Thoughts on Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m not talking about evolution, there’s mountains of evidence to support micro and macro evolution.
[/quote]

There are also mountains of evidence to support creation. (Leave micro out of it. We both agree on that)

See Raj, the evidence IS there. But it IS evidence and nothing more. Evidence must be interpreted ESPECIALLY when speaking of the distant unobservable, unexperimentable (is that a word?) past.

For instance the fossil record is often cited as evidence for evolution. And under the confines of that theory it is interpreted to support that theory.

The creation model also cites the fossil record as evidence. But it’s interpreted under the confines of the creation theory.[/quote]

If by evidence you mean cherry picking to suit a predetermined viewpoint, then yes, creationism has loads of evidence.

265

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

…It’s just a little unnerving when I hear Christians suggest things like dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to throw off humans and such.
[/quote]

Then you can let someone else do your unnerving because I have never stated anything like that nor would I.[/quote]

I didn’t mean you specifically, but there are Christians who believe this.[/quote]

That makes them ignorant.

And those who say macro evolution IS A FACT!!! are ignorant as well.[/quote]

Really?

What do you base that on?

What is this “macroevolution” you say cannot happen?

I am dying to know. [/quote]

What is this macroevolution you say can?

I am dying to know.

XXXOOO[/quote]

Macroevolution defined as a change in genome at or above the species level.

Species: Hard, because there is a bewildering number of ways how you can change genetic information, but thankfully, it is quite clear how it is done in vertebrates, which includes mammals.

Since all these animals reproduce sexually, reproductive isolation is a key concept. Once two animal no longer can produce fertile offspring of both sexes, they are, for all intends and purposes, a new species.

See, that was not so hard.

Now lets hear yours. [/quote]

I don’t have a problem with that. The creation model doesn’t necessarily place “the wall” at the species level.

Speciation (limited) CAN happen but the creation model maintains that new species don’t evolve into different ~ families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms (again, keep in mind that taxonomy is very much an inexact branch of science). This IS what has been observed.

The speculation within the macro evolution model begins when this speciation is hypothesized to go places beyond what can be observed and experimented on.

Extinctions DO occur of course, the fossil record is clear on that.[/quote]

That is a meaningless distinction, because even if we could observe a new species that has several ancestors it would require a new taxonomic term.

Much like a horse is a vertebrate, a mammal and belongs to the equidae, a horse like creature would be all of the above AND something new.

What would you would like to obverse would pretty much contradict evolution, if it was observed it would be a strong point for creationism.

267

you had me at Taxonomic -

268

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

…if we could observe a new species that has several ancestors it would require a new taxonomic term…

[/quote]

Have I not already addressed that?
[/quote]

Not really, because you would have to be able to observe a very specific new species, one that fathers, so to speak, a whole new group of animals, just like the first horse like or cat like creature founded the equidae and felidae.

However, this new group of critters would still be a member of all the groups above, so a breaking out of their groups would not prove the ET, it would contradict it.

269

[quote]Edgy wrote:
you had me at Taxonomic - [/quote]

<3 …

271

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Y’all fellers forgive me but I am going to ease outta here for the most part. Between this and the civil war with Yosemite Tirib-Sam and the heckling and funning I need to do elsewhere on T-Nation and training in the gym I’ve been neglecting by business a bit too much.

Have fun.[/quote]

I hope it wasn’t something I said -

272

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I’m not talking about evolution, there’s mountains of evidence to support micro and macro evolution.
[/quote]

There are also mountains of evidence to support creation. (Leave micro out of it. We both agree on that)

See Raj, the evidence IS there. But it IS evidence and nothing more. Evidence must be interpreted ESPECIALLY when speaking of the distant unobservable, unexperimentable (is that a word?) past.

For instance the fossil record is often cited as evidence for evolution. And under the confines of that theory it is interpreted to support that theory.

The creation model also cites the fossil record as evidence. But it’s interpreted under the confines of the creation theory.[/quote]

If by evidence you mean cherry picking to suit a predetermined viewpoint, then yes, creationism has loads of evidence.[/quote]

It would be easy (and appropriate) to fix your post by saying, “If by evidence you mean cherry picking to suit a predetermined viewpoint, then yes, evolutionism has loads of evidence.”[/quote]

Easy, but not appropriate. There is no cherry picking going on, just science.

273

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Y’all fellers forgive me but I am going to ease outta here for the most part. Between this and the civil war with Yosemite Tirib-Sam and the heckling and funning I need to do elsewhere on T-Nation and training in the gym I’ve been neglecting by business a bit too much.

Have fun.[/quote]

I cannot forgive you, I was so hoping for a few clarifications that would have almost certainly widened my horizon considerably.

Now I am standing here all hot and bothered and enlightenment is not forthcoming.

Bummer.

274

As for: evolution is not observable.

So? It does not have to be.

What it actually needs to be is falsifiable, which it is.

One fossilized rabbit, horse or wombat, right next to a dinosaur fossil should do the trick.

However, God poofed it into existence is in no way shape or form falsifiable.

275

maybe 6-8 months down the road i’ll recreate this thread in GAL and see how it goes.

No real point in carrying on the discussion here anyway. I already know where all the regulars here stand.

276

Slate’s latest Explainer column is somewhat on-topic here: (though I wish they also tried to answer that second runner-up question on present-day dinosaurs)

277

800×600 91.1 KB

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

…mutations building up over time will eventually result in speciation anyway.[/quote]

Doesn’t work that way in the real world just in theory (at the macro level). Mutations that benefit a species are relatively rare and when they do happen it is an adaptative (micro) manner. They’ve never been shown to affect (evolve) a population at say…above the genus level. Look into mutation and what that really means, friend.

For instance, look at the mule. Even though their parents are very closely related on the taxonomic level and millions and millions of them have existed for thousands of years their sterility has always been virtually assured (one or two exceptions noted).

The mutation angle really only works (macro level) by “cherry-picking” (word of the day, I guess) in the fossil record and making large, unsubstantiated assumptions and guesses about life forms that the creation model explains as extinctions.

[edit] In this sense the creation model honors the scientific method much, much more.[/quote]

“Cherry picking” isn’t an issue here. Any example of speciation over a single generation is proof of macro-evolution. Sure, it’s rare for such a rapid change to be both beneficial and replicable, but in the face of a few billion years its rarity stops being an issue as well.

Also, I am not satisfied with your counter-argument to my position that compounding micro-evolutionary mutations will eventually justify a distinction is species. Again, rarity is not an issue in the face of billions of years, especially when you consider pressures of natural and sexual selection. Do you deny the fossil record?

279

Hm. I think Push’s stance on microevolution and speciation has changed in the last couple years.

You better watch out Push. If you keep debating this, you’re eventually going to accept all of it.