An Evolution Primer for Creationists

[Mott the Hoople]

very very good post. A+

Well, though I agree with the content WM didn't write it, He pasted it.

 

[Beefy]

Nowhere is it suggested by Darwin, that all life originated from a single organism, and his theories do not support such an idea. So, where are you getting this stupidity from?

So that's stupidity. But some bearded undead in the sky creating it all isn't.

Got it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So that's stupidity. But some bearded undead in the sky creating it all isn't.

Got it.

LMAO... Since when does "intelligence" equal "bearded undead in the sky" ???

Rational logic leads me to believe something as miraculous as life, was not by accident or happenstance, it didn't "just happen" or occur as the result of purely random circumstances. To me, thinking THAT is about as profoundly stupid as it gets.

 

[Beefy]

LMAO... Since when does "intelligence" equal "bearded undead in the sky" ???

Rational logic leads me to believe something as miraculous as life, was not by accident or happenstance, it didn't "just happen" or occur as the result of purely random circumstances. To me, thinking THAT is about as profoundly stupid as it gets.

So what is the source of the miracle?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well, though I agree with the content WM didn't write it, He pasted it.

I have no idea why everyone seems to believe I wrote this. I have the link at the top. Maybe I should've bolded the title.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Previously, you said.... "This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species."

So which fucking one is it? Did all species of life evolve from a single organism?

First off, I did not write the post.

Second off, he was referring to the common misconception that humans evolved from apes - which would be silly. We didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor. A human baby didn't pop out of an ape one day.

It's also part of another misconception, that some species are "more evolved" than one another, when we've all been evolving the same amount of time, and so we are all as evolved as each other.

However, we eventually all come back to a single common ancestor. So we did come from a single organism. But the article in question, the part that you pasted out of context from it, was not talking about that. It was talking about "humans evolving from apes", not apes, humans, wales, insects, shrubs, ameobas and all other lifeforms sharing a single common ancestor.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Watermark/ib1,

What experimental evidence supports macroevolution? Please do not respond with the usual "you're an idiot" line, as I am sincerely interested in knowing the answer, not being insulted. We're both adults and should be able to carry on a discussion like grown-ups.

The only experiment I know of is the Miller-Urey experiment, which only demonstrated that complex molecules arise under certain conditions, which are themselves based on arbitrary assumptions about the early Earth's atmospheric composition. Surely there must be greater experimental evidence than that. What am I missing?

The Miller-Urey is an experiment testing the hypothesis of abiogenesis and has little, if any, bearing on a scientific discussion of evolutionary theory.

First let's define what macroevolution is. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. That is it is evolution above the level of species. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.

Microevolutionary theories, on the other hand, are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation.

Note that these differences are not fundamental differences. The only difference between the two is time and scale. All's that is really needed for macroevolution to occur is time and microevolution.

So now that we have defined macroevolution and microevolution what is the evidence for Macroevolution?

Keep in mind that the evidence for macroevolution allows for it to stand independantly of microevolution's gradualism. It is also important to understand that in the last 150 years scientist hasve discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete with common descent for four reasons;
#1. To many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science.
#2. No significant contradictory evidence has yet been found.
#3 Competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data.
#4 Many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

So what is the evidence for macroevolution? Is profound and is mostly found and supported by the vast phylogenetical data. The list of evidence supporting is lengthy and profound and, again, can be tested independently form the mechanistic microevolutionary theories. Some of the evidence for macroevolution and I'll be brief so as not to bore to death the casual reader are (and this is by no means all inclusive);

#1. The unity of life, our commonality, i.e. all living things contain the polymers of life. RNA, DNA, Nucleic Acids and Proteins.
#2. Nested hierarchies. Predicted phylogenetic changes occur as "groups within groups". Only branched evolutionary phylogenies explain this phenomena.
#3. The convergence of independent phylogenies. Well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance.
#4. Transitional Species, including, reptiles to birds, reptile to mammals, apes to man, etc.
#5. The chronology of common phylogenetic ancestors (this is extremely profound evidence for macroevolution!).
#6. Anatomical vestiges (like the appendix?).
#7. Atavism. Why do whales and dolphins have hind limbs? Why do some humans have tails? (Again, this is profound evidence for macroevolution.).
#8. Molecular vestiges. Humans do not have the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid (vitamin C) but our common ancestors did (and do not develop scurvy). However the gene that does cause vitamin C synthesis does exist in humans but only as an inactive psuedogene. This gene does exist in Apes as an active gene. Only macroevolutionary theory would explain this.
#9. Developmental Biology. The common characteristics between species of embrylogical and histological processes can, again, really only be explained by macroevolutionary processes. An osteocyte in a Cow is virtually the same as the osteocyte in a human.


and this is just a small list of evidence for macroevolution for which I have not gone into great detail about. There exists a great body more of evidence supporting macroevolution independently of microevolution. Plus one must keep in mind what I originally states. All's that is really neccessary for macroevolution to occur is microevolution and lots and lots of time.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Is it? In your initial post, you stated that it is not a theory, but a fact.

Which is it?

Try this. It is both. To be a scientific theory it must be a fact. No one in science argues the factual basis of evolution.

 

[ib1yysguy]

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/

That's a mathematical representation of evolution, which takes a very simple organism and evolves it over a number of generations into a much more complex organism.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First off, I did not write the post.

Second off, he was referring to the common misconception that humans evolved from apes - which would be silly. We didn't evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor. A human baby didn't pop out of an ape one day.

It's also part of another misconception, that some species are "more evolved" than one another, when we've all been evolving the same amount of time, and so we are all as evolved as each other.

However, we eventually all come back to a single common ancestor. So we did come from a single organism. But the article in question, the part that you pasted out of context from it, was not talking about that. It was talking about "humans evolving from apes", not apes, humans, wales, insects, shrubs, ameobas and all other lifeforms sharing a single common ancestor.

No, the quote is... "Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species." That is about as plain spoken as it gets, and I totally agree. The premise you suggest, that we all evolved from a single organism, is contradictory to that quote, and as the author says, quite frankly, it is ludicrous and fantasy. Can you please post any credible scientific report which shows evidence that any species (genus) has ever "evolved" into another distinctly different species (genus)? I have asked for this repeatedly, because if you are going to make that claim, you MUST present the evidence for our evaluation. It is quite impossible to go from 1 organism to billions of organisms, without at least some cross-genus evolution, if that is what you are arguing happened here. A plant can "evolve" all it wants to, it will NEVER become another form of life! A reptile can evolve for trillions of years, and it will STILL be a reptile, it will never be a bird or mammal. IF we all started from a single organism, that would have to be possible, and it's just NOT!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First let's define what macroevolution is. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. That is it is evolution above the level of species.

This has never been observed, there is zero evidence to support it, and it contradicts known reality to assume it ever happened. No archeological evidence exists to suggest it, no fossil evidence exists, and no lab experiment has ever been able to replicate the process. It is purely a theory without basis, and according to your own criteria for ID, it's not qualified to even be a scientific theory.

In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.

But life forms are not genealogically related. What we have in reality, is a "system" of life, interdependent on itself in millions of ways. There is nothing remotely similar to sea microbes and plant life, there is no similarity to reptiles or mammals, none of the various forms of living organisms are universally connected in any way, and most function completely differently from each other. They also depend upon each other to exist in many cases, and could simply not exist without each other. And again... there is no evidence that any species of life ever "evolved" into another. At best, there is possible evidence that some species adapted and changed, but that is ALL we can support with scientific evidence.

Microevolutionary theories, on the other hand, are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation.

The only "evidence" we have of any kind of evolution, is confined to changes and adaptations of some species over time, (we believe) to adjust to environment. We do have some archeological evidence to support this theory, but we have no evidence any species genus, ever evolved into another species genus. NONE! ZIP! NADDA!

Note that these differences are not fundamental differences. The only difference between the two is time and scale. All's that is really needed for macroevolution to occur is time and microevolution.

No, there is a HUGE difference. Fundamentally, one has some archeological evidence to support it, the other is "ludicrous fantasy" according to Waterhead's source. One is a valid and legitimate theory of science, the other doesn't qualify as scientific by the criteria you previously established for ID.

Keep in mind that the evidence for macroevolution allows for it to stand independantly of microevolution's gradualism. It is also important to understand that in the last 150 years scientist hasve discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences.

Now this is just total and absolute bullshit and a lie. Science doesn't draw conclusions! NOTHING related to science is "proven fact" and for you to continue arguing on that basis, is intellectually dishonest. Neither biology or geology has "concluded" what you claim! It is YOUR opinion, presented with a nice garnishment of big words and terms, which you obviously think lends credibility to your argument... (That should be the first indicator you are lying your ass off.)

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This has never been observed, there is zero evidence to support it, and it contradicts known reality to assume it ever happened. No archeological evidence exists to suggest it, no fossil evidence exists, and no lab experiment has ever been able to replicate the process. It is purely a theory without basis, and according to your own criteria for ID, it's not qualified to even be a scientific theory.



But life forms are not genealogically related. What we have in reality, is a "system" of life, interdependent on itself in millions of ways. There is nothing remotely similar to sea microbes and plant life, there is no similarity to reptiles or mammals, none of the various forms of living organisms are universally connected in any way, and most function completely differently from each other. They also depend upon each other to exist in many cases, and could simply not exist without each other. And again... there is no evidence that any species of life ever "evolved" into another. At best, there is possible evidence that some species adapted and changed, but that is ALL we can support with scientific evidence.



The only "evidence" we have of any kind of evolution, is confined to changes and adaptations of some species over time, (we believe) to adjust to environment. We do have some archeological evidence to support this theory, but we have no evidence any species genus, ever evolved into another species genus. NONE! ZIP! NADDA!



No, there is a HUGE difference. Fundamentally, one has some archeological evidence to support it, the other is "ludicrous fantasy" according to Waterhead's source. One is a valid and legitimate theory of science, the other doesn't qualify as scientific by the criteria you previously established for ID.


Now this is just total and absolute bullshit and a lie. Science doesn't draw conclusions! NOTHING related to science is "proven fact" and for you to continue arguing on that basis, is intellectually dishonest. Neither biology or geology has "concluded" what you claim! It is YOUR opinion, presented with a nice garnishment of big words and terms, which you obviously think lends credibility to your argument... (That should be the first indicator you are lying your ass off.)

Dixie, if you can't keep up with technical language of biology you can do what I did. Go to school and study it for 6 years. You're response shows you don't get it. You assert there's no genealogical evidence for macroevolution and I just showed how phylogenies are extremely powerful, testable and falsifiable evidence for macroevolution. To say that life is not universally related is an argument from ignorance. How comes the DNA in me is virtually the same in all living things? Same with RNA. Same with Proteins. Why is the blood clotting mechanism in horses virtually indentical to blood clotting in humans? Why is the Krebbs cycle in humans virtually identical to the Krebbs cycle in corn? What else explains this more robustly than macroevolution?

You just want me to play whack a mole with out taking a serious effort to understand what I wrote and I only posted a small part of the evidence available for macroevolution. I could have listed many more examples and went into much greater detail on how each piece of evidence I listed supports macroevolution. It appears to me you didn't even bother to even read the evidence I listed.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, the quote is... "Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species." That is about as plain spoken as it gets, and I totally agree.

It only seems supports your point if you take it out of context. Now let's put it back into context:

Myth #1: Men evolved from modern apes.

This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species. Some criticisms of evolution show illustrations that fraudulently purport to show what evolutionists claim: that a salmon changed into a turtle, which changed into an alligator, which changed into a hippo, which changed into a lion, and then into a monkey, and then into a human being. Of course such a theory would seem ludicrous. But it's pure fantasy and has nothing in common with real evolution.

The diversification of species is like a forest of trees, sprouting from the proverbial primordial soup. Many trees die out. Some don't grow very tall. Some have grown a lot over the eons and are still growing today. Trees branch out, and branches branch out themselves, but branches never come back together or combine from two different trees. The path of a species' evolution is shaped like the branch of a tree, not a donut, not a figure 8, not a ladder. To embrace evolution, you need not — must not — think that a salmon turns into a zebra, or that an ape turns into a man. It's simply not genetically possible.

Trees are different species, BTW. I know it actually mentions that in the article but sometimes you need to have your hand held.

Here you are again, taking the quote of an evolutionist who clearly believes in evolution out of context and making it seem like he's arguing against evolution. He is arguing that MODERN apes did not evolve into MODERN humans. Not that we don't share a common ancestor in a single species. This is as clear as day to anyone who actually bothered to read the article, but that's too much for dixie. Would you like me to send your response to Brian Dunning himself, and ask him whether or not he actually believes that it is impossible for the the species that was the ancestor of modern humans and modern apes to have evolved into either? He'll give you the same response I have.


And your opinion on whether or not evolution is possible is one of the most most irrelevant things known to man. The fact that it seems impossible to you is an argument from ignorance and totally irrelevant as proof of whether or not it can happen.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Can you please post any credible scientific report which shows evidence that any species (genus) has ever "evolved" into another distinctly different species (genus)? I have asked for this repeatedly, because if you are going to make that claim, you MUST present the evidence for our evaluation.

Dixie, there are too many to count.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Anyone think that Dixie orgasms everytime he makes himself believe that someone is arguing the opposite of what they're actually arguing?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

DARWIN THOUGHT EVOLUTION WAS IMPOSSIBLE!

BRIAN DUNNING THINKS EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE!

I think I'm going to have to send Dixie's response to him.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

DARWIN THOUGHT EVOLUTION WAS IMPOSSIBLE!

BRIAN DUNNING THINKS EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE!

I think I'm going to have to send Dixie's response to him.

Who cares? I'm more interested in having an intelligent discussion on evolution than playing "Whack A Mole" with Dixie.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, if you can't keep up with technical language of biology you can do what I did. Go to school and study it for 6 years. You're response shows you don't get it. You assert there's no genealogical evidence for macroevolution and I just showed how phylogenies are extremely powerful, testable and falsifiable evidence for macroevolution. To say that life is not universally related is an argument from ignorance. How comes the DNA in me is virtually the same in all living things? Same with RNA. Same with Proteins. Why is the blood clotting mechanism in horses virtually indentical to blood clotting in humans? Why is the Krebbs cycle in humans virtually identical to the Krebbs cycle in corn? What else explains this more robustly than macroevolution?

You just want me to play whack a mole with out taking a serious effort to understand what I wrote and I only posted a small part of the evidence available for macroevolution. I could have listed many more examples and went into much greater detail on how each piece of evidence I listed supports macroevolution. It appears to me you didn't even bother to even read the evidence I listed.

Apparently, going to school for 6 years was a total waste of your parents money. Perhaps you should have spent less time playing beer pong and more time studying, then you may understand, science never draws conclusions. This is precisely why theories are called theories, and not proven fact.

"I just showed how phylogenies are extremely powerful, testable and falsifiable evidence for macroevolution."

No, you didn't "SHOW" anything, you said it, but I refuted it and challenged you to prove it. You can't, because science doesn't prove things. There is no evidence to suggest any species of life form, ever changed into another.

I read every word you posted, and it sounded quite impressive, but fancy words and science terminology doesn't equate to proving your case. You are under the complete misconception that what some may theorize (macroevolution is highly controversial), is somehow a proven fact of life. I'm sorry you are that closed-minded and foolish, but I can't allow you to get away with spewing nonsense here.

"To say that life is not universally related is an argument from ignorance. How comes the DNA in me is virtually the same in all living things?"

No, it's an argument of definitive fact. Your DNA is not similar to plant DNA in any way, it is a completely different structure, your cells are completely different and function in a different way. Plants exist largely for human consumption, we were created with flat teeth to chew vegetation, and we could probably not exist if it weren't for plants. They also help to convert the carbon dioxide we exhale back into oxygen.

"Why is the blood clotting mechanism in horses virtually indentical to blood clotting in humans?"

Perhaps because we are both mammals? Why do plants not have brains?

"Why is the Krebbs (sic) cycle in humans virtually identical to the Krebbs cycle in corn?"

Children of the Corn, huh? The Krebs Cycle is a series of chemical reactions... why would chemical reactions be different depending on the host? The purpose of the reaction in humans is completely different than the purpose served in plants.

"I could have listed many more examples and went into much greater detail on how each piece of evidence I listed supports macroevolution."

Proven facts don't require evidence to support them, they have been proven already. What you listed were points supporting a theory that has not been confirmed, and is largely controversial in the science world.

"What else explains this more robustly than macroevolution?"

Well, I am not sure, but it almost seems like it was "designed" that way! One thing is for certain, you will never find answers if you have drawn conclusions. I have studied science as much as you, if not more, because you have to take biology to get a degree in psychology. One thing I know for a fact is, science doesn't EVER draw conclusions or determine something is proven or disproved.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

He is arguing that MODERN apes did not evolve into MODERN humans. Not that we don't share a common ancestor in a single species.

"Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species."

If one living species can't change into a different living species, how did modern man and modern apes evolve from a different species? It contradicts logic, it contradicts any archeological findings, it contradicts nature itself. We can't make that happen in the controlled environment of a science lab, we have never observed it happening in the real world, there is no evidence to support it, and it can't even be considered a scientific theory, because it can't be tested or falsified.

DARWIN THOUGHT EVOLUTION WAS IMPOSSIBLE!

BRIAN DUNNING THINKS EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Look, dimwit... I have NEVER said that evolution is not possible, I have NEVER said that Darwin or Dunning said it! In fact, I actually BELIEVE in evolution! It is one of my pieces of evidence to support the theory of ID! Now, I don't believe the bullshit you define as evolution, because there is no scientific basis to believe it. Although, it has helped me to understand why you continue to attempt to pit ET against ID, as if they deal with the same thing. What you believe in is a ludicrous fantasy, according to Dunning. What you believe in is not supported by Darwin in any way. It is actually as much of a "faith-based" belief as the most religious wacko moron out there, who thinks the world is 6,000 years old.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well if you think he said that you should talk to him about your misinterpretation of his words Dixie. I'm not going to waste anymore time on it.