Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[brunumb]

I agree, evolution is so falsifiable, that I falsified it.

Oh, dear Zeus! If that were true you would be lauded by creationists and scientists alike. Science tests its theories, not by doing things to prove they are correct, but basically by doing things that will prove they are incorrect. Falsifiability! So far the theory of evolution has survived every test thrown at it. You haven't even tested it let alone falsified it. Your whole case can be summed up as 'tis not. May I suggest that you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[We_Are_VENOM]

The first sign of a lost debate. Go after the character of your opponent.

I wouldn't take it that far. I'm just sayin..

Let me help you out since you can't seem to figure it out or at least won't admit to knowing about it. It's called genetics.

I know what genetics is.

How many times are you going to bring this up? No one is arguing with you. I'm very confused by this constant repetition. The ToE predicts this very thing. So your observation is yet more evidence for evolution. If dogs produced chickens you'd be onto something and have falsifiable evidence that would sink the ToE.

Dogs producing dogs is kind of a different thing than a reptile evolving into a bird. I understand you'd like to think that it is all the same. But newsflash; there is a big difference between the two.

If you bothered to check the links that have already been posted about evolution observed in the lab, you would see your error. It has nothing to do with time per se, but with number of generations. How many generations of horses can you observe? Now how many generations of bacteria can you observe? Which one is easier to see genetic drift in?

Nonsense. Don't try to downplay the whole "time" aspect of it all, because it has EVERYTHING to do with time. In fact, your question of "how many generations of horses can you observe" is only implying time.

"Generations" in this context is just another code concept of "time". It implies time without actually using the word.

And to be honest, "because it takes so long to occur" is the single response to the disbelievers question of "why don't we observe those macro-level changes in nature today".

You are being disingenuous here.

Congratulations, you just provided further evidence for evolution. That seems to have back fired.

Microevolution, yes. You do know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, correct?

Really, we must have missed it. By the way, please scientifically define "macroevolution". That should be very telling. The ToE makes no distinction or even defines the term. Are you perhaps debating a strawman?

Before I respond to this, let me just state that I understand the fact of the whole "micro" and "macro" terminology isn't used in mainstream science. However, since unbelievers of evolution don't view macroevolution as "science" anyway, we don't give a hoot about whether mainstream science accepts the terms, considering the fact that we don't accept their "science" as accurate, as it pertains evolution.

That being said..

macroevolution: Macro means "large scale"...and in this case "large scale changes in organisms"...which in this context can be described as the change from a reptile to a bird. Unbelievers (in evolution) believe that such large scale changes in nature goes no further than the evolutionists mind, as such changes have never been observed in nature and should by no means be taken as an absolute brute fact in science.

microevolution: Micro means "small scale"...and in this case "small scale changes in organisms"...which in this context can be described as modern day canines linage being traced to the wolf...and from that wolf you have many different varieties of the same animal...dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, foxs, etc. We accept this evolution as factual...as we can observe it with selective breeding (experimental), we can create many different varieties of the same animal. This, is science.

My beef is with the concept of macroevolution, and 95% of the time when I use "evolution" as an umbrella term, I am referring to macroevolution.

I understand that evolutionists link both concepts together, as small scale changes can/will lead to large scale changes (according to them), but that is where they leave science and enter the "religion" dimension...because that is not what the science says, it is what their religion is saying.

So you can't do it. As suspected because it's not there.

Here is what is there; the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird. That is there....and incorrectly there, at that.

I can easily demonstrate how a parent lifeform will have a given classification and one of it's ancestors with have an additional classification. It's called "Taxonomy" i.e. the classification and naming of organisms. If we have a lifeform with classification X and someone finds enough differences in an ancestor to add a new classification Y it has happened. It's a human naming convention. It's easier than simply calling everything "life".

I need specifics, not generalities.

Note that the ancestor is still technically an X, but is now also known as a Y. You seem to be hung up on the naming or don't understand how we can figure out ancestry of current living things.

I need specifics, not generalities.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Oh, dear Zeus! If that were true you would be lauded by creationists and scientists alike. Science tests its theories, not by doing things to prove they are correct, but basically by doing things that will prove they are incorrect. Falsifiability! So far the theory of evolution has survived every test thrown at it. You haven't even tested it let alone falsified it. Your whole case can be summed up as 'tis not. May I suggest that you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I tested it. It is called the "eyeball" test. All I "see" is canines producing canines. The idea that canines owe its ultimate existence to a non-canine of the past, is voodoo.

And so far, I am not convinced with the presented "evidence" of this voodoo.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Are you serious with this comment? The frost forming analogy is not even close to explaining the evidence for dinosaurs with feathers. Do yourself a favor and look at this list and the associated links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... f_feathers

Someone who is naive/gullible can, a 100000000 years from now, easily interpret the dried up frost sketches spreadings as wings and even conjure up some elaborated hoaxy idea of..

"a hundred million years ago, there existed some micro-birds which were the size of modern day bumble bees; they flew together in migrated colonies and were blind, only relying on their since of smell...but ocassionally, during their migration trips they would accidently fly (crash) into windows, thus leaving their wing impressions."

Sounds silly? Well, this is exactly the same kind of hocus pocus voodoo stuff that you read in science magazines or text books. Elaborate stories meant to capture the imagination of its readers, sucking them right in to the scam/con.

Second, even if reptiles did have feathers, that still is not evidence that they were in mid-evolutionary stages from reptile-to-birds, but rather that they already existed as separate species from birds and also scale'ly reptiles.

So even if reptiles did once have feathers, that STILL doesn't prove evolution.

[Dimmesdale]

Oh, dear Zeus! If that were true you would be lauded by creationists and scientists alike. Science tests its theories, not by doing things to prove they are correct, but basically by doing things that will prove they are incorrect. Falsifiability! So far the theory of evolution has survived every test thrown at it. You haven't even tested it let alone falsified it. Your whole case can be summed up as 'tis not. May I suggest that you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I tested it. It is called the "eyeball" test. All I "see" is canines producing canines. The idea that canines owe its ultimate existence to a non-canine of the past, is voodoo.

And so far, I am not convinced with the presented "evidence" of this voodoo.

In a sense I agree with you, but I think you need to up your game.

Appearances can be deceiving, after all. Not everything like is like, (and conversely, unlike things can be like). After all, both salt and sugar look exactly the same. They smell the same, I think. The only difference is taste, appearance wise (yet they are chemically completely different). Also there is such a thing as brown sugar.

Reality needs to be scrutinized, not eye-balled, in my opinion. That's whether you are a creationist OR evolutionist.

[benchwarmer]

I know what genetics is.

Fantastic! Why didn't you mention it before then? Or believe that would be the first thing out of my mouth if asked about what branch of science shows good evidence for evolution?

How many times are you going to bring this up? No one is arguing with you. I'm very confused by this constant repetition. The ToE predicts this very thing. So your observation is yet more evidence for evolution. If dogs produced chickens you'd be onto something and have falsifiable evidence that would sink the ToE.

Dogs producing dogs is kind of a different thing than a reptile evolving into a bird. I understand you'd like to think that it is all the same. But newsflash; there is a big difference between the two.

Perhaps I finally see the issue you are having. Which reptile exactly are you talking about? Do you think scientists believe a modern day iguana can sire a modern day pigeon? That seems to be what you are on about, but I'm not sure.

Evolution simply says that the ancestors of modern day birds (pick one of the many, many different species) did not look like modern day birds because over many generations the features evolved. You yourself admit to this being valid when looking at dogs.

From that point, we just get into a naming war. If you go back 100,000 generations of a given pigeon, what was that animal called? Was it still a pigeon? I'm pretty sure it will eventually get NAMED something else, but it is still an ancestor of the pigeon in question.

Evolution as a theory is simply a description of the mechanism of how this happens. How humans decide to name the various lifeforms along the lineage should not cloud the picture.

What do you believe the first parent of modern day pigeons looks like? i.e. the one I assume you believe was originally created by God. Was it still called a pigeon?

If you bothered to check the links that have already been posted about evolution observed in the lab, you would see your error. It has nothing to do with time per se, but with number of generations. How many generations of horses can you observe? Now how many generations of bacteria can you observe? Which one is easier to see genetic drift in?

Nonsense. Don't try to downplay the whole "time" aspect of it all, because it has EVERYTHING to do with time. In fact, your question of "how many generations of horses can you observe" is only implying time.

It actually has nothing to do with time directly, only indirectly.

Evolution is all about reproduction. Time only comes into play when you want to observe multiple generations of reproduction. Thus my comment about bacteria versus horses. You complain that you can't observe any "macro" <whatever that actually means> evolution, but are unwilling to consider lab experiments involving bacteria which reproduce very quickly and allow a much better window into watching evolution in action. You of course (if bothered to actually look) will probably just yell "micro" evolution and further move the goal posts.

"Generations" in this context is just another code concept of "time". It implies time without actually using the word.

No, it implies reproduction is involved. If there is no reproduction, you can wait all the time you want and no evolution will happen. That is the point.

And to be honest, "because it takes so long to occur" is the single response to the disbelievers question of "why don't we observe those macro-level changes in nature today".

You are being disingenuous here.

I could report that, but will let it slide as I think you are just not understanding. The correct response to why people can't observe evolution happening today is "You are not looking in the right place, go observe an evolutionary biology experiment in a lab". I mean, you could watch a few generations of dog breeding and get a sense, but that's not where the 'action' is if you want to see a lot of reproductive generations.

Congratulations, you just provided further evidence for evolution. That seems to have back fired.

Microevolution, yes. You do know the difference between microevolution and macroevolution, correct?

No, because every creationist explains it differently and can't point to any scientific definitions.

What I understand is that some people have issues going too far back in the past, get confused by taxonomy, and invent some convenient (to them) terms for some inexplicable reason. I assume because admitting that scientists name ancient lifeforms something else than modern ones destroys their faith in some way.

Really, we must have missed it. By the way, please scientifically define "macroevolution". That should be very telling. The ToE makes no distinction or even defines the term. Are you perhaps debating a strawman?

Before I respond to this, let me just state that I understand the fact of the whole "micro" and "macro" terminology isn't used in mainstream science.

And there we have it.

Debate over. Please see the title of this subforum.

macroevolution: Macro means "large scale"...and in this case "large scale changes in organisms"...which in this context can be described as the change from a reptile to a bird. Unbelievers (in evolution) believe that such large scale changes in nature goes no further than the evolutionists mind, as such changes have never been observed in nature and should by no means be taken as an absolute brute fact in science.

Wow, quite a precise definition you have there. So what if we are talking about poodles, fruit flies, or deer? Do you need to write a separate definition for each one? What exactly divides the line between "large scale" and "small scale" changes?

If I compare a Teacup Poodle and a Great Dane I see a "large scale" difference. So I guess I just proved "macroevolution"? Let me guess, now you need to further refine your definition.

I can easily demonstrate how a parent lifeform will have a given classification and one of it's ancestors with have an additional classification. It's called "Taxonomy" i.e. the classification and naming of organisms. If we have a lifeform with classification X and someone finds enough differences in an ancestor to add a new classification Y it has happened. It's a human naming convention. It's easier than simply calling everything "life".

I need specifics, not generalities.

Actually, WE need specifics from you. Which reptile name and bird name combination is giving you trouble? And if you reply "All of them" it means you don't actually know where the problem is. It's clear that you don't believe that some reptile with the classification <fill in please> is not the ancestor of any modern day living bird.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #175]

So even if reptiles did once have feathers, that STILL doesn't prove evolution.

I wouldn't argue with that, but there is a lot more evidence than just feathers as far as dinosaurs and birds, and of course overwhelming evidence that supports evolution in general across the plant and animal kingdoms. You suggested in post 166 that ALL dinosaur feather evidence was simply inorganic matter spreading into the surrounding material, but that clearly is not the case.

A good read for you would be The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins (although I expect that name alone would cause you not to consider it). It is my favorite book of his and a long read, but does a good job of starting with modern animals and working backwards along the various evolutionary paths to show what is related to what (and of course showing what evolved from what if you run it forward). You'd learn a lot about how evolution actually does work from that book.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I know what genetics is.

Fantastic! Why didn't you mention it before then? Or believe that would be the first thing out of my mouth if asked about what branch of science shows good evidence for evolution?

I didn't mention it because I am not the one who is supposed to present supporting evidence for my affirmative case, you are. So the question is, why didn't YOU mention it?

Perhaps I finally see the issue you are having. Which reptile exactly are you talking about? Do you think scientists believe a modern day iguana can sire a modern day pigeon? That seems to be what you are on about, but I'm not sure.

Maybe a modern day iguana can't "sire" a modern day pigeon in "one generation". But in thousands of generations and millions of years, who knows.

Evolution simply says that the ancestors of modern day birds (pick one of the many, many different species) did not look like modern day birds because over many generations the features evolved. You yourself admit to this being valid when looking at dogs.

But the difference between what I admit with the dogs and what you believe with birds, is that from what I gather, the ancestors of modern day birds were also birds....so yes, many different varieties of birds were generated over thousands/millions of years. No one is/can deny that.

You, however, seem to believe that the ancestors of modern day birds were not actually birds...and that is where things get....flaky.

From that point, we just get into a naming war. If you go back 100,000 generations of a given pigeon, what was that animal called? Was it still a pigeon? I'm pretty sure it will eventually get NAMED something else, but it is still an ancestor of the pigeon in question. Evolution as a theory is simply a description of the mechanism of how this happens. How humans decide to name the various lifeforms along the lineage should not cloud the picture.

As long as the ancestor of the given pigeon was a bird, then what you "call" it is irrelevant.

What do you believe the first parent of modern day pigeons looks like? i.e. the one I assume you believe was originally created by God. Was it still called a pigeon?

Don't know.

It actually has nothing to do with time directly, only indirectly.

Evolution is all about reproduction. Time only comes into play when you want to observe multiple generations of reproduction.

Nonsense. Regardless of whether or not I want to observe multiple generations, the entire process from start to finish still takes millions of years. There is no evolution without x amount of time.

Thus my comment about bacteria versus horses. You complain that you can't observe any "macro" <whatever that actually means> evolution, but are unwilling to consider lab experiments involving bacteria which reproduce very quickly and allow a much better window into watching evolution in action. You of course (if bothered to actually look) will probably just yell "micro" evolution and further move the goal posts.

Look at that, I took the time to explain the whole macro/micro thing, and you still act as if you don't understand.

Ok, how about this...

Macro: What we can't observe in nature but still manage to believe (some of us)
Micro: What we can observe in nature and have no choice but to believe

So everytime I refer to either macro or micro evolution, refer to the simple breakdown above.

No, it implies reproduction is involved. If there is no reproduction, you can wait all the time you want and no evolution will happen. That is the point.

This is a red herring, as reproduction is assumed in the entire discussion, and this is obvious due to the fact that you keep mentioning "generations", which requires both time and reproduction.

I could report that

Don't be a snitch.

The correct response to why people can't observe evolution happening today is "You are not looking in the right place, go observe an evolutionary biology experiment in a lab". I mean, you could watch a few generations of dog breeding and get a sense, but that's not where the 'action' is if you want to see a lot of reproductive generations.

Any place where animals reproduce is the "right place", and we ain't seen it yet.

No, because every creationist explains it differently and can't point to any scientific definitions.

I am not aware of any creationist who "explains it" any different than I did.

What I understand is that some people have issues going too far back in the past, get confused by taxonomy, and invent some convenient (to them) terms for some inexplicable reason. I assume because admitting that scientists name ancient lifeforms something else than modern ones destroys their faith in some way.

I refer you back to..

Macro: What we can't observe in nature but still manage to believe (some of us)
Micro: What we can observe in nature and have no choice but to believe

And there we have it.

Debate over. Please see the title of this subforum.

"Because X is terminology that isn't used in mainstream science, therefore, it isn't science".

That is the implication. Non sequitur.

Wow, quite a precise definition you have there. So what if we are talking about poodles, fruit flies, or deer? Do you need to write a separate definition for each one? What exactly divides the line between "large scale" and "small scale" changes?

It is simple. One takes millions of years (macro), the other one doesn't (micro). One is a million year change from one kind of animal to the other (macro), while the other takes less time and is a change from within the kind, to the same kind (micro).

If I compare a Teacup Poodle and a Great Dane I see a "large scale" difference. So I guess I just proved "macroevolution"? Let me guess, now you need to further refine your definition.

Um, no. As I stated in the definition, you can (and do) have many different varieties of the same "kind" of animal...but it is still the same kind of animal. The only difference is, one is small and fluffy and the other is tall and smooth.

Sure, you can certainly call this a "large scale" difference, but that has nothing on a reptile evolving into a completely different kind of animal.

Actually, WE need specifics from you. Which reptile name and bird name combination is giving you trouble? And if you reply "All of them" it means you don't actually know where the problem is. It's clear that you don't believe that some reptile with the classification <fill in please> is not the ancestor of any modern day living bird.

The entire theory is giving me trouble. The theory of evolution is like Transformers, if the transformations in the series were in 16x slow motion.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I wouldn't argue with that, but there is a lot more evidence than just feathers as far as dinosaurs and birds, and of course overwhelming evidence that supports evolution in general across the plant and animal kingdoms. You suggested in post 166 that ALL dinosaur feather evidence was simply inorganic matter spreading into the surrounding material, but that clearly is not the case.

From my understanding, it is something that can/does happen given the right environment.

A good read for you would be The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins (although I expect that name alone would cause you not to consider it). It is my favorite book of his and a long read, but does a good job of starting with modern animals and working backwards along the various evolutionary paths to show what is related to what (and of course showing what evolved from what if you run it forward). You'd learn a lot about how evolution actually does work from that book.

What I would learn from the book is how the evolutionist theorized it (evolution) to happen...and I predict that in the book, Dawkins will present the same old tired reasonings...which is that similarities in bone structures, fossils, and genetics should lead us to believe that reptiles evolved into birds (and many other cases of voodoo).

And I counter your book with Icons of Evolution, by creation scientist Johnathan Wells. Of course, mainstream scientist doesn't really like the book, but who cares. This guy is a biologist and all of the so called "evidence" for evolution isn't convincing to him either.

[benchwarmer]

Fantastic! Why didn't you mention it before then? Or believe that would be the first thing out of my mouth if asked about what branch of science shows good evidence for evolution?

I didn't mention it because I am not the one who is supposed to present supporting evidence for my affirmative case, you are. So the question is, why didn't YOU mention it?

Uhm, because I asked you a question? Do people normally supply the answer with the question for you? You were POSTIVE that every person would mention the fossil record. I said I wouldn't and wondered if you knew what my answer was. You never gave it, so I finally supplied it. After which you basically called me a liar rather than admitting your mistake.

Perhaps I finally see the issue you are having. Which reptile exactly are you talking about? Do you think scientists believe a modern day iguana can sire a modern day pigeon? That seems to be what you are on about, but I'm not sure.

Maybe a modern day iguana can't "sire" a modern day pigeon in "one generation". But in thousands of generations and millions of years, who knows.

Actually we do know. It can't happen. The fact that you think evolution says "who knows?" means you really don't understand the theory even after repeatedly saying you do.

A modern day pigeon can't appear down another evolutionary line. Something that looks like it may appear, but it won't be called a pigeon (if the taxonomist who names it knows what they are doing). In this case it would still be an iguana with a new sub classification. Calling it a pigeon would be wrong and confusing as it's not an ancestor of modern day pigeons. The only common thing you could call these two things would be whatever common ancestor they share way up in the evolutionary tree.

Evolution simply says that the ancestors of modern day birds (pick one of the many, many different species) did not look like modern day birds because over many generations the features evolved. You yourself admit to this being valid when looking at dogs.

But the difference between what I admit with the dogs and what you believe with birds, is that from what I gather, the ancestors of modern day birds were also birds....so yes, many different varieties of birds were generated over thousands/millions of years. No one is/can deny that.

Maybe we need to approach this differently. What exactly constitutes a 'bird' in your eyes? Does it have to have feathers? A beak? Talons? Please tell us what makes a bird a bird since you seem to know how to classify things at the 'kind' level - which I assume is what you are attempting to do.

You, however, seem to believe that the ancestors of modern day birds were not actually birds...and that is where things get....flaky.

Look, it's pretty simple. Is a parrot an eagle? Somehow you are admitting that birds have branched out with "micro" evolution, but want to stop understanding the taxonomy with "bird". Unless you believe that every single named species of bird we have today also existed at creation, you have the same problem you are trying to say "macro" evolution has.

At what point did the parrot and eagle share the same ancestor? What was it called? Even if you don't know that, you seem to be fine admitting there was such a thing. Why you stop there when going backwards generationally is baffling.

From that point, we just get into a naming war. If you go back 100,000 generations of a given pigeon, what was that animal called? Was it still a pigeon? I'm pretty sure it will eventually get NAMED something else, but it is still an ancestor of the pigeon in question. Evolution as a theory is simply a description of the mechanism of how this happens. How humans decide to name the various lifeforms along the lineage should not cloud the picture.

As long as the ancestor of the given pigeon was a bird, then what you "call" it is irrelevant.

See above questions about what a 'bird' is. You are hung up on naming, but insist on your own naming scheme. In essence, you are right. What the ancestors were called is 'irrelevant', yet we as humans name things and know each living thing had an ancestor. You don't seem to like the names of some of the ancestors and want to stop at 'bird' when going backwards.

It actually has nothing to do with time directly, only indirectly.

Evolution is all about reproduction. Time only comes into play when you want to observe multiple generations of reproduction.

Nonsense. Regardless of whether or not I want to observe multiple generations, the entire process from start to finish still takes millions of years. There is no evolution without x amount of time.

Again, you have the cart before the horse.

How much evolution (micro or macro if you prefer) takes place over 10,000,000 years for an organism that does not reproduce? If the answer is 0, you have made my point. If the answer is not 0, we are back to you not knowing what evolution is.

Look at that, I took the time to explain the whole macro/micro thing, and you still act as if you don't understand.

I understand perfectly what you are trying to do, but you are failing as my further questioning pointed out. Your definition included hand wavy "reptile to bird transformation". So it doesn't appear to cover fruit flies.

Ok, how about this...
Macro: What we can't observe in nature but still manage to believe (some of us)
Micro: What we can observe in nature and have no choice but to believe

I don't believe anything that is not observable so I guess "macro" evolution is not a real thing nor what I'm talking about when talking about evolution. The science makes no such distinction. Only people trying to deny the ToE start making up definitions like this.

How about an analogy.

If I wander into the TD&D subforum and start claiming certain sins are not 'real' sins because there are macrosins and microsins and only microsins are 'real'. Those macrosins are unobservable in nature. Since not all sin is observable, Jesus can't possibly cover all sin, thus Jesus is limited in what sin can be forgiven. Since Jesus is limited in what sin can be forgiven, an all powerful god cannot be involved. If God is not all powerful, then God is not a real god. Macrosin destroys the entire theology. Only microsins can be forgiven so you will end up in hell if you accidentally macrosin.

The above is the type of argument you are making when talking about macro/micro evolution. It sounds ridiculous and undefined, but you think it somehow calls into question the actual science.