Dissent from Darwinism

[DustinG]

Micro-evolution does occur and is testable; the problem lies where the scientists have taken micro and applied it on a macro level. The evidence is lacking for macro-evolution to sustain it as a theory even as more fossils are being found.

 

[level.eleven]

Micro-evolution is alive and well: just ask any horse breeder or really anyone who breeds animals or plants for specific genetic traits.

Macro evolution is where the problem really lies. It takes too long for humanity to actually see it occurring. Thus we must turn to previous evidence, the interpretation of which is hotly disputed.

Macro evolution is nothing but a series of micro evolutionary occurrences.

 

[88GT]

I would have to ask you if you understood what I wrote. Semantics aside, an unprovable tenet is nothing more than a guess. When a guess is defended as hotly as evolution is then it does become a matter of faith. I do not dispute adaptability which is what you seem to be suggesting as a proven tenet of evolution, but adaptability does not prove nor suggest that creatures can over-time become totally different creatures,so I do not see any evidence for macro-evolution. Creationism, like evolution, is a matter of faith also, to answer your question. Also, it can be argued that scientific validity is a matter of consensus and not necessarily an absolute, especially when it can not be measured and tested.

Yes, I understood perfectly well. You equated one religious group's mythic creation story with a scientific theory that to this date has not been even slightly discredited with real contradictory evidence. At best, it has had varying levels of doubt cast upon it.

With all due respect, sir, adaptability IS evolution. Or more specifically, adaptability is the consequential manifestation of population-level genetic change seen as increased breeding success due to or in spite of external--usually environmental-- influences....and THAT is evolution. It's just easier to say it the first way.

Creationism and evolution aren't even opposite sides of the same coin. One deals ONLY with the origin of life and the other ignores it entirely. Ironically, I happen to have a hypothesis that reconciles Christian creationism AND Darwinian evolution without violating one word of Biblical truth. The two are not incompatible. But you have to realize that modern Christian creationism assumes just as much as Darwinian theory does. If you take only the observable phenomenon (in the case of creationism, God's written word) without imposing any additional details, the two are blissfully compatible.

 

[RockofStrength]

Macro evolution is nothing but a series of micro evolutionary occurrences.

Except that micro evolution remains firmly within one specific genus (it has been a bit since my biology studies so it may be a bit higher or lower on the taxonomic scale than genus) while macroevolution extends beyond those boundaries.

The idea of one type of creature, say a cat, giving birth to another specialized type of cat is clearly demonstrated by breeders every day. The idea that an aquatic animal can slowly develop legs, lungs, etc to permit it to go on land and actually change into a different type of animal entirely is macroevolution and is not demonstrable on anything other than a geological timescale.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a fish that's making the leap to land, (as have many others currently alive).
The jumping fish with a tale of the earliest land creatures | Nature | The Earth Times

 

[88GT]

Of course I understood it - I got an A in the course too. I'll admit it was a 101 level elective, and would not pretend to have studied it as extensively as you claim to have.

But I haven't insulted your intelligence either.

By the way, how much do you know about thermodynamics?

Yet you seem to have no problem attempting to discuss it's finer points in an effort to blow it out of the water.

To answer your last question: some. I would venture a guess that I know a might bit more than the average joe on the street, but not nearly as much as I once knew, and not even close to the level of folks like you and dear hubby who work it on a daily basis. How is this relevant again?

Indeed. But my High School biology class was a loooooong time ago; I'm referring to the popular view of DTE that you would get if you asked ten people on the street.

Precisely, we are seeing the effects of a diluted and bastardized theory in this very thread.

Why did all the animals quit evolving?

Animals don't evolve. Populations do.

But they are still finches. Can they interbreed? Minor changes do not prove evolution. One might ask when groups of wild poodles roamed the earth. Despite man's breeding of dogs to create new breeds they are still dogs.

Actually they absolutely prove it. Evolution is about the population level genetic change. Evolution is NOT one species changing into another, though it is often characterized that way. And practically, if enough genotypical changes accumulate between two previously interbreeding populations to the extent that such changes are now a real barrier to reproduction, we might see enough physical difference in their biology to consider them a new and different species.

The species label is a human construct. If you approach DTE with the understanding that a species is a concrete entity with an immutable definition, it will not make sense.

There still aint no monkeys turning into anything close to people

No, but plenty of people turn into asses. Do you believe it now?

Micro-evolution does occur and is testable; the problem lies where the scientists have taken micro and applied it on a macro level. The evidence is lacking for macro-evolution to sustain it as a theory even as more fossils are being found.

It's not lacking, it just requires a few assumptions that strain credulity, the primary one being that all of life evolved from a single genetic ancestral organism. Of course, this fits with the Big Bang/creation of the universe theory so it's the one that gets played the most. But logically it makes no sense. However, that doesn't negate the theory in any way. It simply means that the theory fails to explain how the overall diversity of life got where it is.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why did the apes and monkeys quit evolving and why arent sharks on land yet? They claim sharks have been around for millions of years?

 

[DustinG]

Here's a fish that's making the leap to land, (as have many others currently alive).
The jumping fish with a tale of the earliest land creatures | Nature | The Earth Times

So because there is a fish that can live on land means that it evolved that way? There is no other alternative explanation? That is saying that a rock that is laying in the middle of your yard must have been thrown there buy somebody (ignoring the possibility that it could have been there since the creation of the earth).

 

[88GT]

Why did the apes and monkeys quit evolving and why arent sharks on land yet? They claim sharks have been around for millions of years?

What stimulus would be pushing them out of the water? Evolution doesn't occur just because for ****s and giggles. THe allelic mutations that comprise the variation that allows evolution to occur is completely random, but changes in genetic frequency of that variation requires an external input into the system.

 

[Bunnykid68]

What stimulus would be pushing them out of the water? Evolution doesn't occur just because for ****s and giggles. THe allelic mutations that comprise the variation that allows evolution to occur is completely random, but changes in genetic frequency of that variation requires an external input into the system.

Wish you would have posted that before these last couple of beers kicked in. Your just ****in with me arent ya?

 

[Bunnykid68]

What stimulus would be pushing them out of the water? Evolution doesn't occur just because for ****s and giggles. THe allelic mutations that comprise the variation that allows evolution to occur is completely random, but changes in genetic frequency of that variation requires an external input into the system.

Maybe because the last two presidents offered up stimulus packages. Who wouldn't come out of the water for that? You know a new muffler and stuff...

 

[sonofagun]

What strikes me as odd is that many -- granted not all, but many -- of the people who would say, "Yes, Darwin rules, evolution, those that can't adapt die off, those that can flourish, yesssireee Bob, I'm on board." are usually the ones who are taxing the living **** out of us to feed, care for, lift up, sponsor those persons in our society who aren't cutting it, for whatever reason. Silly.

Don't forget they try like the dickens to keep species from becoming extinct or dying out from natural competition with invasive/migrating species.

Sheesh...they don't even want to allow our climate to change.

 

[.45 Dave]

Yes, I understood perfectly well. You equated one religious group's mythic creation story with a scientific theory that to this date has not been even slightly discredited with real contradictory evidence. At best, it has had varying levels of doubt cast upon it.

With all due respect, sir, adaptability IS evolution. Or more specifically, adaptability is the consequential manifestation of population-level genetic change seen as increased breeding success due to or in spite of external--usually environmental-- influences....and THAT is evolution. It's just easier to say it the first way.

Creationism and evolution aren't even opposite sides of the same coin. One deals ONLY with the origin of life and the other ignores it entirely. Ironically, I happen to have a hypothesis that reconciles Christian creationism AND Darwinian evolution without violating one word of Biblical truth. The two are not incompatible. But you have to realize that modern Christian creationism assumes just as much as Darwinian theory does. If you take only the observable phenomenon (in the case of creationism, God's written word) without imposing any additional details, the two are blissfully compatible.

Adaptability has not been shown to be macro-evolution anymore than to say that humans with different skin colors who have adapted to their environments are in fact different species.
As far as a hypothesis concerning the Bible: I do agree that there is assumption in both creationism and evolution which is why I classify them both as a faith. Neither are provable and the evidence can be made to fit preconceived notions As to you hypothesis not violating Biblical truth, I can argue that, if you are taking the Word of God literally, then they cannot be reconciled. You see, according to Genesis the word for DAY in Hebrew means a specific period of time much as we use it today. Perhaps not 24 hours as we do know today but a specific amount of time it took for the earth to pass through a day/night cycle.
Next we have specific list of creation. I won't go into it here as you can read it for yourself.
Finally, we are told by Paul in Romans that death came through Adam. The Greek word here means literally death.
Things did not die before Adam sinned according to a literal reading of the Bible and therefore could not have had the great amount of time required to evolve. Nor would creatures have killed, eaten each other or had tribes of primitive pre-humans killing each other for mates, territory, etc.
Thus, evolution is not possible by a literal interpretation.
On the other hand, if you do not take the Bible literally then, yes, you can make it say whatever you wish by dismissing whatever verses that disagree with your premise.

 

[Wild Deuce]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Creationist-Assessment-Fossils/dp/0801065232"]This is a good resource[/ame] for those still on the fence about the fossil record.

 

[.45 Dave]

It's not lacking, it just requires a few assumptions that strain credulity, the primary one being that all of life evolved from a single genetic ancestral organism. Of course, this fits with the Big Bang/creation of the universe theory so it's the one that gets played the most. But logically it makes no sense. However, that doesn't negate the theory in any way. It simply means that the theory fails to explain how the overall diversity of life got where it is.

[/QUOTE]

BTW--thank you for a good discussion on this without either of us resorting to name-calling or disparaging remarks.
Now about the above reply you made to another poster. Am I understanding you to say that you do not believe evolution accounts for the diversity of flora and fauna on earth today? Just curious.

 

[Denny347]

 

[buford t justice]

.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Wish you would have posted that before these last couple of beers kicked in. Your just ****in with me arent ya?

No, she wasn't. She was giving a very accurate description of exactly what evolution is. Not the distorted view that is pushed on the ignorant by those who themselves don't understand it but who make arguments against the strawmen they themselves have constructed.

This is why it is so difficult to have a reasoned discussion on the subject with most laymen, they are most often arguing with their understanding of the strawman construction, not with the actual scientific definition.

 

[Bond 281]

They didn't.
"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

From one of the articles linked. Interesting read, though I don't know enough about the science to have a decided opinion on the subject. Still, seems like some very valid points are brought up that I'm unaware of having been addressed. Anyone care to try?

In the 1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues
noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe
drought, because the finches were left with only hard-to crack
seeds. The change, though significant, was small; yet
some Darwinists claim it explains how finch species originated
in the first place.
A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a
particularly compelling example” of the origin of species.
The booklet cites the Grants’ work, and explains how “a
single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary
changes in the finches.” The booklet also calculates that “if
droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a
new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”
But the booklet fails to point out that the finches’
beaks returned to normal after the rains returned. No net
evolution occurred. In fact, several finch species now
appear to be merging through hybridization, rather than
diverging through natural selection as Darwin’s theory
requires.

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

 

[Denny347]

Wow, I got a neg rep from my posting. It's been a looooong time since I've seen one of those. I now feel the need to post a remedy to my "offending" post.