Human Evolution

[ERayR]

If we are talking about observing in this context the moment of transition, we are simply setting up an impossible proof when it comes to humans.

.

 

You have just described faith which is a which puts you n the realm of We Believe and in the realm of a religious article of faith.  You can believe what you want, just be honest.

[Stone holm]

You have just described faith which is a which puts you n the realm of We Believe and in the realm of a religious article of faith.  You can believe what you want, just be honest.

Do you ever actually make arguments? No this is not a matter of faith. This is coming up with explanations that fit the fossil record. Thus far evolution fits the fossil record best. The Fundamentalist Christian explanation has basically no support in the fossil record. If a person chooses to believe it, that is fine since it is a religious belief and who knows at the day of judgment there may be evidence laid out for it. But for now the observable evidence points in the direction of and supports evolution. There is nothing dishonest about that. There has been some dishonesty in this debate, but it is not attributable to the scientists supporting that explanation. Personally, I feel that it is quite possible too reconcile evolution with creation, but that is beside the point.

[Tiki]

Do you ever actually make arguments? No this is not a matter of faith. This is coming up with explanations that fit the fossil record. Thus far evolution fits the fossil record best. The Fundamentalist Christian explanation has basically no support in the fossil record. If a person chooses to believe it, that is fine since it is a religious belief and who knows at the day of judgment there may be evidence laid out for it. But for now the observable evidence points in the direction of and supports evolution. There is nothing dishonest about that. There has been some dishonesty in this debate, but it is not attributable to the scientists supporting that explanation. Personally, I feel that it is quite possible too reconcile evolution with creation, but that is beside the point.

Ridiculous. The Fossil Record does not support evolution. Even Charles Darwin agreed. He wrote chapters making up excuses for the lack of that record. Here's a quote from Chapter 6 of his The Origin of Species:

"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

He then makes conjectures to ignore the record of well-defined species.

The fossil record and the living record of well-defined species, supports Creation, not evolution.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Tiki

[ERayR]

Do you ever actually make arguments? No this is not a matter of faith. This is coming up with explanations that fit the fossil record. Thus far evolution fits the fossil record best. The Fundamentalist Christian explanation has basically no support in the fossil record. If a person chooses to believe it, that is fine since it is a religious belief and who knows at the day of judgment there may be evidence laid out for it. But for now the observable evidence points in the direction of and supports evolution. There is nothing dishonest about that. There has been some dishonesty in this debate, but it is not attributable to the scientists supporting that explanation. Personally, I feel that it is quite possible too reconcile evolution with creation, but that is beside the point.

 

 

The observable evidence can be answered very well by a oh say ancient astronaut theory or Brigham Young's brought here scenario or some other composite.  

[danielwoods]

Same question as above... what could be observed to prove macro-evolution?  What evidence could be provided?  Or is it simply unprovable?

 

Observing the phenomena at least once, start to finish in any organism. 

 

If we are talking about observing in this context the moment of transition, we are simply setting up an impossible proof when it comes to humans. We would need to look to more volatile life forms with very small distance between generations. Such as I suppose bacteria except then the objection would be raised, but those are bacteria and not mammals.

 

The moment of transition isn't all there is. It's the whole process. It hasn't been observed ever. The whole process of transition is supposed and "theorized" and assumed to have happened, yet not once in any organism has it ever been observed. What we do observe is that when bacteria or fruit flies for example are pushed, they die out instead of transform. They have very high generation frequency, and we are able to observe many thousands of generations. Yet we observe stasis as being the what maintains a species (or type or what have you). When pushed to evolve, they become weaker, and die. 

 

The problem with alternative theories which deny evolution from one species to another is that all species have to exist at the git go, and from then on we just lose species and never gain them. The fossil record just doesn't support that. So if you wish to simply dismiss an argument, well that is fine but you need to come back with something that has some substantiation in the fossil record.

 

 

These are two separate questions. 

The first question is macro-evolution even possible? So far it's not even observable as being possible. 

 

The second question is what are the alternatives? 

 

You state that alternative theories deny evolution. Maybe, maybe not. Surely micro-evolutionary change is observable everyday. So, why would you say that we would just lose species and never gain them? I guess it depends how one defines species. Speciation is arbitrary or not acutely defined. It could be that God created everything so it could adapt, based on a rich DNA base. Making micro-evolutionary changes happen, which some call speciation. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's observable. 

 

As far as the fossil record is concerned, again, it's not observed, it's all based on speculation and extrapolation. Which is fine if the starting point is observable science. 

 

For example. Children grow, we observe this everyday. And so if we don't see our Nieces and Nephews for a year, and they grow, it's safe to extrapolate that they did so gradually, because it's been observe before. With Macro-evolutionary changes, that never have been observed, ever. The extrapolation isn't justified by observation. 

 

Based on the piles of evidence that I have observed, I cannot accept any conclusion other than that evolutionary theory is a fact. If you can falsify the theory of evolution, I am all ears.

Your statement makes a great case for using different terminology for the two types of evolution reflected in the terms micro and macro.  I have no desire to try and falsify a theory that is observable everyday. Yet, there isn't anything to falsify with what we refer to as macro-evolutionary changes because it makes no testable claims. 

[Rivers]

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on fast-forward.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Rivers

[katherine the great]

 

Observing the phenomena at least once, start to finish in any organism. 

 

 

The moment of transition isn't all there is. It's the whole process. It hasn't been observed ever. The whole process of transition is supposed and "theorized" and assumed to have happened, yet not once in any organism has it ever been observed. What we do observe is that when bacteria or fruit flies for example are pushed, they die out instead of transform. They have very high generation frequency, and we are able to observe many thousands of generations. Yet we observe stasis as being the what maintains a species (or type or what have you). When pushed to evolve, they become weaker, and die. 

 

 

 

These are two separate questions. 

The first question is macro-evolution even possible? So far it's not even observable as being possible. 

 

The second question is what are the alternatives? 

 

You state that alternative theories deny evolution. Maybe, maybe not. Surely micro-evolutionary change is observable everyday. So, why would you say that we would just lose species and never gain them? I guess it depends how one defines species. Speciation is arbitrary or not acutely defined. It could be that God created everything so it could adapt, based on a rich DNA base. Making micro-evolutionary changes happen, which some call speciation. I don't have a problem with that at all. It's observable. 

 

As far as the fossil record is concerned, again, it's not observed, it's all based on speculation and extrapolation. Which is fine if the starting point is observable science. 

 

For example. Children grow, we observe this everyday. And so if we don't see our Nieces and Nephews for a year, and they grow, it's safe to extrapolate that they did so gradually, because it's been observe before. With Macro-evolutionary changes, that never have been observed, ever. The extrapolation isn't justified by observation. 

 

Your statement makes a great case for using different terminology for the two types of evolution reflected in the terms micro and macro.  I have no desire to try and falsify a theory that is observable everyday. Yet, there isn't anything to falsify with what we refer to as macro-evolutionary changes because it makes no testable claims. 

Where is the mechanism in organisms that prevent microevolution from eventually resulting in macroevolution?  It doesn't exist.  If one accepts microevolution and the antiquity of organisms on this planet, one must also accept macroevolution because it is inevitable.  Pair that with what we know from genetic studies and the fossil record and we have macroevolution.  It is common sense.

[Brian 2.0]

 

Observing the phenomena at least once, start to finish in any organism. 

 

What is start and what is finish?  Would this mean observing a species over successive generations and seeing a new species emerge from that species?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Vance]

 

Observing the phenomena at least once, start to finish in any organism. 

Whoa!!  That sounds way too much like science to be bringing that into this discussion.  Evolution (going from pond scum to humans), like all religions, must be taken upon faith.  Looking for proof is way too . . .      . .   science-y.

[cdowis]

Where is the mechanism in organisms that prevent microevolution from eventually resulting in macroevolution?  It doesn't exist.  If one accepts microevolution and the antiquity of organisms on this planet, one must also accept macroevolution because it is inevitable.

 

 Pair that with what we know from genetic studies and the fossil record and we have macroevolution.  It is common sense.

 

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but it has a flaw in your assumptions.

 

We have had extensive discussion on that issue.  Basically, macroevolution assumes step by step evolution, going from the fish to a human being, for example.  It is my contention that dribbling (step by step) is not possible, but would require what I call "quantum leaps".  The mechanism for quantum leaps does not exist, so your logic is flawed.  Evolution works in a dribbling function, but macroevolution requires quantum leaps.

Edited September 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but it has a flaw in your assumptions.

 

We have had extensive discussion on that issue.  Basically, macroevolution assumes step by step evolution, going from the fish to a human being, for example.  It is my contention that dribbling (step by step) is not possible, but would require what I call "quantum leaps".  The mechanism for quantum leaps does not exist, so your logic is flawed.  Evolution works in a dribbling function, but macroevolution requires quantum leaps.

 

There may well need to be some working with Evolutionary Theory as there appears to be periodic surges, I am told, in the fossil record.  However, there is a major flaw in the notion that one specied does not evolve into another if we are clinging to that explanation out of some religious motivation.  The flaw is that in order to have it correlate with the fossil record you would have to have multiple creations staggered in time in order to account for why there is no fossil record of many, if not quite all, modern species.

[ERayR]

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on fast-forward.

 

Prove it.

[ERayR]

Where is the mechanism in organisms that prevent microevolution from eventually resulting in macroevolution?  It doesn't exist.  If one accepts microevolution and the antiquity of organisms on this planet, one must also accept macroevolution because it is inevitable.  Pair that with what we know from genetic studies and the fossil record and we have macroevolution.  It is common sense.

 

Not so.  There now my proclamation is as valid as yours.  The agricultural community has been using micro-evolution to change and improve their plants and animals.  The problem with your statement is that is with all this concerted effort they have yet to develop a new species.  No matter how much they change it, in the end they still have the same species they started with.

[ERayR]

There may well need to be some working with Evolutionary Theory as there appears to be periodic surges, I am told, in the fossil record.  However, there is a major flaw in the notion that one specied does not evolve into another if we are clinging to that explanation out of some religious motivation.  The flaw is that in order to have it correlate with the fossil record you would have to have multiple creations staggered in time in order to account for why there is no fossil record of many, if not quite all, modern species.

 

This is as viable a theory as macro-evolution, fits the data and requires no more faith than macro-evolution.  By jove I think you have done it.

[Stone holm]

Not so.  There now my proclamation is as valid as yours.  The agricultural community has been using micro-evolution to change and improve their plants and animals.  The problem with your statement is that is with all this concerted effort they have yet to develop a new species.  No matter how much they change it, in the end they still have the same species they started with.

 

Oh the agricultural community is playing with much more scary things than micro-evolution, they are transplanting genes way beyond species.

[Freedom]

 

 

For example. Children grow, we observe this everyday. And so if we don't see our Nieces and Nephews for a year, and they grow, it's safe to extrapolate that they did so gradually, because it's been observe before. With Macro-evolutionary changes, that never have been observed, ever. The extrapolation isn't justified by observation. 

 

 

This is patently false and demonstrates your ignorance of the evidence. There is ample evidence today of speciation, of changes that lead to two very similar animals not being able to procreate.

[cdowis]

Oh the agricultural community is playing with much more scary things than micro-evolution, they are transplanting genes way beyond species.

 

This is known as intelligent design.

[Freedom]

Not so.  There now my proclamation is as valid as yours.  The agricultural community has been using micro-evolution to change and improve their plants and animals.  The problem with your statement is that is with all this concerted effort they have yet to develop a new species.  No matter how much they change it, in the end they still have the same species they started with.

you need to read more. A new species can be defined as not being able to procreate with another. This does occur and is observed in nature as well. There are breeds of cows, for example, that cannot procreate with other cows just a few thousand years after separation. Macro-evolution has been produced in the lab over a very short period of time with mosquitos and other animals that have a very short life cycle. Since you have no alternative, and since there is no conflict between evolution and religion, I fail to see the point of your argument.

[ERayR]

Oh the agricultural community is playing with much more scary things than micro-evolution, they are transplanting genes way beyond species.

 

Those are out of the scope of our discussion unless you want to postulate that someone/something did the same to develop the variety we have.

[ERayR]

you need to read more. A new species can be defined as not being able to procreate with another. This does occur and is observed in nature as well. There are breeds of cows, for example, that cannot procreate with other cows just a few thousand years after separation. Macro-evolution has been produced in the lab over a very short period of time with mosquitos and other animals that have a very short life cycle. Since you have no alternative, and since there is no conflict between evolution and religion, I fail to see the point of your argument.

 

Are they still cows?

 

There are a couple of conflicts I see:

1)  It is puzzling to me why God would rely on chance to develop something that resembled him and then call it his offspring when he already has an untold number of planets full of his children.  Not an efficient use of resources.

 

2)  Evolution contradicts the doctrine of the fall.  If the fall is destroyed then so is the atonement.  (Don't bother, I think I have heard all the rationalizations and and claims of metaphors.)

 

PS:   Thanks for your concern about my knowledge base but it is a little misplaced.  It is because of my reading that I reject macro-evolution.  I used to accept it.  I also used to be in livestock production and used selective breeding programs quite extensivly.

Edited September 24, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ridiculous. The Fossil Record does not support evolution. Even Charles Darwin agreed. He wrote chapters making up excuses for the lack of that record. Here's a quote from Chapter 6 of his The Origin of Species:

"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

He then makes conjectures to ignore the record of well-defined species.

The fossil record and the living record of well-defined species, supports Creation, not evolution.

In Charles Darwin's day (you are aware that he wrote his book more than 150 years ago??) his statement was true.  In the time period since his book, the fossil record probably provides the strongest evidence of evolution.  The understanding about how speciation happens has come a tremendous distance since Darwin's day as well.  Just because you are willfully ignorant of the evidence for evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The fact that you go back over 150 years to substantiate your views speaks volumes.

[ERayR]

In Charles Darwin's day (you are aware that he wrote his book more than 150 years ago??) his statement was true.  In the time period since his book, the fossil record probably provides the strongest evidence of evolution.  The understanding about how speciation happens has come a tremendous distance since Darwin's day as well.  Just because you are willfully ignorant of the evidence for evolution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The fact that you go back over 150 years to substantiate your views speaks volumes.

 

The willfully ignorant label can go both ways here.  It seems to me the macro-evolutionists do willfully ignore a great deal.  For the inevitable CFR go back to the last time this topic made the rounds through this board and find my answers.

[Stone holm]

This is known as intelligent design.

 

Design yes, "intelligent" may be open to question.  I do not believe that intelligent design is necessarily excluded when we contemplate evolution especially when we consider the approach to "creation" as suggested by the early leaders of the Church.  There is no particular reason to just simply ignore geology and the fossil record in order to defend the account in Genesis.

[ERayR]

Design yes, "intelligent" may be open to question.  I do not believe that intelligent design is necessarily excluded when we contemplate evolution especially when we consider the approach to "creation" as suggested by the early leaders of the Church.  There is no particular reason to just simply ignore geology and the fossil record in order to defend the account in Genesis.

 

And thus you rudely shove God aside.

[Stone holm]

And thus you rudely shove God aside.

 

Where do you get that?   Monsanto is definitely not god and I certainly reserve the right to be as rude to them as they are being to mankind.  I am not the only Mormon who believes that Evolution is probably in God's toolkit.  Brigham Young already classified the creation in Genesis as "fable" if read like the Fundamentalists do, they is massively more rude than I am being.