Is Relatively "Settled Science"?

[Wuwei]

But the fact that the planets revolve about the sun is "settled fact".

That sounds like a trivial comparison, but not when you consider that a few hundred years ago it was thought that planets were on celestial spheres moving in epicycles.

Wait a second ... I thought planets moved in straight lines ... it's just that these lines are curved around the sun ... gravity is a pseudo-force ... (Yeah, there's always one in every thread) ...

Only photons define a geodesic.

 

[Hollie]

No it is not. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is speculation

Shameless lie and a madeup, creationist buzzword. Yes we have observed speciation. No, macro evolution is not a valid term outside of the circle of religious idiot evolution deniers.


Better check the scoreboard...you guys lost over 100 years ago. Go peddle your crap to unsuspecting children, as is your custom.

You might want to read my post more carefully - we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution.

And it was Gould in his Punctuated Equilibrium evolution model who popularized the term "macro-evolution to explain the gaps in the fossil record. You might want to research that as well.

OK, are all cats of the same species or are they multiple species of the same kind? Be careful of semantics btw - one must first define species and also 'kind.'

Genesis chapter 1 states plants and animals reproduce "after their own kind" (see the Hebrew and Greek definitions).

Thus if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a maple tree. Nor do cats give birth to dogs.

The details involve both scientific and Biblical research - but that is clearly observed fact.

I should have mentioned that if you plant a tomato seed you will not get ragweed - though at first you might think so!

You continue to be confused by terms you apparently don’t understand. “Macroevolution” is an unfortunate label used by the creationist ministries to denigrate the science of biological evolution.

You have been given many links to documented instances of speciation.

Hollie - you also have failed to read my posts - or for some other reason are ignoring what I posted. We believe in speciation. We are not creationists - we do not accept all of their doctrines.

And you also did not check out what I posted as to the origin of the term "macro evolution" in evolutionist Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium model to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

www.talkorigins.org

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it,...

In Dobzhansky's founding work of the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937: 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor....

[Filipchenko originated the term macroevolution]

The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as Steven Stanley (1979), Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive."

Please note that in Dobshansky's extensive research into radiation induced mutations on Drosophila (fruit fly) he observed the phenomenon of "Equilibrium" (variation about a mean/average). Of course, he only got different varieties of fruit flies - not mosquitos!

Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory with no observational evidence.

Equilibrium is a fact with plenty of observational evidence.

Actually, Punctuated Equilibrium is a Theory with positive evidence,

CC201.1: Punctuated equilibrium for the gaps

www.talkorigins.org

Claim CC201.1:

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.Source:
Yahya, Harun, 2003. Darwinism Refuted, The invalidity of punctuated equilibrium. Darwinism Refuted.com
Response:

1. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups (Eldredge and Gould 1972).
   
   
2. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, fails to fit the evidence of population biology.
   
   
3. There is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data.

Links:
Elsberry, Wesley, 1996. Punctuated equilibria. Punctuated Equilibria

References:

1. Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould, 1972. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Models In Paleobiology (T. J. M. Schopf, ed.), San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co., 82-115.