to occur over the other. The only reason creationists attempt to make this distinction is because they know full well they cannot make a valid scientific argument against the origin of species, and because they object to the facts of the ancient age of the Earth; and since it takes so much longer for new genera to emerge than for species to emerge, they cannot accept anything that runs counter to their young world beliefs. So they reject their own pre-defined label of macroevolution. It is the ultimate straw man argument and has no scientific merit simply because there is no evidence to support it.

When you have no evidence to make a claim, you appeal to authority to bail you out. This is a scientific discussion, not a democratic vote on what is the best science. If the science is valid, we can see it. Logic & the scientific method is fine for me. I do not need the majority view presented, as if that carries weight. The majority have often been wrong, as they are now.

Excuse me? I am a geologist with over 20 years of education and experience. So when I speak from my expertise, it is because I am expert, not an authority. There are no authorities in science.

The micro/macro is not a false dichotomy

It most certainly is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction in the scientific literature between microevolution and macroevolution. It is a distinction made up relatively recently by creationists, and as we all know, creationism is not a science. It is an fundamentalist religious belief.

 

[usfan]

The ancestors of whales possessed rear limbs because they were land living quadrupeds that, over time, evolved into semi-aquatic species, that eventually evolved into fully aquatic species, evolving not only new species, but new genera and new families as well. During this transition (which, by the way, is very well documented in the fossil record), hind limbs and pelvic region are reduced in size and functionality until we get to the fully aquatic species, which have but residual limbs, all internal, completely non-functional because they don't need them anymore.

Bullshit. This is imagined assertions, nothing more. You see some bones that you think 'look like' it 'could have been' a vestigial limb. But that is NOT the only theory, or a proven fact. It is your opinion, nothing else. Your dogmatic statements about whale evolution are imaginary scenarios, not compelling scientific evidence. Everything is based on imagination.. 'looks like', 'seems like', 'could be'... these are not definitive, absolute terms, & there are alternate plausible theories as well.

 

[usfan]

Excuse me? I am a geologist with over 20 years of education and experience. So when I speak from my expertise, it is because I am expert, not an authority. There are no authorities in science.

Then you will have to support your assertions with evidence. Merely repeating dogma that you believe is not compelling evidence.

 

[usfan]

It most certainly is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction in the scientific literature between microevolution and macroevolution. It is a distinction made up relatively recently by creationists, and as we all know, creationism is not a science. It is an fundamentalist religious belief.

Fine. Dodge the issue. Believe that there is no difference between simple observable variation & the claims of added complexity. But you do not support your claim with science, you merely redefine & muddy the definitions to fit within your imagined scenario.

 

[orogenicman]

Wow, the confusion here is simply astounding. Donkeys can and do produce fertile offspring. They are not hybrids. I can tell you weren't born in a barn. Again, making up scientific sounding words such as "devolution" is not science. Try to get it right next time. Perhaps take a class or work in a stable or something.
to copy and paste someone else's work and not provide a citation. That is called plagiarism.

You are deliberately twisting my meaning. The infertile offspring were mentioned as mules.
I source any quote, if i make one. I also provide links to any quotes, if i make them. My words are my own, & your false accusations have no bearing & do not refute my points.

Twisting your words? Here are your words, verbatim:

A donkey came from the same parent species as the horse & zebra, but they are not able to reproduce fertile offspring.. they CAN reproduce, but the progeny is sterile..

None of that is correct in any way. Take a class, pal. Donkeys are not horses. They are their own, but related, species. They mate and produce viable offspring. Donkeys and horses, when mated, produce hinnys and mules, depending on which sex is having sex with which sex. But donkeys having sex with other donkeys produce donkeys that can have sex with other donkeys and produce even more donkeys. Hee-haw!

 

[usfan]

Evolutionary scientists do not make distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution because there are none other than the time it takes for one to occur over the other. The evolution of species is what you call "microevolution" whereas the evolution of new genera or above is what has been labeled macroevolution. It is a false dichotomy. In reality, they are one and the same. They occur via the exact same evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection working on the genomes of life forms passed on from parent populations to offspring populations). The only difference is the length of time it takes for one to occur over the other.

If you cannot see the difference between minor changes in variation, & major changes in the genetic code, you are so invested in your beliefs that reason escapes you. There is an OBVIOUS difference, & NO mechanism proposed to make such changes. Time is not enough. Time has no power or mechanism. Natural selection only REDUCES variability, it does not CREATE genetic material.
You cannot see the difference? Or are you just devoted to irrational propaganda & will not see the difference?

 

[orogenicman]

Excuse me? I am a geologist with over 20 years of education and experience. So when I speak from my expertise, it is because I am expert, not an authority. There are no authorities in science.

Then you will have to support your assertions with evidence. Merely repeating dogma that you believe is not compelling evidence.

And I've done this from my very first post, and have even provided material for further reading. What you have done is made outlandish unsubstantiated claims to which no one in the scientific community would ever agree. But the fact remains, as I've pointed out already, as have others, is that you aren't interesting in compelling evidence. You aren't interested in evidence at all. You are only interested in making your religious stance against something you not only don't understand, but of which you are apparently afraid because to accept it would meaning giving up your own religious convictions. You do have my sympathies.

 

[usfan]

None of that is correct in any way. Take a class, pal. Donkeys are not horses. They are their own, but related, species. They mate and produce viable offspring. Donkeys and horses, when mated, produce hinnys and mules, depending on which sex is having sex with which sex. But donkeys having sex with other donkeys produce donkeys that can have sex with other donkeys and produce even more donkeys. Hee-haw!

That was my obvious point. That you wish to deflect with ridicule says more about your lack of arguments. The subject was reproductive isolation, & i used the donkey/horse line as an example of that phenomena. Your mockery is just another deflection to divert attention from the lack of evidence or logic in your position.

 

[orogenicman]

Evolutionary scientists do not make distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution because there are none other than the time it takes for one to occur over the other. The evolution of species is what you call "microevolution" whereas the evolution of new genera or above is what has been labeled macroevolution. It is a false dichotomy. In reality, they are one and the same. They occur via the exact same evolutionary processes (i.e., natural selection working on the genomes of life forms passed on from parent populations to offspring populations). The only difference is the length of time it takes for one to occur over the other.

If you cannot see the difference between minor changes in variation, & major changes in the genetic code, you are so invested in your beliefs that reason escapes you. There is an OBVIOUS difference, & NO mechanism proposed to make such changes. Time is not enough. Time has no power or mechanism. Natural selection only REDUCES variability, it does not CREATE genetic material.
You cannot see the difference? Or are you just devoted to irrational propaganda & will not see the difference?

Any time a new species evolves, it is not a minor variation. A minor variation is a difference in skin tone between ordinary humans. Evolution of species is something else altogether. Do you even know to what the term species refers?

 

[usfan]

And I've done this from my very first post, and have even provided material for further reading. What you have done is made outlandish unsubstantiated claims to which no one in the scientific community would ever agree. But the fact remains, as I've pointed out already, as have others, is that you aren't interesting in compelling evidence. You aren't interested in evidence at all. You are only interested in making your religious stance against something you not only don't understand, but of which you are apparently afraid because to accept it would meaning giving up your own religious convictions. You do have my sympathies.

I am going to ignore your arguments of ad hominem. If you that is all you have, please continue & enjoy yourself. But i will debate the issue, not wrangle about words, definitions, & personal ridicule.

 

[usfan]

Any time a new species evolves, it is not a minor variation. A minor variation is a difference in skin tone between ordinary humans. Evolution of species is something else altogether. Do you even know to what the term species refers?

So you assert without evidence. You have no proof of this being even possible, much less any observable evidence for it.
What you assert without evidence, i will dismiss without evidence.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If evolution is real why did it stop and why has it never been observed? It's just a theory

 

[orogenicman]

It most certainly is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction in the scientific literature between microevolution and macroevolution. It is a distinction made up relatively recently by creationists, and as we all know, creationism is not a science. It is an fundamentalist religious belief.

Fine. Dodge the issue. Believe that there is no difference between simple observable variation & the claims of added complexity. But you do not support your claim with science, you merely redefine & muddy the definitions to fit within your imagined scenario.

Dodge the issue? How have I dodged the issue. I have addressed it directly, and more than once. It is you who have ignore the fact that microevolution and macroevolution are not scientific terms. They were created by creationists in the last 20 years. You are being willfully disingenuous in this discussion. You clearly don't even understand the definition of biological evolution, which is the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation, migration, and genetic drift. That variation occurs regardless of whether we are talking about thousands or millions of years, whether we are talking about species or classes. The is no micro/macro dichotomy.

Here are the tiny variations within a species:

Here are the major changes that define different species:

 

[orogenicman]

None of that is correct in any way. Take a class, pal. Donkeys are not horses. They are their own, but related, species. They mate and produce viable offspring. Donkeys and horses, when mated, produce hinnys and mules, depending on which sex is having sex with which sex. But donkeys having sex with other donkeys produce donkeys that can have sex with other donkeys and produce even more donkeys. Hee-haw!

That was my obvious point. That you wish to deflect with ridicule says more about your lack of arguments. The subject was reproductive isolation, & i used the donkey/horse line as an example of that phenomena. Your mockery is just another deflection to divert attention from the lack of evidence or logic in your position.

Damn, you can't even be man enough to admit that you made a mistake. Man up, dude.