this idiot seems to be unaware of the fact that macro-evolution is simply a sucession of micro-evolved traits.
To state micro-evolution is true you are stating macro-evolution is true.........unless for some reason you are stating that micro-evolution is true but it only happened one time in the history of our planet. Once you admit it happened more than once, that two seperate traits can evolve......you are admitting the very definition of macro-evolution.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
this idiot seems to be unaware of the fact that macro-evolution is simply a sucession of micro-evolved traits.To state micro-evolution is true you are stating macro-evolution is true.........unless for some reason you are stating that micro-evolution is true but it only happened one time in the history of our planet. Once you admit it happened more than once, that two seperate traits can evolve......you are admitting the very definition of macro-evolution.
Do you think he is listening? 😱
Evil Dead
Perhaps I can shed light on the conversation? Micro-evolution is true! I do not think anyone denies its occurrence in nature? If they do, I challenge them to study. Micro-evolution, however, is "limited" in scope. Example: a bird's beak may (over time) increase or decrease in lenght, but under no circumstance would a bird evolve into an entirely different organism, like a small fish, squirrel, insect, mouse, or whatever; that is macro-evolution, and it has never (absolutely never) been documented as an occurrence in nature. Macro-evolution is impossible! It could not happen; it would not happen.
If you possess sound scientific data that refutes my understanding of Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," I highly recommend that you call any of the countless departments of molecular and cellular biology. They would love to hear from you, so too would the departments of ecology and evolution! Michael Behe speaks for scientific knowledge of today, not Darwin's day. If they are wrong, you'll be on the front of ever newspaper in the world!! An overwhelming majority of the scientific community no longer embraces the possibilty of macro-evolution due to advancements in molecular biology over the past 30 years. Life occurrs at the molecular level. Lay persons overlook that; scientists with naturalistic point of views know better.
When you pier through a micron microscope into the core of a cell, you become well acquainted with the complexity of it. Pier further, and you wined up with DNA. Let me explain.
The foundation of modern science is built on evolution. Yet, evolution is one of those vague words that mean different ideas to different people. It actually just has two meanings:
MICRO-EVOLUTION is the theory that organisms can adapt to changes in their surroundings and develop a limited amount of diversity based on their environment. Variation within a species is possible, such as a Bird's beak getting larger or a moth's wings changing color, but it's limited in scope. Micro-evolution has a "solid" scientific basis, and (again) no one disputes it's occurrence in nature.
MACRO-EVOLUTION is another ballgame altogether. Also called Darwinian evolution, this theory takes the proven idea of limited change over time and attempts to explain all questions concerning the origins of life in the same manner: Simple organisms branched out over billions of years to create complex organisms like you see inhabiting the world today. Macro-evolution is to micro-evolution as F16 fighter jets are to popcorn farts.
Macro-evolution is driven by natural selection, a survival-of-the-fittest process that has no mind or purpose; organisms that adapt to their environment survive, and those that don't, become extinct. Natural selection causes such features as wings and eyes to develop over extended periods of time as a way for organisms to better adapt to their environments. Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins memorably called this evolutionary process "the blind watchmaker."
Although micro-evolution is a theory that evidence confirms, macro-evolution is far more speculative. In fact, scientists have no more evidence today (and argue less) to support macro-evolution than Darwin did. The theory of evolution has never successfully answered the basic questions about how life began or explained the mystery of the DNA code. They also point in recent discoveries as further evidence showing the need for a God as designer or transcendent causal agent for those lacking faith in God. For example, in Darwin's day, scientists originally thought the cell was a simple structure, but advances in molecular biology over the past 30 years have shown how complex the cell is, making the likelihood of natural selection at the molecular level impossible.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin believed that the cell is a relatively simple structure that could've evolved through natural selection. But, as the quote above illustrates, Darwin himself saw holes in his theory should cells be proven to be too structurally complex to have evolved on their own. Due to technological advances over the past 30 years, scientists no longer have to speculate on the cell. They now have the ability to view and understand a cell's composition in the ways that were unheard of decades before.
With this newly discovered knowledge in tow, scientist Michael Behe writes in his book "Darwin's Black Box" that it's impossible for cells to have evolved through a gradual process, because they're irreducibly complex. In other words, a core set of parts has to be present in a cell in order for it to function in the first place.
To explain his point, Behe uses the example of an ordinary mouse trap. Behe argues that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex, because all it's pieces have to be present and in working order for it to function. You can't just put a piece of wood out in the attic and catch a mouse or two, then add a spring to snatch a second, and then assemble the hammer for even more. This increment approach doesn't work.
Instead, all these pieces must be assembled together and functioning properly before the challenge of mouse catching can even begin. In the same way, cells and other living organisms are irreducibly complex, which seems incompatible with the survival-of-the-fittest theory and suggest strong evidence that cells were designed by a transcendent causal agent or God.
The popular assumption is that the fossil record proves that simple creatures evolved to become complex ones. But, in reality, the fossil record doesn't show the proof of any transitional forms of species that Darwinian evolution requires. Fossils consistently show up as sudden explosions of species with little changes taking place after that in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion verifies this.
Darwinian evolution is the required way to explain the origins of the world if you have a naturalistic worldview. It's a belief system, not good science. Seriously, if you disagree with Michael Behe, you should call someone with the proper credentials to aid in your efforts. I wish you the best.
Perhaps I can shed light on the conversation? Micro-evolution is true! I do not think anyone denies its occurrence in nature? If they do, I challenge them to study. Micro-evolution, however, is "limited" in scope. Example: a bird's beak may (over time) increase or decrease in lenght, but under no circumstance would a bird evolve into an entirely different organism, like a small fish, squirrel, insect, mouse, or whatever; that is macro-evolution, and it has never (absolutely never) been documented as an occurrence in nature. Macro-evolution is impossible! It could not happen; it would not happen
but species are just a classification invented by the human mind, they do not exist in nature. You just stated that a trait such as the length/density/width of a birds beak is subject to change via micro-evolution. This is ofcourse a minor alteration of anatomy. This alteration occurs by the bone (beak) changing shape.......and ofcourse as it grows more massive or less massive, the surrounding tissue (like muscles) change to support it.....
now...the difference between human and mountain gorilla is the skeletal structure. Surely you are not advocating that a birds beak can change shape but not a gorillas femur..........or that a birds skull can change shape but not a gorillas skull........or that a birds rib-cage can change shape but not a gorillas.......
I'm sorry.......credentials/non-credentials aside.........but it takes someone with a complete lack of sense to say that it's true...the sketelal structure of a bird can alter (as you mentioned beak) to become a different species of bird but the skeletal structure of gorilla can not change in the very same damn fashion as you so readily admitted a bird's can.
I don't see how a grown man can say that an albatross and a finch share a common ancestor.......their skeletal structures just changed over time resulting in two different specimens of greatly varying size and shape........but a gorilla and a human could not possible share a common ancestor because our skeletal structures vary in size and shape. Last I checked........that would fit the very definiton of macro-evolution as gorillas and humans are not classified as the same species.
Either bone structure can change or it can't.........across the board.......you can't just pick and choose based on what your local clergyman tells you. matter of fact.......anotomically.......I'll look this up but I'd almost bet money that the structure of a gorilla is closer to that of a human than the structure of a finch is to and an albatross or vulture.
also,
you went on at great length about the complexity of a cell......yet you did not mention that cells between species are the same. The differnece is ofcourse how the cells are arranged. As a matter of fact even the different cells within a specimen all start out as the same stem cells.......uniform. You posted it as though it was supposed to lend creedence to the arguement but actually it does quite the opposite. As you stated, cells are complex.........the very fact that a pigs muscular cells and that are a human are identical lends creedence to both species sharing a common ancestor.............
Re: Prove Evolution...win money
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Hey all, thought this would be fun.$250,000 Reward
Offered by Dr. Kent Howard to:
Anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.
(see h**p://www.drdino.com/Articles/Article1.htm.)
He gives 15 questions for an evolutionist to answer with proof(not theory/guesses) :
1.) WHERE did the universe come from?
2.) WHERE did matter come from?
3.) WHERE did the LAWS of the universe come from (gravity,inertia, etc.)?
4.) HOW did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.) WHERE did the ENERGY come from to do all the organizing?
6.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life come from dead matter?
7.) WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW did life learn to reproduce itself?
8.) With WHAT did the FIRST cell capable of reproduction reproduce?
On the same token: I'll do likewise to anyone who can present empirical proof that God exists.
(Sorry. A Divine sense of humor--as powerfully suggested by the existence of Dr. Kent Howard--doesn't meet the empirical bar.)
Evil Dead
Like I said, do not talk to me about your findings. Contact the department of molecular and cellular biology or ecology and evolution. If you could verify (even in a scientific model) that macro-evolution is possible, let alone occurs in nature, you'd be on the front of every newspaper and scientific journal in the world. You would have to only present one example! Why are you talking to us lay persons in this field??
I am a supporter of micro-evolution. I agree with it. It has a strong scientific basis, and only a fool would deny that micro-evolution occcurs in nature. Micro-evolution (simply said) can be compared to modifying a car engine. You can add an air intake to the intake manifold, slap on high performance exhaust, modify the pistons, or change the headers; it is still a car engine. You could even add on bigger tires and rims. To modify a car/engine in such a manner that it manifests itself into something completely different, you'd have to completely redesign it. That is macro-evolution, and it has never (aboslutely never) been proven, let alone documented in nature. But, you seem to know something that the scientific community doesn't. As previously stated, contact someone with the proper credentials to aid in your efforts. I wish you the best.
I think science is cool. I really do. And I support on going research in any given field/theory. The search for fact is a good thing. But, I've got to tell you my friend, macro-evolution is one of the most desperate theories I have ever seen. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community no longer take it seriously. And their are profound reasons as to why!! DO THE RESEARCH!!! No pun intended. Evolutionists have been slam dunked and backed into a corner. I forget who said it, but... Michael Behe has NEVER been proven wrong (ha ha ha)! He does not speak for himself. He speaks for 30 years of advancements in molecular biology that soundly and surgically blow macr-evolution out of the water. He speaks for the majority. Where do people get this stuff? Michael Behe proven wrong? Give me a break (ha ha ha)! I question the source. Get off the internet and buy a good book! Tires are round right?
While evolutionists are struggling with macro-evolution (and not all support it), molecular biologists are making headlines. Why? Becasue the claims they make are verified and proven. It's fact for crying out loud!! Do the research. Why are we even having this conversation?
Michael Behe has NEVER been proven wrong? Are you his son or something? You DO realize that Michael Behe was refuted by the creators of the No Free Lunch theorem for misusing it in his works, right? I suggest you figure out what the hell it is you're talking about and try not to pretend like the one guy who supports you is infallible.
Arguments have been made enlight of new developments. But, molecular biologists like Michael Behe have never been proven wrong. Despite everything, I will honestly look into your statement. I have read numerous arguments against claims of molecular biology; I was never impressed. I do not speak for myself. I am simply referring information regarding the present disposition of macro-evolution (it looks horrible), and that molecular biologists are in the lead by a land slide!
People like you are impossible. You are so blinded by your ignorance. Seek knowledge brother; spend a few bucks. Buy a good book written by a "respected" author or check out these DVD movies. You just won't get it until you read something substantial. You think I am probably being stubborn? I am only presenting the latest scientific developments. And they are only disputed by persons that have too much pride. There will be a different theory on macro-evolution next year and the year after, and the year after that. They are sooo desperate. See for yourself! Again, the majority of the scientific community- not just Michael Behe, have moved on to bigger and better things. Things that have been verified and confirmed. Macro-evolution is dead!
http://www.reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=386&cat=25
http://www.reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=490&cat=25&page=1
Originally posted by ushomefree
Micro-evolution (simply said) can be compared to modifying a car engine. You can add an air intake to the intake manifold, slap on high performance exhaust, modify the pistons, or change the headers; it is still a car engine. You could even add on bigger tires and rims. To modify a car/engine in such a manner that it manifests itself into something completely different, you'd have to completely redesign it.
Or you could extend the base, and then lose the backseat, and then get rid of the back half of the roof, and suddenly it's a ****ing pickup truck.
Michael Behe never proven wrong? AAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/behe/
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/93550/00324
Kenneth Miller responds:The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.*
Professor Bartelt writes:
if we assume that Behe is correct, and that humans can discern design, then I submit that they can also discern poor design (we sue companies for this all the time!). In Darwin's Black Box, Behe refers to design as the "purposeful arrangement of parts." What about when the "parts" aren't purposeful, by any standard engineering criteria? When confronted with the "All-Thumbs Designer" - whoever designed the spine, the birth canal, the prostate gland, the back of the throat, etc, Behe and the ID people retreat into theology.* [I.e., God can do whatever He wants, or We're not competent to judge intelligence by God's standards, or being an intelligent designer does not mean being a good or perfect designer.]
H. Allen Orr writes:
Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
How about you take your own advice and do some ****ing research?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Evil DeadLike I said, do not talk to me about your findings. Contact the department of molecular and cellular biology or ecology and evolution. If you could verify (even in a scientific model) that macro-evolution is possible, let alone occurs in nature, you'd be on the front of every newspaper and scientific journal in the world. You would have to only present one example! Why are you talking to us lay persons in this field??
I am a supporter of micro-evolution. I agree with it. It has a strong scientific basis, and only a fool would deny that micro-evolution occcurs in nature. Micro-evolution (simply said) can be compared to modifying a car engine. You can add an air intake to the intake manifold, slap on high performance exhaust, modify the pistons, or change the headers; it is still a car engine. You could even add on bigger tires and rims. To modify a car/engine in such a manner that it manifests itself into something completely different, you'd have to completely redesign it. That is macro-evolution, and it has never (aboslutely never) been proven, let alone documented in nature. But, you seem to know something that the scientific community doesn't. As previously stated, contact someone with the proper credentials to aid in your efforts. I wish you the best.
I think science is cool. I really do. And I support on going research in any given field/theory. The search for fact is a good thing. But, I've got to tell you my friend, macro-evolution is one of the most desperate theories I have ever seen. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community no longer take it seriously. And their are profound reasons as to why!! DO THE RESEARCH!!! No pun intended. Evolutionists have been slam dunked and backed into a corner. I forget who said it, but... Michael Behe has NEVER been proven wrong (ha ha ha)! He does not speak for himself. He speaks for 30 years of advancements in molecular biology that soundly and surgically blow macr-evolution out of the water. He speaks for the majority. Where do people get this stuff? Michael Behe proven wrong? Give me a break (ha ha ha)! I question the source. Get off the internet and buy a good book! Tires are round right?
While evolutionists are struggling with macro-evolution (and not all support it), molecular biologists are making headlines. Why? Becasue the claims they make are verified and proven. It's fact for crying out loud!! Do the research. Why are we even having this conversation?
I have to say that was an excellent Ushgarak impression. You've also done some good "whob" impressions in the past as well. I know your previous screen names, but I won't tell..let's just say you do a hell of a good job impersonating people..and leave it at that..😉
Still...you did make some excellent points on macro-evolution being a dead theory. The funniest part of your post is that you used the opposite of Ush's position on macro-evolution to prove your point.
Anyway. We both know that it's a dead theory. So I guess people like you gotta take up a new strategy to fight against the Christians and ID supporters..if you can't beat em, pretend to be em..right? 😉
Fin