Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION

Originally posted by bynus
To say that the first cause of creation is a being even more complex than any of its creations is even harder to believe. Did this complexity create itself?

I don't get it. Being more complex than what you create is logically improbable/impossible?

I like the judeo-christian concept of God, he is so far above human characterization that the very concept of time is irrelevant to him. In another thread someone asked what was God doing before creation, just hanging around?

According to the Judeo-Christian interpretation he couldn't be "hanging around", not according to a time-based interpretation.

Eternity is a place where time doesn't exist, if time doesn't exist for this God then it is possible for him to have "always been", in the same way you can imagine existence to have "always been".

I was responding to the argument that the complexity of man implies a creator. Accepting that hypothesis it would be hard to beleive that an even more complex being would be the first cause.

Originally posted by bynus
I was responding to the argument that the complexity of man implies a creator. Accepting that hypothesis it would be hard to beleive that an even more complex being would be the first cause.

Doesn't the hypothesis do well to explain why the creator would be complex. I think that hypothesis stems from the idea that life and nature functions by itself and is far too complex to have come about unintelligently.

Basically, I don't see how one position disqualifies the other.

As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

In light of that, what are your thoughts on Sun Wukong?

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

Originally posted by Scarlet Fox
As far as Im concerned i have yet to see enough proof to say we are from Apes. While at the same time I have yet to see enough proof to say we are made by "God"... while on that matter not enough proof that he exists. just years of paper work. Even a story made today, if it is good, will became Legend in the futur.

In other words

Not enough evidence to prove gods existence

Not enough Evidence to Prove we are from apes.

Im not arguing any points here nor do I care if you respond hostile or try to tell me something about "God" Or apes. this is strictly MY OWN OPINION and thus should be respected if not fully agreed upon.

We are not FROM apes, we are apes.

Mqybe Mormons got it right mith he dogma of God above God above God ad nauseum,

Originally posted by leonheartmm

micro evolution is proven to exist. fact.

Absolutely true!

Originally posted by leonheartmm

it is responsible for the evolution and appearance of most if not all single celled organism and other simple organisms.

Absolutely false! Micro-evolution states that organisms undergo variation, but that such processes are "limited in scope." You are referring to macro-evolution.

The point is, for example, cat DNA -- despite the similarities of cats and dogs -- does not contain information to birth/formulate a dog, not to mention a "dog feature!" The biological information, is simply non-existent! Hence the reason, so-called Creationists, presented this issue to Richard Dawkins:

YouTube video
[size=5]It's a fair question!

[/size]

Originally posted by leonheartmm

it might be true that micro evolution happens in humans but the evolution is slower because it is often seen as alien or cancer and is destroyed/removed. many people are misunderstanding darwin here.

Micro-evolution and genetic mutation are completely different areas of understanding. Do not confuse and blend the two.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

he never proposed that there was some collective unconciounce{like jung} found inside the very phenomenon of non localised evolution which was making it pick out the FITTEST. not at all.

Absolutely true! In fact, Darwin knew nothing about the most simplest form of life: the cell. To Darwin, the cell was merely protoplasm.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

the reason this misunderstanding arises is because of lack of understanding of what darwin meant by FIT. FIT was simply an organism that was better off in A SPECIFIC ENVIORNMENT AT A SPECIFIC TIME.

Absolutely true! But that does not account for "origins." The term "Survival of the Fittest," applies to real-life phenomena! Don't force it to define something else!!

Originally posted by leonheartmm

this could mean that a diseased organism who could drink less was genetically STRONGER than a healthy/ strong organism who could drink more. also genetical FITNESS also means reproducing, a weak, old, disease prone man having six children is genetically more FIT in the darwanian sense than a strong, athletic, healthy man having only one.

A weak analogy, but I understand. Your correct.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

most of the time reproductive superiority as i mentioned just now is far superior in the darwanian sense to enviornmentally ADAPTIVE{not traditionally STRONG or PERFECT} superiority.

Absolutely true!

Originally posted by leonheartmm

in the end its about which GENES survive{NOT individuals or individuals posessing the gene} the GENE ITSELF.

In this statement, your focusing on the molecular level, and you are absolutely correct!

Originally posted by leonheartmm

just as sickle cell anemia, although an inferiority and deadly disease is more FIT in malaria prone areas as it prevents the infected person from getting and dying of malaria as malaria is a more potent killer than the longterm sickle cell anemia.

What, however, does this have to do with "origins?"

Originally posted by ushomefree
...The point is, for example, cat DNA -- despite the similarities of cats and dogs -- does not contain information to birth/formulate a dog, not to mention a "dog feature!" The biological information, is simply non-existent!...

It seems that this has already happened. Cheetahs do not have retractable claws just like a dog. Millions of years ago Cheetahs were just like all other cats but then they started running and getting faster. One of the things they needed to go faster was dog like claws; now then have them.

There is no such thing as cat DNA because there is no fixed think called a cat. It is just a name we gave to an animal. Your understanding of evolution is too simple minded.

this is not mine, but i thought it might help...

"Okay, perhaps an answer from an evolutionary biologist will help (someone who actually understands evolution). Obviously, this answer will be a gross oversimplification. Microevolution and macroevolution are, essentially, the same thing. However they are very different in the respect that macroevolution extends over many generations and can eventually lead to another species. Yes, there is proof of macroevolution. Obviously we do not have the time to sit around and wait thousands or millions of years to watch it happen, so we must look elsewhere. Summation is a great example. Scientists from different fields (such as biology, paleontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, anthropology, etc.) can take different species of animals and arrange them on a phylogenetic tree (tree of life). Every time, from all different fields, independently, all of the trees of life will match...EXACTLY. We also have millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA.
Specifically regarding humans, Chromosome 2 proves that we do in fact share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. All of the Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Where did that pair go? We believed that a chromosome had gotten fused, but we weren't sure. If there was no fused chromosome, then evolution had a huge problem. Then we found Chromosome 2. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. Each chromosome has two telomeres and one centromere. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres (one should be inactive). Guess what...we found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we still belong in the family of Great Apes.
On a side note, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) exist in DNA. They are essentially viruses that are "good," and they exchange information. If they land on a body cell of an organism, their information is forever lost. However if they land on a sperm or an egg, their information will be passed to that organism's offspring. Chimpanzees and humans have over 60 ERVs in the exact same places in our genome. The chances of even one ERV landing in the same spot in our genomes (if we weren't related) is .00000000016% (since our genome is about 3 billion base pairs long). Think of the likelihood that over 60 ERVs would land in the exact same spots.

Things to study to improve your understanding:

- Summation
- Atavisms
- ERVs
- Vestigial Structures
- Pseudogenes (relates to atavisms)
- Speciation (very important)
- Allele Frequencies
- Genetic Drift

Hope this helps,

Dr. J"

Ushome, I hate your debating style. I specifically remember having a conversation about that Dawkins video with you years ago, yet you're using it falsely again.

Dawkins was tricked into thinking the interview was simply about a few evolutionary tenets. The group had lied to him about their true intent. The question revealed their intent, and in his anger he asked them to stop recording. He later went on to answer the question in a more scholarly manner, one that couldn't be condensed into a few sound blurbs.

You know this, but you're being duplicitous to further your agenda. It's sickening, frankly.

Besides that, you'll always just have a series of attacks about a subject you have too little understanding of. You'll never have a valid explanation of your own, you'll just blindly insert God into the areas where you perceive there to be a discrepancy between evidence and claims. It's the same tired sh*t creationists always pull, and remains just as illogical and self-serving as it's always been. You're not a scientist, you're not even an informed lay-person. You're just regurgitating information given to you by people with your same belief system.

Do we need another evolution smack-down?

Originally posted by Ordo
Do we need another evolution smack-down?

Guess not.

srug

A shame though. I always enjoy them.

Damn. I was hoping to justify all the money I spent taking bio and history of Darwinism classes in college.

🙁

That's not proof at all!

If "macro-evolution" existed, perhaps we could prove it.

I don't get this, macroevolution is really just evolution of life on earth in a broader scale of time, thus its study contemplates cladistic branches above the species level. It's not a distinct phenomenon from micro-evolution and it has been proven.

Originally posted by 753
I don't get this, macroevolution is really just evolution of life on earth in a broader scale of time, thus its study contemplates cladistic branches above the species level. It's not a distinct phenomenon from micro-evolution and it has been proven.

IIRC, pretty much the entire thread is people making that point.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
😆 You're just jealous, this IS proof, no conjecture. You just have to disagree, even when it makes a complete fool out of you.

Keep believing blindly in your utterly idiotic, illogical arguments...whatever keeps your fantasy, fools paradise real... 💃

What exactly has this generation of scientists speculations proven that wasn't already glaringly obvious. We have been given a rare power on this world and we all know what Spidey says about great power...

Of course that's true but some people will always rationalize for the ability to be irresponsible and guilt free. I hope you're not striving for a godless existence just so you can do whatever you want to do with no fear of having to own up to the things that you have done that you personally knew were wrong because you wouldn't want those things done to you.