Evolution, not a fact??????

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Might I suggest you go back and read it in full without thinking extracting two words is of any value.

Your sentence implied I also have hate, I simply wish to know why you wrote it.

His is backed up by evidence, so where is yours that it relies "purely" on conditional belief and that denial of god is of any relevance to it?

My observation is not scientific, I don't think modern science is equipt to understand subjective analasys. The observation is based on the fact that he can produce no tangible evidence for his claim, while at the same time claim it is a scientific fact (although nothing has been observed, tested etc..), coupled with the explicit belief that God does not exist. It's like adding 2+2 and getting 4.

There you are demanding people supply evidence, (which they do), while you seem to think it's perfectly ok for you to fart arse around with pure assumption, unfounded allegation, and fantastical make believe - while, I hasten to add, spending a lot more time attacking the people than the argument itself. A tragically naive way of conducting a debate.

This is nonsense. If someone claims something to be a scientific fact, then they should easily produce the proof of evidence if asked.
Calling someone a blockhead is not an attack, it is a hat which definately fits a person who claims that God does not exist, while putting foreward an idea as scientific fact, knowing that it isn't really.

The funny thing is you're getting all worked up, typing in caps, insulting the other forum users and so on without having even done the decency thus far of answering my question to you. I did state that we can move on once that question has been answered, kindly do so.

It is a matter of communication, and to me caps are just bold letters to make the words more noticable. There is nothing to get worked up about.

I mean.. if changes keep occuring, what is to stop them? And that is the question you must answer for me to be able to go any further.

What is to stop them from microbe to giraffe?
Why do you insist that such changes take place?
What, in nature, or any scientific observation leads you to the definate conclusion that (micro) evolution leads to such a change?

But how would you know? In your own words: "I cannot be bothered reading his post".

I have asked for proof of macroevol and he has supplied nowt, so how is it going to be any different on any other thread?

Perhaps a starting point for you would be: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Thanks, but I already have the site.

However, that's what the learning process is all about - especially when someone is as bias against something, (with nothing to support that bias), as you clearly are.

Give an example of this bias.

I don't see why you would take it as such a threat to your life and ideals, (as you seemingly do).

This is an idiotic statement (among others), I suggest you stick to the topic and stop trying to throw cheap shots.

You cannot just brush aside and ignore evidence and 'reality' because you want something better to be true.

Who said i'm ignoring the evidence? I am well aware of the evidence, it's the concept/belief/conviction that the evidence fits macroevol despite any credible revelations, and regarded as scientific fact, that I find dubious.

At the very least you can combine the two: god made the first life and the process of evolution.. what a glorious space fairy. See, that way you can accept and embrace reality while still clinging onto nonsensical fantasy.

Do you want a discussion for real, or are using this oppotunity to insult me?

You'd know what I was talking about if you took the time to read it. Kindly scroll back up and try again.

I have, and my question remains.

"his is backed up by the most upto date scientific evidence, yours is backed up by a book written by men that thought the world was flat. Kinda says it all really - whether you acknowledge it or not."

Firstly, I have made no scientific claim.
Secondly, the current scientific evidence does not directly show that species changed from one to another. This idea has been made to fit the evidence. Of course if you can show otherwise I would apreciate it.

Understanding of evolution is backed up by the most upto date scientific evidence.

Faith in gods are backed up by the words of ancient people that knew bugger all about anything.

That's your opinion. I'm of a different one.

There is plenty of evidence, which you can happily view by clicking the earlier link, (as a starting place), and as I did state earlier I just follow the evidence.

If there's plenty of evidence, produce it. I'm not interested in clicking on this or that. The chances are I have most of the information available anyways.
You claim it is fact, then you back it up.

At the end of the day it's all about evidence - which is exactly why I am not religious. There is nothing in the way of evidence to support belief in sky beings. Nothing at all.

That's just fine, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Given the choice I lend more support to the one with the greater amount of evidence. Of course things can change - such is life.. (except if you're religious in which case any old answer from 2000+ years ago is apparently good enough).

Do you realise your cheap shots have absolutely no effect on me?

Now, evolution is a fact - and it's about time you woke up that, and while we can all sit here and debate the ins and outs of it, nothing changes evolution from happening.

Where is the scientific evidence for macroevol?

Teachers in schools recognise that evolution is a fact and teach the basics of the theories and understandings behind it.

See above.

While, once you have answered my question, I will do my utmost to help assist you with your learning, it can only go so far without you actually doing a degree in the subject. Having done that you will certainly understand a lot more than I do.

Are you assuming that one can only have knowledge via institutional universities?

With regards to evolution you might aswell just look at dogs. We can see the vast differences that occur, and unless you can supply evidence of a specific mechanism that stops those changes from progressing, then common sense clearly dictates that those changes escalate until such time where the two things changing can no longer produce viable offspring - and get classified as different species.

What does changing into a completely different species have to do with genetic variation?
Why do you regard that idea as common-sense knowledge?

Given time, and a little bit of common sense, and you'll work it out.

Insults again?
Are you incapable of holding a proper discussion without using such tactics?
It would be interesting to find out.

No, it had nothing to do with macroevolution at all.

In case you haven't noticed, this is the point of discussion.

Alas we cannot really continue with the macroevolution discussion until you answer my question.

The question presumes that macroevol occurrs, my point is, where is the scientific evidence that makes this concept a scientific fact. So your question is a little premature.

You know, if it makes you feel better in yourself to make believe fantasy answers from the people you're talking with then feel free. Who am I to object if it makes you feel better? It's extremely ignorant, but it's your right.

You are so kind and thoughtful. Thank you.

Provide evidence of this.

Don't act stupid.

They will be something so far removed from what we know as "women", that you'd be hard pressed to consider them as ever having been the same.

This is very amusing.
Lets go with the point ears etc..thing. What would be the reason for this?

But of course those changes don't just stop for the mere thrill of it. They continue along this process until they are unable to breed with their former selves and as such become classified as a new species.

Its common knowledge (allegedly) that animals not only have sex purely for recreation, but indulge in a spot of homosexuality. Why couldn't it occur that same-species animals choose not to procreate with others who do not share their particular gene variation, as opposed to being "unable to"?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

....your arguments for id,god,the force or creation, is the result of abiogenesis not being proven. as soon as it is the argument will vanish like it never existed.

At least your honest, I apreciate that.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

Your sentence implied I also have hate, I simply wish to know why you wrote it.

You're wrong. Might I suggest you go back and read it in full without thinking extracting two words is of any value.

My observation is not scientific

That's somewhat obvious.

The observation is based on the fact that he can produce no tangible evidence for his claim

What 'fact'? He has provided evidence, as have I. You just choose not to look at it - remember your own words? ("I cannot be bothered").

coupled with the explicit belief that God does not exist.

Whether someone believes in sky beings or not is of no relevance to evolution.

This is nonsense. If someone claims something to be a scientific fact, then they should easily produce the proof of evidence if asked.

Once again, evidence has been provided, you're just not paying attention.

Calling someone a blockhead is not an attack

Oh, it was a polite response that was relevant to the post? I don't think so Jan.

it is a hat which definately fits a person who claims that God does not exist

What utter tosh.

It is a matter of communication, and to me caps are just bold letters to make the words more noticable.

If you want bold letters I would suggest using the bold text function..

What is to stop them from microbe to giraffe?
Why do you insist that such changes take place?
What, in nature, or any scientific observation leads you to the definate conclusion that (micro) evolution leads to such a change?

Way to go.. Are you unable to answer simple questions? Seems so because instead of just answering it and getting it out the way, you completely ignored it while lumping some questions based upon a complete ignorance of evolution at me. Kindly answer my question, it's very simple to do. As to the third, once again you're talking in absolutes - by your usage of terms such as "definite". I have made no absolute statement, but several times now have indeed informed you I simply follow the evidence, (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - a good starting place).

As to yours.. The first is so astoundingly silly it does not warrant a response, the second I would say that I'm not insisting anything right now, I'm asking you a simple question that you seem totally incapable of answering.

Now, yet again I have answered everything you've asked of me. I've asked you one question. Please, answer it.

I have asked for proof of macroevol and he has supplied nowt, so how is it going to be any different on any other thread?

Recap: But how would you know? In your own words: "I cannot be bothered reading his post".

Thanks, but I already have the site.

Have you read it? Do you understand it?

Give an example of this bias.

Well, your inability to answer one simple question is certainly a starting point. Anyone that actually gave a rats shit about learning, understanding, or finding out how things are or might be, would at least take the time and show the courtesy of being a willing student. You of course already have your answer, and although you've been shooting off question after question you have no interest in getting an answer. When someone dares ask you a question you ignore it and fire back some more. Not only is that exceptionally rude, it shows a great deal about a persons character.

This is an idiotic statement (among others), I suggest you stick to the topic and stop trying to throw cheap shots.

It's not a cheap shot at all, and I certainly don't think you have the place to make such a statement without looking like a hypocrite. Clearly you do take it as some kind of threat, because still to this moment in time you have refused outright to answer what is a rather simple question - with full knowledge that in doing so you might be forced to actually use your brain against that which it's clinging onto for dear life.

Who said i'm ignoring the evidence?

You did:

A) "I cannot be bothered.."

B) when I provided a link to evidence you just merrily brushed it aside with "I have that site", while giving no indication whatsoever to whether you've read the page, understood the page, or have an argument against the evidence presented on that page.

C) "I'm not interested in clicking on this or that."

I am well aware of the evidence

Clearly you are not.

it's the concept/belief/conviction that the evidence fits macroevol despite any credible revelations, and regarded as scientific fact, that I find dubious.

This just comes from a complete lack of understanding on your part. A good starting place: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Do you want a discussion for real

I ask you one simple question a page or two ago that you still haven't answered besides my continual requests that you do so, and here you with the audacity to ask me if I want a discussion? Please, Jan - don't be such a fool, it's very unbecoming.

or are using this oppotunity to insult me?

You'll know when I'm insulting you. Insults can wait, how about you just answer the question I asked you so we can continue with this "real" discussion you apparently want to have.

Secondly, the current scientific evidence does not directly show that species changed from one to another. This idea has been made to fit the evidence. Of course if you can show otherwise I would apreciate it.

Now even more requests that would undoubtedly go ignored. Jan, it would seem worthwhile to start in one place and then move forward from there. As a result I would ask that you answer the question I have posed, and we progress step by step until you are happy that all your questions have been answered. Is that ok with you or are you going to keep dragging me along on your rather tiresome and pathetic attempt at avoiding an answer you don't like the sound of in any way possible?

If there's plenty of evidence, produce it.

I have been trying. You're just not awake or just not interested. If it's the latter, I can only wonder why you bothered posting here.

I'm not interested in clicking on this or that.

See my point? On your very last sentence you demand that I provide evidence, and yet when I do so you say: "I'm not interested". You're a joke.

The chances are I have most of the information available anyways.
You claim it is fact, then you back it up.

Once again, I made no claim.. I just stated I follow the evidence, of which there is a lot that you "cannot be bothered reading", "not interested in clicking on".

That's just fine, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually it was relevant, and if you had have realised that you wouldn't have once again claimed that I made claims such as the one highlighted above.

Where is the scientific evidence for macroevol?

It's on that link you "had no interest in clicking".

See above.

See above.

Are you assuming that one can only have knowledge via institutional universities?

Are you completely incapable of answering a simple question? To answer yours, (yet again), no.. But suffice it to say you'll learn more about evolution in university than you will in church. Or do you disagree? If not why are you wasting my time with this bollocks when you could just answer my one simple question and get it over with?

What does changing into a completely different species have to do with genetic variation?

Quite a lot actually. Try clicking the link you couldn't be bothered clicking.

Why do you regard that idea as common-sense knowledge?

Answer my one simple question and I'll answer this. Deal?

Insults again?

No, a completely honest statement. If I was going to insult you I'd just call you a halfwitted drivelling spastic and leave you to it.

It would be interesting to find out.

Not half as interesting as it would be seeing you answer a question.

The question presumes that macroevol occurrs, my point is, where is the scientific evidence that makes this concept a scientific fact. So your question is a little premature.

Shall I take that as a "no, I cannot answer the question"? To answer yours, (for the gazillionth time), evidence can be found on that link you weren't interested in clicking.

Lets go with the point ears etc..thing. What would be the reason for this?

This question is similar to asking why god created men with nipples when we don't have to breastfeed.

The why's are debateable.. and to be honest I couldn't give you a reason for pointy ears - but then the reasons for changes are not always instantly apparent. If I was to say something off the top of my head it might have something to do with the environment these people would live in meaning they needed the pointy ears to help conduct sound or sonar, (somewhat like bats).

Its common knowledge (allegedly) that animals not only have sex purely for recreation, but indulge in a spot of homosexuality. Why couldn't it occur that same-species animals choose not to procreate with others who do not share their particular gene variation, as opposed to being "unable to"?

Apologies, but can you rephrase the question?

 

[Ophiolite]

Answer the ruddy question Jan.

 

[Enigma'07]

What about other options?! Science cannot say whether there is a god or not, but that doen't mean one could not exist

 

[mountainhare]

Ophiolite:

Answer the ruddy question Jan.

HE HAS HIIIIGHHH HOPES, HE HAS HIIGGGGHHH, HOPES, HE HAS HIGGHHH IN THE SKYYYY, HIGGGHHHH HOPES.

You sure have high hopes if you expect Jan to actually answer any questions. She hasn't even gone to the effort of READING my questions (including the Chromosome Challenge), because she 'can't be arsed doing so' (in her own words).

It's far easy for her to troll 'SPECULATION' and 'MACROASSUMPTION' in every thread where the other posters try to talk science. I guess that's what happens when an ignoramus tries to play with the adults.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What 'fact'? He has provided evidence, as have I. You just choose not to look at it - remember your own words? ("I cannot be bothered").

Either you are deluded, a liar, or both.

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - a good starting place).

I have read this, and there is no evidence to support this idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT, IMO, which is the reason for my enquiry.

Do you have anything to offer other than avoidance tactics?

The first is so astoundingly silly it does not warrant a response.....

What is to stop them from microbe to giraffe?

Personally I am in agreement with you, but it is changes of this nature you blindly believe in.

...the second I would say that I'm not insisting anything right now, I'm asking you a simple question that you seem totally incapable of answering.

Why do you insist that such changes take place?

Maybe you should follow the points more closely instead of wading in with obvious avoidance tactics and cheap shots. This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, and it is noted that not one person can justify this claim with any supporting evidence as to how it
occurs

Now, yet again I have answered everything you've asked of me.

No you haven't, you avoided the first question, and conveniently left out the third.

"What, in nature, or any scientific observation leads you to the definate conclusion that (micro) evolution leads to such a change?"

Jan: What does changing into a completely different species have to do with genetic variation?

Quite a lot actually. Try clicking the link you couldn't be bothered clicking.

I've told you I already have the site, so I do not need to click on your link, do you think you can process that information correctly?
I have looked, but I'm asking you what you think in light of the evidence which regards this idea as a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

If I was going to insult you I'd just call you a halfwitted drivelling spastic and leave you to it.

So in essence you have insulted me, by revealing what it is you really
think of me.
May I ask why you have this opinion?

I mean.. if changes keep occuring [micro], what is to stop them [from changing into an entirely different species?] And that is the question you must answer for me to be able to go any further.

You are assuming that because changes occur on a micro level, there is nothing to stop them going all the way to macro. How is this question joined up, I mean, microevol is a observable fact, and macro is an idea presented as SCIENTIFIC FACT, but no one can actually say how it occurs. You may as well ask if changes keep occuring what is to stop them changing into organic fender stratocasters.

If you or any other trumpeter
cannot provide factual evidence supporting this idea as a scientific fact, it shows that it is a belief, based on faith (of the institutional kind)
End of.

Jan .

 

[SnakeLord]

Either you are deluded, a liar, or both.

Now you're just being silly.

I have read this, and there is no evidence to support this idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT, IMO

Question 1: You now state that you have read the page I provided for you. Did you understand it? (Do not feel there is shame in not understanding it, it has not been written for the layman, as it does indeed state: "This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded").

Question 2: What merit do you feel your opinion, (you did say "imo"), has above that of countless educated scientists from all different fields of expertise? (Do not take this the wrong way, it is a sincere question asked to try and help me find out where the exact conflict is).

Do you have anything to offer other than avoidance tactics?

I really find this question rude, and extremely ignorant given that I have answered everything you've asked, yes - even dumb questions such as this one. I am being as straight with you as I can muster, and yet still find myself waiting for an answer for the one question I asked you two pages ago, and have reminded you of ten times in every post since then. What obnoxious, hypocritical, garbage for you to even dare try and accuse me of such a thing when I am still here, still answering, still waiting to help you once you answer the one question I asked. You still haven't done it. That is avoidance.

Personally I am in agreement with you, but it is changes of this nature you blindly believe in.

As is seemingly an unavoidable habit with you, you yet again show your inability to pay attention, to digest that which has been stated, or indeed to show even a basic understanding of anything presented in this thread.

Alas it is somewhat typical of religious people to share their inpetitude with questions such as: "Why doesn't a cow grow wings?", "did a cat just give birth to a dog one day and why don't they still do it?", and of course the example you provided - which implies that one day a microbe just turns into a giraffe for the sake of it. Religion might very well believe in miracles and magic, but science does not - and as such you won't see a man with a scientific mind coming up with questions or statements like the ones shown above.

Maybe you should follow the points more closely instead of wading in with obvious avoidance tactics and cheap shots.

I would kindly ask that you stop behaving like a spoilt child and answer the question. It will take 5 seconds out of your life to answer, nothing more.

This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, and it is noted that not one person can justify this claim with any supporting evidence as to how it
occurs

As I have now said several times, (seemingly to deaf ears), we must go one step at a time. You cannot just expect to jump right in at the deep end. If you do so I can guarantee you'll drown within the first five minutes. Like anything you do, it is a process. You start at the shallow end and work your way into the deep end. So can you pretty please, with a cherubim on top, answer the question I posed to you a couple of pages ago?

No you haven't, you avoided the first question, and conveniently left out the third.

I answered the first question in the only possible way. As a man with a scientific mind I cannot give any other answer to a question that only a person with a non-scientific mind would ask.

As for the third.. I did answer it on my last post. I guess you must have skipped past it by accident, (don't worry, you're forgiven), however - it does therefore make your little "conveniently" speech redundant.

I've told you I already have the site, so I do not need to click on your link, do you think you can process that information correctly?

I could probably process the information correctly if you bothered answering questions properly, if at all.

Here is what you said:

"Thanks, but I already have the site."

Alas this does not tell me a lot, so I questioned you further concerning it:

"Have you read it? Do you understand it?"

Aside from "I have that site" being somewhat questionable English, it doesn't inform me as to whether you've read the site or understand what is written on that site, now does it? You then followed on with "i have no interest in clicking this or that", which goes on to imply that you "have the site" (?), but haven't read it.

So, now I have been informed that you have actually read it.. Did you understand it?

I have looked, but I'm asking you what you think in light of the evidence which regards this idea as a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I've been trying to get there for 10 posts now, but like I have said to you: shallow end first. Now, about my question.. Could you possibly find it in your loving christian heart to answer it?

So in essence you have insulted me, by revealing what it is you really
think of me.
May I ask why you have this opinion?

A voice told me.

You are assuming that because changes occur on a micro level....

I am not assuming anything, I'm asking you a question, (which you still haven't answered).

How is this question joined up, I mean, microevol is a observable fact, and macro is an idea presented as SCIENTIFIC FACT, but no one can actually say how it occurs.

I'm trying.. Can you answer the question now?

You may as well ask if changes keep occuring what is to stop them changing into organic fender stratocasters.

I will if you'd do the honour of bloody answering it.

Well Jan? C'mon.. It's not that hard.

 

[scorpius]

Evolution is a fact. We evolved from apes whether we did it by Darwins theory of evolution or of some other theory of evolution.

since I havent read all the answers in this thread and dont know if anyone corrected this favorite missinformation the religious people like to put forward
its like this
we havent evolved from apes we evolved from a common ancestor,
I think the name is neanderthal

 

[Sarkus]

since I havent read all the answers in this thread and dont know if anyone corrected this favorite missinformation the religious people like to put forward
its like this
we havent evolved from apes we evolved from a common ancestor,
I think the name is neanderthal

I accept my error - I was thinking faster than I could type. Yes - it is common ancestry and not descended from apes. Thanks for noting.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Snakelord,

If you or any other trumpeter
cannot provide factual evidence supporting this idea as a scientific fact, it shows that it is a belief, based on faith (of the institutional kind)
End of.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

So at the end it becomes so overly apparent that you have no desire whatsoever to learn anything. You ignore questions, people and links in order to hold onto your pathetic little notions - that you obviously do not have too much trust in or else you would not run from a simple question to the degree that you do.

As it stands I will give you something very simple to choke on:

Evolutionary Biologists define "microevolution" as evolution below the species level, and "macroevolution" as evolution at or above the species level. This means that according to the scientific definition of macroevolution, speciation events are macroevolution. Since speciation has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory, macroevolution does indeed happen.

That is SCIENCE, (which is what you asked for). You did not ask for the creationist version of what macroevolution means, but the scientific one, and that has now been provided for you.

Of course this is as far as it can go while you continue to ignore questions, and indeed run from them, and to show that you are in no way willing to learn anything. As that is the case I can only wonder why you even bothered posting here in the first place.

So you lose.. macroevolution has nothing to do with 'faith', but merely a creationists piss poor understanding of it versus sciences greater understanding of it.

Now, are you willing to learn and answer questions - in which case we can get into some further depth, or are you just going to parade your disgusting little attitude some more around this thread for no good reason whatsoever?

If it's the former, then answer my question, (the one I posed 2-3 pages ago).

Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Evolutionary Biologists define "microevolution" as evolution below the species level, and "macroevolution" as evolution at or above the species level.

Let's open this up.
The difference between micro and macro-evolution is micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. If macroevol is the same as microevol, then we are wasting time.

This means that according to the scientific definition of macroevolution, speciation events are macroevolution. Since speciation has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory, macroevolution does indeed happen.

There are many definitions of "species" and "speciation", but the type of observed speciation needed to validate macroevol as a SCIENTIFIC FACT, is a generation of new genetic information that is known to have not previously existed. What has been observed is the apparent “emergence” of a variation of organism from an existing population.

That is SCIENCE, (which is what you asked for). You did not ask for the creationist version of what macroevolution means, but the scientific one, and that has now been provided for you.

I asked you (or anyone) to produce the evidence which validates macroevol as a SCIENTIFIC FACT. Your whole dialougue has been one diversionary tactic, and you have still failed to produce anything near validation.
You say speciation has been observed therefore macrevol occurs. What has been observed? And how does that observation mean that somewhere down the line completely new genetic material appears giving transitional rise to an entirely new species? That is what you must answer in order to validate the fantastic claim.

Of course this is as far as it can go while you continue to ignore questions, and indeed run from them, and to show that you are in no way willing to learn anything.

Stop acting like an idiot. I have answered your question and if you are not satisfied with my answer, then explain why, or bring the question our into the open, by rephrasing it.

As that is the case I can only wonder why you even bothered posting here in the first place.

Duh!!!
My enquiry is why.

So you lose.. macroevolution has nothing to do with 'faith', but merely a creationists piss poor understanding of it versus sciences greater understanding of it.

I never stated that macroevol has anything to do with faith.

Now, are you willing to learn and answer questions - in which case we can get into some further depth, or are you just going to parade your disgusting little attitude some more around this thread for no good reason whatsoever?

I hope you are not this foolish in your everyday life.
I am totally aware that you have no real knowledge of this subject matter, and your only interest is to belittle people who believe in God. I continue to engage with you to show that there is no divide between the educated and non-educated understanding of this belief, you being the non-educated. When asked a simple question such as; Provide the evidence that validates macroevol (the transition of one species into another) a SCIENTIFIC FACT? The response is the same from all walks of life.

If it's the former, then answer my question, (the one I posed 2-3 pages ago).

Please explain why you are dissatisfied with my response.

Jan.

 

[KennyJC]

That is what you must answer in order to validate the fantastic claim

Would it not be a more fantastic claim that species just suddenly appear from nowhere - rather than slowly branching out over millions of years?

I never stated that macroevol has anything to do with faith.

So it is just a co-inky-dink that you are a fundie who is ignorantly discounting macroevolution?

Provide the evidence that validates macroevol (the transition of one species into another) a SCIENTIFIC FACT?

The most obvious example would be our own origins over the last few million years. Given everything known about evolution so far, we know that we didn't appear overnight. In the last few million years the fossil record shows a progressive hominidae evolution, right from when we/they managed to stand upright. Common sense puts all those pieces of the fossil record together and concludes, since those creatures that had amazingly similar bodies to our own (which funnily enough got more and more similar as the years rolled on) are not around anymore, yet we are here, tells us that we evolved from them. That is just a tidbit of scientifict evidence you are looking for, please read the numerous urls posted in this thread for more.

If you know any better, please give us your theory on our origins, and if the evidence is better than what we have, you will become a star.

 

[Silas]

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - a good starting place). ”



I have read this, and there is no evidence to support this idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT, IMO, which is the reason for my enquiry.

That paper is by a respected scientist. The theory he espouses is part of mainstream science. You actually have to do better than a flat denial that what he's talking about is not scientific fact - except in the case you've cited that scientific fact is that which you can see with your own eyes, which has already been dealt with. Evolution and macrospeciation is a scientific fact no less than the atomic theory is scientific fact. In any case, you have to refer to what it is in the paper that you find objectionable, otherwise you are simply wasting everybody's time (always my own view, as it happens.)

 

[James R]

Jan:

There are many definitions of "species" and "speciation", but the type of observed speciation needed to validate macroevol as a SCIENTIFIC FACT, is a generation of new genetic information that is known to have not previously existed. What has been observed is the apparent “emergence” of a variation of organism from an existing population.

How can you have the emergence of a new organism without new genetic information?

Are you asserting that all genetic changes resulting in new organisms involve a loss of genetic information? If so, consider yourself. In what ways are you inferior to your parents?

I asked you (or anyone) to produce the evidence which validates macroevol as a SCIENTIFIC FACT. Your whole dialougue has been one diversionary tactic, and you have still failed to produce anything near validation.

As somebody who hasn't participated in this discussion, it looks to me like you're shifting the goal posts. What would satisfy you that macroevolution occurs? Speciation doesn't seem to be enough for you. You seem to be trying to redefine "macroevolution" in a way that rules out any possibility of it occurring in a single step - such as an immediate change of an owl into a cat. Which leaves all evolution as "microevolution" - a series of small changes which you consider somehow insignificant because you ignore that fact that many small changes can add up to a big change.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How can you have the emergence of a new organism without new genetic information?

You misunderstand me, I said;

What has been observed is the apparent “emergence” of a variation of organism from an existing population.

Are you asserting that all genetic changes resulting in new organisms involve a loss of genetic information? If so, consider yourself. In what ways are you inferior to your parents?

What is your definition of new organisms?
I am a different person to my parents, but I am still a human being.

As somebody who hasn't participated in this discussion, it looks to me like you're shifting the goal posts. What would satisfy you that macroevolution occurs?

Whether it occurs or not is not the point of my enquiry. What makes it a scientific fact, is.

Speciation doesn't seem to be enough for you. You seem to be trying to redefine "macroevolution" in a way that rules out any possibility of it occurring in a single step - such as an immediate change of an owl into a cat.

My definition of macroevol is correct, and it doesn't rule out possibility of anything. My question is; why is it a scientific fact? What makes you regard it as such?

Which leaves all evolution as "microevolution" - a series of small changes which you consider somehow insignificant because you ignore that fact that many small changes can add up to a big change.

Microevol is a fact, macroevol is an idea made to fit the fact. Where is the scientific evidence which shows that changes occur, which add up to an entirely different species? And by evidence I don't mean interpretation.
You say it is a fact that these changes occur and that I ignore the facts. As far as i am aware, i have the same access to "scientific facts" as you do, so please point out the scientific fact(s) of macroevol.

Jan.

 

[nkumar]

The theory of evolution may deny theory of spontaneaous generation,but how the hell it can deny the theory of Specail creation?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Would it not be a more fantastic claim that species just suddenly appear from nowhere - rather than slowly branching out over millions of years?

Why?

So it is just a co-inky-dink that you are a fundie who is ignorantly discounting macroevolution?

Please explain why you think i am a fundie, an where have i discounted macvol, I say if it is a scientific fact then provide the scientific evidence.

The most obvious example would be our own origins over the last few million years.

How do you interpret that as factual evidence that macvol occured?

Given everything known about evolution so far, we know that we didn't appear overnight.

Macvol is regarded as scientific fact yet no one can provide scientific evidence that it actually occured. So what exactly do you know?

In the last few million years the fossil record shows a progressive hominidae evolution, right from when we/they managed to stand upright.

How can you regard the odd, mouth, leg bone, hip bone, or knee joint fragments as solid evidence of macvol.

Common sense puts all those pieces of the fossil record together and concludes,

That's very nice, but it is not scientific.

since those creatures that had amazingly similar bodies to our own (which funnily enough got more and more similar as the years rolled on) are not around anymore, yet we are here, tells us that we evolved from them.

For a different take, read a book called "The Forbidden Archeology" by Micheal Cremo.

That is just a tidbit of scientifict evidence you are looking for, please read the numerous urls posted in this thread for more.

The urls do not provide scientific evidence of macvol, like you, they interpret the established facts and come up with macvol.
However to keep assuming that I have not read any of these is an obvious diversion tactic. There is no requirment of me to read these papers in order for you or anyone to explain why macvol is regarded as a scientific fact. If you claim it is fact then the onus is on you to back up that claim.

If you know any better, please give us your theory on our origins, and if the evidence is better than what we have, you will become a star.

You misunderstand my enquiry, please read through my posts to come to a better understanding.

Jan .

 

[Sarkus]

Macvol is regarded as scientific fact yet no one can provide scientific evidence that it actually occured. So what exactly do you know?

The evidence HAS been supplied to you - in at least one of the links that you claim to have read.

You have defined your understanding of Macro-evolution:
"The difference between micro and macro-evolution is micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. If macroevol is the same as microevol, then we are wasting time."
i.e. speciation.

Yet you conveniently define "speciation" so as to disallow the scientific evidence supporting it, and instead require us to have been around for millions of years conducting the observations.

As soon as an organism branches such that one "variation" can't propagate with the other - this is SPECIATION - and you have two distinct species from the same origin.

Now, instead of merely disregarding the links and saying: "I have read this, and there is no evidence to support this idea as SCIENTIFIC FACT, IMO, which is the reason for my enquiry." - detail exactly why - in YOUR opinion - this does not constitute sufficient evidence of speciation.

The evidence has been presented - and we are awaiting your detailed rebuttal of each and every piece of evidence.