Poll

Do you believe in evolution?

Round earth evolutionist
20 (69%)
Round earth YEC
5 (17.2%)
Flat earth evolutionist
2 (6.9%)
Flat earth YEC
2 (6.9%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Macro evolution, where's the evidence?

  • 139 Replies
  • 9945 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #120 on: June 27, 2016, 04:52:50 PM »
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13671
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #121 on: June 27, 2016, 05:01:31 PM »
Much wow. This thread was fun to catch up on. Jane, hi! I like the way you talked through how close the scale/feather relationship really is, you are much more eloquent than I could hope to be.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #122 on: June 27, 2016, 05:20:35 PM »
So with that, can you demonstrate one animal forming into another like a non dog to a dog?
How would you propose I demonstrate it? It happens gradually over a huge scale of time.
Just look at the fossil record, the various clearly related animals, and apply the simple logical deductions I've been talking about.

Actually you can't prove that one fossil gave offspring to a different type of fossil. In fact we know very little about their looks and behaviors. For example I believe torosaurus (if I spelled that correctly) was actually found out to be a triceratops with a bigger frill.

Quote
Quote
Actually the only similarity is that they are made from the same material (never could spell it and spell check doesn't pick it up but I think you know what I'm talking about). They form from different sequences of the gene code, they attach differently to the skin, etc.
The genetic code gets altered thanks to evolution, that's hardly surprising. They attach differently because the main body of the object's altered. If the barbs of a feather join together, you've got a scale: if they split apart, you have a feather.

You original claim was that the only difference was their shape if I remember correctly. Plus if I recall they also have different DNA sequences all together.

Quote
Besides, this is all just evasion. I've given evidence for macroevolution: you're asking I give evidence of a different kind, but frankly even without any of that the logic holds.

Where exactly did you gave evidence one kind evolved into another?
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
If that be the case then would there be a time when the flappy things are still useless for even gliding and the arms are too weak for pretty much anything?
And there's only how much and far can a mutation go without being destructive.
But we haven't observed that type of transition.
Why would that be the case?
Actually, you reject every example under the assumption that form of transition is impossible. It's a circular argument. More feasibly, you'd need to actually explain or demonstrate why such transitions are impossible rather than assert it based on your belief they are.

It's been so long I kinda forgot myself. I think I was responding to someone saying something about how did wings evolved.
Yes, and the question remains.

I think the answer to that is if wings evolved overtime then at some point it'll be nothing more than baggy skin on useless limbs because the muscles aren't developed to aid the process.

Quote
Quote
Wait, what was my original claim? I could scroll through the thread but it would help to know which page it was.
Think that line of discussion started in reply 47, page 2 for me though I don't know how many posts you've set up to view per page.

I couldn't find it.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #123 on: June 27, 2016, 05:35:12 PM »
I was taught chivalry. It may be old school but I feel it's right. It means no disrespect or saying I am over someone
If your view on male/female dynamics comes from the fricking middle ages, maybe rethink.



Actually you can't prove that one fossil gave offspring to a different type of fossil. In fact we know very little about their looks and behaviors. For example I believe torosaurus (if I spelled that correctly) was actually found out to be a triceratops with a bigger frill.
Which is why I've been primarily focused on talking about the means by which evolution occurs. Once that's established, it just becomes silly to claim two strikingly similar fossils are unrelated. When everything is exactly as evolution would predict, surely it's easier to conclude that, rather than God creating extinct species to deceive?
And that torosaurus claim is far from consensus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17192624

It's technically impossible to prove anything about fossils: we can only point out the most likely explanations, which in turn only makes sense when evolution is established. Like I said, it's evasion. This is why I am trying to focus on the facts of the means by which evolution occurs.

Quote
You original claim was that the only difference was their shape if I remember correctly. Plus if I recall they also have different DNA sequences all together.
Different shape means different DNA sequence. If their DNA was identical they'd be clones. Some scales will certainly be different to feathers, multiple animals have scales, but the similarities have been explained.

Quote
Where exactly did you gave evidence one kind evolved into another?
The fact you have been repeatedly unable to justify your claim that it's impossible would seem to be plenty of evidence. If you cannot explain why constant mutation wouldn't alter your poorly-defined concept of 'kind,' you don't have a case: all I need is the undeniable fact changes add up.
This is all it comes down to, and this is all I need an answer to. What, exactly, is your definition of kind? Why can mutations not bridge that gap?
I recall that I've been asking this for a while, and it's been a struggle to get any form of answer. There was the assertion 'positive' mutations were impossible, but that went nowhere as you only had a case against strictly-positive mutations, which weren't required.
(After all, you've conceded mutations do exist, so unless you have some reason to limit them, macroevolution is a necessary fact there and then).

Quote
I think the answer to that is if wings evolved overtime then at some point it'll be nothing more than baggy skin on useless limbs because the muscles aren't developed to aid the process.
Even just baggy skin has uses, for gliding: arms have muscles as it is. Why would the existing muscles vanish?

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #124 on: June 27, 2016, 11:41:39 PM »
If your view on male/female dynamics comes from the fricking middle ages, maybe rethink.

It came from the elderly people that raised me, not time travelers from the middle ages. The 50s was their hay day. If you are holding it against me that I like to hold a door open for a female, or not act like a Neanderthal or Brute in front of a female. Then, I guess I am sorry?? Hell I don't know what the hell you want me to say, I already said above I suck beyond reason...was that not enough?



As for attempting to stay on topic without getting much into the science of this let me say a few things. I am not an expert in biology, some of the other topics I participate in here I am, but not this. Of course I have what I learned in college, and I am quite competent in math, it is actually a bit of an over compensation masking some things I lack in. I have though, studied quite a bit in the findings and research, staying away from creationist studies, also attempting to view the actually test and evidence, not the conclusions presented. So I am no idiot, also not an expert, so I would say I sit in the middle of the being competent.

With that said as a foundation to my experience on this subject, also anticipating further required retorts and banter I would like to inject this. I have yet to understand why macro evolution is not considered a belief? Yet creationist are considered idiots for their belief (I am not a YEC as I have attempted to explain to cowgirl). Is this not a double standard?

I am unaware of any recorded evidence to the positive addition of any genetic code to a species or population. There is one postive attribute to the bacterium study that I remember reading a while back, I believe it was up to 60-80k generations. Though most changes was informational deterioration, there was a positive out come of the ability to use citrate as a fuel with oxygen present. I don't remember all the details its been a while. Though it already had this ability, it was just re arranged, no information was added.

Since there is no empirical evidence of said phenomenon how can people whom do not believe in it be considered less intelligent?? There are tons of theories and hypothesis not believed in by intelligent people, yet they are not judged idiots for said opinion. They just don't find enough weight in the evidence.

Also, the plausibility that this is just another theory that will fade away as time passes like so many throughout the centuries. Yet just like people of every generation, we think we are more intellgent than our predecessors. Yet purely what we can PROVE about our biology, in a technical sense, we are less intelligent now than we were 2 or 4k years ago. This of course is just on a biological maximum point of view.

Yet this possibility, people just turn a blind eye to.. evolution it is, so let's prove it some how. This blind one dimensional pursuit to proving something no matter what, has tainted science. The scientific method has been turning into a very low percentage of actually science, and a very high percentage of the conclusion of said parties agenda. It is very sad, as science as a whole I truly enjoy, thus why it is a big part of my profession and life.

However, even in my profession, there is no room for said diluted method. Either it won't work in the real world, or it could be a safety hazard, un reliable ect ect. Of course I want every one of my designs to work, however in the real world that is not a possibility.



Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #125 on: June 28, 2016, 03:52:52 AM »
If your view on male/female dynamics comes from the fricking middle ages, maybe rethink.

It came from the elderly people that raised me, not time travelers from the middle ages. The 50s was their hay day. If you are holding it against me that I like to hold a door open for a female, or not act like a Neanderthal or Brute in front of a female. Then, I guess I am sorry?? Hell I don't know what the hell you want me to say, I already said above I suck beyond reason...was that not enough?
If you think women can't cope with a little swearing, then yeah, bit of an issue. The era the whole chivalry dynamic comes from is one where women were meant to be delicate, fainting flowers. Personally I'd hope you wouldn't shut any door in someone's face.

Quote
With that said as a foundation to my experience on this subject, also anticipating further required retorts and banter I would like to inject this. I have yet to understand why macro evolution is not considered a belief? Yet creationist are considered idiots for their belief (I am not a YEC as I have attempted to explain to cowgirl). Is this not a double standard?

I am unaware of any recorded evidence to the positive addition of any genetic code to a species or population. There is one postive attribute to the bacterium study that I remember reading a while back, I believe it was up to 60-80k generations. Though most changes was informational deterioration, there was a positive out come of the ability to use citrate as a fuel with oxygen present. I don't remember all the details its been a while. Though it already had this ability, it was just re arranged, no information was added.

Since there is no empirical evidence of said phenomenon how can people whom do not believe in it be considered less intelligent?? There are tons of theories and hypothesis not believed in by intelligent people, yet they are not judged idiots for said opinion. They just don't find enough weight in the evidence.
When your driving motivation to believe in something is faith, as it is with creationism, then it has no place in scientific discourse and will be treated as such. (Seriously, try to find any evidence for creationism, that isn't just an argument against evolution. It's not either-or, there are other possibilities). I'm not aware of any 'recorded evidence' of God creating so much as a thimble.
Had this discussion with Luke a little earlier, mind you, and the same question is relevant: how are you defining information in this case?
The only thing that can reasonably be called information would be the genetic bases, to my mind, and there's the same amount in each. Capabilities vary, size/shape etc vary, but the same happens for every single animal over the course of its lifespan. The only difference is evolution doesn't have every possible end result programmed in: it just has the ability to mutate.
And equally, to draw a line as to what mutation can accomplish requires evidence. So, once you've defined information, you must explain why evolution cannot achieve that.

Quote
Yet purely what we can PROVE about our biology, in a technical sense, we are less intelligent now than we were 2 or 4k years ago. This of course is just on a biological maximum point of view.
That doesn't make sense. Pretty sure people 2-4 thousand years ago hadn't mapped the genome. Knowing what we don't know is actually a fair mark of intelligence.
People then couldn't prove any more, and false beliefs are hardly smart.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #126 on: June 28, 2016, 05:25:27 AM »
http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I know it's not the greatest source but there are a few examples in this list of new traits evolving in species.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #127 on: June 28, 2016, 11:26:36 AM »
If you think women can't cope with a little swearing, then yeah, bit of an issue. The era the whole chivalry dynamic comes from is one where women were meant to be delicate, fainting flowers. Personally I'd hope you wouldn't shut any door in someone's face.
It's just respectful. I learned these things from an old man whom was a real man. Married for a couple days short of 70 years, took amazing care of his kids and wife. They were still genuinely happy before he passed, compare that with the crap short term relationships now...He was a head of the curve on racial issues, women equality and life in general. Yes his wife was a homemaker while the kids were young, then she went to work at the school when they got older, and low and behold before she retired she had made it to assistant superintendent. Also, when women were frowned upon driving, guess WHO taught her how to drive...he didn't care what his friends or public thought..hell in France they used to call her Mrs. Race car (in French) in the 50s... Sounds like a woman hater with women hating ideals to me ::) ::)

Simple fact, women are different than men, just like black is different than white, brown different that tan ect ect ect. Humans are on an equal playing field, yet every race, gender and individual person has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't agree with this everyone is the same crap, its not intelligent, forced and un natural. Everyone should be open about their strengths and weaknesses. Some people are stronger than others, some are smarter, some are more creative ect ect. The human race should work to form a team, not a blob. If you are pulling a sled, the strong people needs to pull, the creative need to design it, the mechanical minded build it...just for an example. 

Anyways, I am going to stick with a something that actually has been shown to work personal wise and world view. You can call me a woman hating pig if you want. Or that I think all women have male genitalia, or you can add whatever you want that makes you feel better.   
Quote
When your driving motivation to believe in something is faith, as it is with creationism, then it has no place in scientific discourse and will be treated as such. (Seriously, try to find any evidence for creationism, that isn't just an argument against evolution. It's not either-or, there are other possibilities). I'm not aware of any 'recorded evidence' of God creating so much as a thimble.
I never said anything about God creating everything. I just said evolution is a faith just like believing in a creator. There is no scientific empirical evidence for either. Some circumstantial evidence for both cases.
Quote
Had this discussion with Luke a little earlier, mind you, and the same question is relevant: how are you defining information in this case?
Lets use the bacterium experiment. I want to see the bacteria start to form into something else, maybe a fungus or algae for example. We should be seeing something by now with how many generations we can simulate. I just want to see something turn into something else..that is it. Just like an atheist would want to see a bonafide miracle like an arm growing back before their eyes.

Quote
That doesn't make sense. Pretty sure people 2-4 thousand years ago hadn't mapped the genome. Knowing what we don't know is actually a fair mark of intelligence.
People then couldn't prove any more, and false beliefs are hardly smart.

Hence why I used the word biology many times in that paragraph. If we compared our maximum biological potential now, with say 3k years ago. The maximum would be a bit higher then than now, barely measurable but it would certainly exist. I was just trying to explain the point we were not idiots then, and their were many brilliant people. Sure education wasn't wide spread like now ect ect ect, however I was not speaking on an economic level. Also remember, this only applies to first world countries. Through missionary work, I can promise you that there are billions of people that are no more educated or intelligent than the surfs were. 

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I know it's not the greatest source but there are a few examples in this list of new traits evolving in species.

That is pretty cool stuff (non sarcasm here), very solid cases for adaption. Nothing for macro-evolution. Cool though (again, non sarcasm here)
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #128 on: June 28, 2016, 12:47:33 PM »
You can call me a woman hating pig if you want. Or that I think all women have male genitalia, or you can add whatever you want that makes you feel better. 
I'll stick with 'overly defensive' and 'wrong.' You're putting a hell of a lot of words in my mouth.
 
Quote
I never said anything about God creating everything. I just said evolution is a faith just like believing in a creator. There is no scientific empirical evidence for either. Some circumstantial evidence for both cases.
You compared to creationists, so I referenced creationist beliefs.

Quote
Quote
Had this discussion with Luke a little earlier, mind you, and the same question is relevant: how are you defining information in this case?
Lets use the bacterium experiment. I want to see the bacteria start to form into something else, maybe a fungus or algae for example. We should be seeing something by now with how many generations we can simulate. I just want to see something turn into something else..that is it. Just like an atheist would want to see a bonafide miracle like an arm growing back before their eyes.
Please answer the question I actually asked. How are you defining information in this case?
Further, drastically changing a bacteria to a completely different class of being is not going to be particularly feasible in a lab, and remains unnecessary. We know the process can occur. Unless you're going to provide any justification for your claim that mutations will somehow stop short of a certain point (something I've also been asking Luke justify for a fair while now) evolution is proven.

Atheists asks for evidence of miracles etc because it is an entirely new class of entity. We have never seen anything approaching, for example, an arm regrowing. We have seen literally every necessary and sufficient aspect of evolution, and unless you would care to explain what prevents changes from adding up, I think we're done.

Quote
Hence why I used the word biology many times in that paragraph. If we compared our maximum biological potential now, with say 3k years ago. The maximum would be a bit higher then than now, barely measurable but it would certainly exist. I was just trying to explain the point we were not idiots then, and their were many brilliant people. Sure education wasn't wide spread like now ect ect ect, however I was not speaking on an economic level. Also remember, this only applies to first world countries. Through missionary work, I can promise you that there are billions of people that are no more educated or intelligent than the surfs were. 
What on earth are you talking about?!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13671
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #129 on: June 28, 2016, 03:42:49 PM »
Something worth adding to the conversation is that an important part of a scientific theory is its ability to make predictions that can be falsified. To that point, the Theory of Evolution has been incredibly successful. Scientists have looked at gaps in the fossil record, made a reasonable guess about traits of an organism that would fill such a gap, and then later on found fossils that date to the right time period and have the expected traits. It's really an incredible accomplishment. This is not the same as faith, and calling it faith is being intellectually dishonest. All it takes is one falsification to disprove a theory, and ANY biologist would love to be the person to disprove it because they would instantly be world-renowned. And unlike something based on faith, as soon as a theory is falsified, scientists have no problem accepting something was wrong (or, as is more often the case with mature theories, simply incomplete).

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #130 on: June 28, 2016, 06:08:44 PM »
I was taught chivalry. It may be old school but I feel it's right. It means no disrespect or saying I am over someone
If your view on male/female dynamics comes from the fricking middle ages, maybe rethink.



Actually you can't prove that one fossil gave offspring to a different type of fossil. In fact we know very little about their looks and behaviors. For example I believe torosaurus (if I spelled that correctly) was actually found out to be a triceratops with a bigger frill.
Which is why I've been primarily focused on talking about the means by which evolution occurs. Once that's established, it just becomes silly to claim two strikingly similar fossils are unrelated. When everything is exactly as evolution would predict, surely it's easier to conclude that, rather than God creating extinct species to deceive?
And that torosaurus claim is far from consensus: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17192624

It's technically impossible to prove anything about fossils: we can only point out the most likely explanations, which in turn only makes sense when evolution is established. Like I said, it's evasion. This is why I am trying to focus on the facts of the means by which evolution occurs.

I'm not trying to evade. I'm trying to understand.

Quote
Quote
You original claim was that the only difference was their shape if I remember correctly. Plus if I recall they also have different DNA sequences all together.
Different shape means different DNA sequence. If their DNA was identical they'd be clones. Some scales will certainly be different to feathers, multiple animals have scales, but the similarities have been explained.

Multiple animals have scales but they don't come from the same DNA sequence. For example fish in the arctic have antifreeze that is produce from a different sequence than the ones in the Antarctic.
Quote
Quote
Where exactly did you gave evidence one kind evolved into another?
The fact you have been repeatedly unable to justify your claim that it's impossible would seem to be plenty of evidence. If you cannot explain why constant mutation wouldn't alter your poorly-defined concept of 'kind,' you don't have a case: all I need is the undeniable fact changes add up.

We haven't observed constant mutation. We have observed genetic limits in sizes, breedability, and resistance to diseases.

Quote
This is all it comes down to, and this is all I need an answer to. What, exactly, is your definition of kind? Why can mutations not bridge that gap?

Like I said, kind is family. Family is a group of animals with similar traits and DNA that can breed either directely or a third party. As for why can't mutations bridge that gap, I don't know. That's for the scientist to discover why.

Quote
I recall that I've been asking this for a while, and it's been a struggle to get any form of answer. There was the assertion 'positive' mutations were impossible, but that went nowhere as you only had a case against strictly-positive mutations, which weren't required.
(After all, you've conceded mutations do exist, so unless you have some reason to limit them, macroevolution is a necessary fact there and then).

I don't think I need to find a reason why mutations have limits. I only need to show that they do.
Quote
Quote
I think the answer to that is if wings evolved overtime then at some point it'll be nothing more than baggy skin on useless limbs because the muscles aren't developed to aid the process.
Even just baggy skin has uses, for gliding: arms have muscles as it is. Why would the existing muscles vanish?

They wouldn't, however they wouldn't work properly to aid even in gliding.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #131 on: June 28, 2016, 06:13:55 PM »
Jane...leaving the sexism subject alone let me answer your question that I do not recall you asking multiple times, or that I did not intentionally ignore. I want to see a mutation in genetic code caused by the addition of information that will result in a net benefit of the organism. Not a somatic mutation I want to see it in the code, it must also be beneficial.

I also want to see something somewhere that is beginning to be "something else", a mutation that can bridge a gap between species and breed ability.. we can leave this alone for the moment until the previous is settled.

You see you kind of put yourself in a rut as you said the reason we have not witnessed any evidence of macro evolution is because there was no reason to, even in test that are drawing close to 100k generations. So if lack of "purpose" is the cause of no evidence? Then what was the purpose of the original transformation ? For 100k generations no one has witnessed a piece of bacteria unhappy being such , wanting more trying for more. Nor do we have any instances to refer to in the uncontrolled world. However we are in a lul right now... convenient. Just the same an athiest would say to a creationist about the lack of miracles...God's just not in the mood... convenient.

Quote from: Jane
What on earth are you talking about?
The more times the human genome is copied the more crap it picks up. Which is why our ancestors 1000s of years ago on a technical level are better than us. We have ideas and think we are the intelligent ones, yet in reality we are the inferior product. This is as simple as I can put it. This is also another knock against evolution but I will leave that alone as well for now.


To boydster.. There are far too many issues with carbon dating and fossil records to use that as solid proof of evolution. It provides mild circumstantial evidence at best. Just the records themselves are open to WAY too much interpretation of the beholder, as well as the intermediate issues. Then there are the issues with carbon dating ect. I find it interesting certainly, but it is far far from a "smoking gun"
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 06:21:57 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13671
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #132 on: June 28, 2016, 07:27:27 PM »
I didn't say carbon dating. But, again, reinforcing evidence... Radiometric dating says if we find a certain percentage of a radioactive element in something, we have a very good idea of how old that thing must be. Fossil evidence allows us to look at fossils we can at the very least put in chronological order based on layers of rock. Putting both together, we can estimate the age of different fossils. Whether you buy it or not, there is something further that ends up adding the that "reinforcing" thing I mentioned first.

When evolution predicts that a certain organism with specific physical characteristics must have existed in some specific gap between two other organisms, and an organism is later found that matches the physical characteristics, radiometric dating always places that newly found organism during the gap period. Differences about whether radioactive decay is constant or not, the fact remains that both evolution and radiometric dating lead to consensus when used to analyze new paleontological discoveries.

And holy cow. Leave out the radiometric dating. A gap in the fossil record gives a scientist a chance to predict an organism that should fill that gap. When looking in rocks that are above layers that have one of those known organisms, and below layers that have another of those organisms, and you find the organism that you predicted... well... you just found evidence to support the theory. No dating required, just an understanding that older stuff is on the bottom. Same reason trilobites are found in layers of rock that are deeper than velociraptor, every time. One trilobite being found in the fossilized stomach cavity of a raptor and you've turned evolution on its head.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #133 on: June 28, 2016, 08:21:54 PM »
Ok...ok only saying one thing about dating then leaving it be. I won't throw out he usual rebuttals to radiometrics. All i will say is I don't like the assumption of the decay rates being unchanged. That is a massive assumption when all we have is 60 years of proof. Just random example as I collect some of them, say a katana from the 1400s, we are still unsure how to duplicate their process. At that time, they would hold the metal to a clear sky, then when it blended perfectly they would start to forge it. If you ever compared a modern sword to a vintage one from this time period they are light years apart. One sounds hollow, the vintage one literally sounds like a brick, no ring whatsoever. Part of what I do being metallurgy research, of course this interests me.

My whole point is things change... obviously the color of the sky has changed to an extent, so what else happened or changed? Also I don't really care about the dating as I have never been sold on a young earth. Even if including the Bible, there are monster time gaps especially in the beginning.

As for the rest you basically repeated what you said earlier. I will repeat what I said, there is too much interpretation that is open to the eye of the beholder. Yes in intermediate fossils, and especially in fossils proving the actually changing from one species to another.

It's closer to the psychiatrist holding up an abstract painting and saying what do you see... especially when it comes to changes or relations.

I will also add this...yes I know the rebuttal to the usual if we evolved from apes why are there still apes is we came from a common ancestor that has vanished. So leaving that alone...are you telling me out of all the millions of species and sub species, even including simple celled organisms we see nothing in transition?? I find this very hard to stomach...

I want you to imagine the grotesque intermediaries and failures that would have resulted from true evolution. Just for something as simple as to grow a finger in a usable location, or not to mention go from gilled to lungs. Can you imagine the time lapse that would have had to happen and how many failures just to move from breathing oxygen in water, then to open atmospheric oxygen ? That is why more and more time keeps being added, the time genie ... Doesn't make sense, just add time. Not to mention the why, however i already stated that question with Jane. Or the how, as we have not even begun to show how that type of information could be added synthetically, not to mention naturally.
 I do not see how any of that would not throw up a flag in a rational logical mind
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 08:26:15 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13671
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #134 on: June 28, 2016, 08:40:46 PM »
I don't even know where to begin. Literally every species is a transition species, because there is no goal. Lots of so-called transition species have been found. The problem is, once they are found, they are no longer called transition species because the goal posts are moved to the new transition species between the one that was found and a species that came before or after it. You and I are part of a species that is a transition species.

What I said wasn't a repeat. You can leave radiometric dating out of it. Just going by layers, the layers that organisms are found in agrees with evolution. Radiometric dating just adds converging evidence, but it's not needed to determine that older stuff is in deeper layers. Even if radioactive decay were to change over time, it doesn't change the fact that older stuff would be found in layers underneath newer stuff.

Your whole point that things change has no bearing on anything. Some things change. You have no evidence that everything changes, like underlying laws that govern the universe. To claim so is hypocritical, given you won't allow evidence about how things work beyond the scope of written record. And also apparently organisms can't change all that much, even though your opinion is in disagreement with the current understanding of how genetics works. It's interesting which things you think are subject to change, and which things you think are not. I've heard people (not just you, BHS, not singling you out) claiming that the speed of light can change and the rate of radioactive decay can change, all without any hard evidence (and certainly none during the period where people have been able to document their findings), but even though there is a known mechanism for species to change from one generation to the next, the same people will argue that there is some kind of line that can't be crossed with respect to how much mutation can occur.

Regarding failures... There have been plenty of failures along with way. Hence, all of the extinct species. Literally every species that isn't alive today has been a failure. So what? That just goes to show that evolution works - an organism that isn't well-adapted to its environment will have a lesser chance of passing along its DNA to the next generation.

Finally, your entire last paragraph is simply an argument from incredulity.

Once the mechanism for change is acknowledged (genetic mutation), it is incumbent on the one claiming there is a mechanism to inhibit that change at a certain specific point to prove that mechanism exists. Have at it. And good luck, there's a Nobel prize in it for you if you can do it, I'm sure. Your name would be in almost every biology book taught in almost every school around the world. And if you prove it, guess what? People like me, Jane, or any one else that doesn't take Theory of Evolution on faith will read your work and your reasoning and, if it's sound, acknowledge that there was a flaw in the previous theory.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2016, 08:51:47 PM by boydster »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 10727
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #135 on: June 28, 2016, 09:50:17 PM »
I am sure there is a Nobel prize in it if I could prove mechanism responsible for such a change, or if it was even possible. Along with death threats and assassination attempts. Though biology is not my specialty as I stated already. My knowledge is acceptable and I am informed, yet nothing special.

I also apologize for hitting so many points at once, my ADD is a bitch on massive subjects like this. Its like pulling nails, such as a subject like the 9 11 thread, something that does fall into some of my specialties, my mind can think and mentally speak multiple paragraphs at once...yet my mouth or hands cannot. So at times it is like nails on a chalk board to myself.

I should have not brought in failures, and some of the other things I did, I was just ADD. As I have said before, I am average or maybe even under developed in some things, yet over developed in others. Unfortunately writing is not one of my strongest qualities. I can debate well if I am limited to just ONE thing, however, give me a massive subject, things will go south.

So attempting to minimize to one thing at a time. First off I have never stated anything can travel faster than the speed of light. Though there has been some announcements of a sub atomic particle, under peer review it has not stood up. Is the possibility there, sure, fact no.

Yes you are correct, older things are usually deeper except in rare occasions. Actually I need to stop here...

Let me focus on ONE thing. One point I am attempting to make, until the evidence is solid enough to be able to prove the mechanism that is responsible, as well as what its capability really is, evolution should be considered a theory along with all the other theories. Everyone putting their eggs all in one evolutionary basket seems very irresponsible to me. The public is taught evolution is a fact when it is far from it. I find this very damaging. Treating it as a fact is purely a faith at this junction. The majority of the public just accepts whatever is told and creative or freedom of thought is heavily frowned upon. If the general mass of people were creative or critical thinkers, I would not care.

If one day it gets to the point where the mechanism is found and proven, can be recreated, just like the scientific model requires. Then I would recant all of this. I like creative thinking, such as string theory, I have read almost every book printed on the matter its fantastic. I like critical thinking on evolution, hell where am I right now??? A flat earth forum, I wanted to read up about the hypothesis, see if there was any credibility. However, all these theories being treated as facts, this is where my irritation and disagreement comes in at. For reasons I have said before and above..

Just leave the faith and wishful thinking out of science, let the model do its work. The truth will always come out.
Quote from: Crutchwater
Quote from: FlatOrange
You can't murder a suicide victim
Tell that to Epstein!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 13671
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #136 on: June 29, 2016, 04:14:10 AM »
That's the thing... it IS a theory. A well-tested, falsifiable theory with tons of support from various fields of research that, over its lifespan, hasn't been proven wrong once.

And the mechanism for change has been identified and well-studied. It's genetic mutation.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #137 on: June 29, 2016, 05:09:50 AM »
Multiple animals have scales but they don't come from the same DNA sequence. For example fish in the arctic have antifreeze that is produce from a different sequence than the ones in the Antarctic.
That's just convergent evolution. It's a useful trait, it'd develop and be naturally selected for. It's also perfect evidence for evolution: if two species on opposite sides of the world developed the exact same genetic code without interbreeding etc, that would be in favour of a designer.

Quote
We haven't observed constant mutation. We have observed genetic limits in sizes, breedability, and resistance to diseases.
Sizes, disease resistance - irrelevant. No one's claiming an elephant the size of a skyscraper will evolve.
Breedability - we know there are grey areas, like mules.


Quote
Like I said, kind is family. Family is a group of animals with similar traits and DNA that can breed either directely or a third party. As for why can't mutations bridge that gap, I don't know. That's for the scientist to discover why.
So you don't actually have a single argument, then? If you can't explain why what you're claiming is impossible, you're just asserting it.
You've been using multiple definitions for kind and family over the course of discussion. This one's already been shown to have grey areas, strongly implying development between them.

Quote
I don't think I need to find a reason why mutations have limits. I only need to show that they do.
Which can only feasibly be done by providing a reason. No one's said mutations are unlimited, but you're claiming certain animals can't evolve into others, and if your only argument is based on the fact evolution occurs too slowly to be directly observed, then you don't have an argument. And you certainly do need to explain how you know the mutations you're referring to are impossible. Demonstrating abstract limits is pointless unless you can show how they apply.

Quote
Quote
Even just baggy skin has uses, for gliding: arms have muscles as it is. Why would the existing muscles vanish?

They wouldn't, however they wouldn't work properly to aid even in gliding.
How is that the case? To glide, it's just need to be able to hold its arms out. I can do that just fine with my very much wingless limbs.





Jane...leaving the sexism subject alone let me answer your question that I do not recall you asking multiple times, or that I did not intentionally ignore. I want to see a mutation in genetic code caused by the addition of information that will result in a net benefit of the organism. Not a somatic mutation I want to see it in the code, it must also be beneficial.
Are you serious? I have asked you twice now how you are defining information. I can't answer a question if you won't explain what you're talking about.
Plus, moving the goalposts to encompass 'beneficial.' Already been over this with Luke: no mutation is going to be strictly beneficial. Everything's a balancing act: gaining a new ability might be useful, but it would also mean you might need to, say, eat more to have the energy to use it, which would reduce resources available... How do you plan to gauge 'net benefit?' Seems rather unfeasible to me: you could point out the negatives and all we'd be left with is asserting that the positives or negatives outweigh the other.

And further, this is still not my question. I am asking, and have always been asking, why you claim that this is impossible. Stop just asserting that it is and say why.

Quote
I also want to see something somewhere that is beginning to be "something else", a mutation that can bridge a gap between species and breed ability.. we can leave this alone for the moment until the previous is settled
No need, it's trivial: evolution doesn't think in terms of end goals. It doesn't think. It's just random mutation governed by natural selection: good mutations survive. There's no goal 'something else,' everything is constantly mutating. Every animal is beginning to be 'something else.'

Quote
You see you kind of put yourself in a rut as you said the reason we have not witnessed any evidence of macro evolution is because there was no reason to, even in test that are drawing close to 100k generations. So if lack of "purpose" is the cause of no evidence? Then what was the purpose of the original transformation ? For 100k generations no one has witnessed a piece of bacteria unhappy being such , wanting more trying for more. Nor do we have any instances to refer to in the uncontrolled world. However we are in a lul right now... convenient. Just the same an athiest would say to a creationist about the lack of miracles...God's just not in the mood... convenient.
A one-off minor trait is just random mutation by force of numbers. A massive change of kind relying on an upheaval of pretty much everything about the species, that definitely requires a cause. you're comparing apples and oranges.
Don't forget there are two key elements to evolution: random mutation and natural selection. The former causes the changes, the latter is what streamlines them: the beneficial changes get passed on because those creatures without them have less chance to do so. Huge changes, such as you're asking for, would plainly need natural selection, otherwise the mutations would likely just even out over the generations.

Quote
The more times the human genome is copied the more crap it picks up. Which is why our ancestors 1000s of years ago on a technical level are better than us. We have ideas and think we are the intelligent ones, yet in reality we are the inferior product. This is as simple as I can put it. This is also another knock against evolution but I will leave that alone as well for now.
It's just assertion.

And, quick note:
Quote
All i will say is I don't like the assumption of the decay rates being unchanged.
That's usually just the simplified model for quicker calculations. Scientists use calibration curves when they're being specific, using the amount of whatever chemical they're looking for in something they know the age of (eg: via tree rings) to gauge how much would have been around.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #138 on: June 29, 2016, 07:33:30 AM »

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

I know it's not the greatest source but there are a few examples in this list of new traits evolving in species.

That is pretty cool stuff (non sarcasm here), very solid cases for adaption. Nothing for macro-evolution. Cool though (again, non sarcasm here)

Luke already had a tough time delineating what the difference between adaptation (micro-evolution, mutation) and macro-evolution (speciation) is, but maybe you can clarify?.  If you build up enough adaptations after a long enough time, what would prevent you from becoming a different species? 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

pagan_praetor

  • 22
  • Unify FET
Re: Macro evolution, where's the evidence?
« Reply #139 on: July 01, 2016, 01:38:35 AM »
Macroevolution, explained with colors.



also, bats. one generation did not have wings and were not bats, and a few generations later, wings and echolocation appeared and they became what we now call bats.