Debunking Macro-Evolution

Remove all ads!

1) So far no Transitionary, Macro-evolutionary, Fossils found.

2) Fruit Flys are still Fruit Flys that are capable of breeding with each other.

3) The Cambrian Explosion occurs during Earth's History and supposedly MacroEvolution becomes much, much, faster and thus a wider variety of species are created. Sadly, this occurs before scientists claim the first Global Natural Disaster strikes killing 95% of Animal Life. Yet a mere couple millions of years later we have Dinosaurs? Reptiles? Birds? Uh Huh.

3a) Global Disaster Strikes 2nd time killing about 50% of the Animal Population. Yet Human's Ancestor arrives less than 62 Million Years later?

3b) If there was indeed a 'Cambrian Explosion' and then 2 Huge Global Disasters... What explains how Macroevolution could have suvived enough to create Dinosaurs out of just 5-10% of Animal Life remaining in such a short amount of time? Same goes for Human's Ancestor.

4) Law of Biogensis states that Life comes from Life. Each living thing must have a parent. You can not create life out of non-living particles/material/stuff. This law has not yet been broken.

5) If Macroevolution is to be believed and GOD does not exist then isn't it true then that ALL LIFE has a common ancestor? We all start off as a singled celled organism floating around? From then on diverse life keeps appearing? If so: Then how do you explain how life still diversifies and survives after not ONE but TWO Global Disasters? What 'common parent' produced the Human Race? after half the population of the Animal Life dies off!?

6) Some scientists argue Macroevolution (in-between species change) uses the same genetic processes of Microevolution. We can observe
Microevolution. We have yet not observed a single species splitting into 2 species that can not breed with each other.
============================

FYI: The Earth is thousands of millions of years old. It did NOT begin at year 4003 B.C. The Holy Bible does not explain at all, anywhere, when the Earth was made and therefore Creationists should 'shut up' and trust Science.

[ April 28, 2004, 08:37: Message edited by: American Optimist ]

 

@American Optomist

They will not respond. There will be a resounding silence because there is no answer...other than "we must seek to discredit this one, because if we don't...we may not be masters of all we survey".

You state the classic flaws of evolutionary theory...but I fear your truths are wasted.

 

The main reason there is no response is not because these are truths, but because well firstly I am no scientific expert but the main reason is that it isnt worth responding to. What could possible be said to sway an opinion like this? It would be like trying to convince me about the existance of the biblical god. Cannot be done, not at the present atleast.

I can say one thing though, and that is that science has never claimed to hold all the answers just that they are searching for as many as possible and what they have found as of yet when it comes to origin of life is to me a lot more credible than some being saying "let there be life" or the ecquivalent thereof.

 

Au contraire Hacken Slash. Just as I refuted YOUR nonsense claims I am compiling the refutations to THIS collected nonsense right now.


And you can get bent out of shape that I called nonsense "nonsense" all you want. As far as science is concerned this IS nonsense.


See you shortly


Edit:and awaAAAYYY we go!

Cite? This is (YET AGAIN) a bald assertion and an all too cvommon one. There have been THOUSANDS of transitional fossils found. Whenever a creationist like Duane Gish demands to see the transitional between, say species A and species C and is provided with the transitional "B" they then deny this is a transitional, claiming it as a seperate species and demanding to see the transitional between 'a' and 'b'. It is moving the goalposts.

You can go to your local museum to see transitional fossils anywhere in the US but here is a link to get you started examining the lengthy lsit of transitionals:


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


Now if you can refute any of the INFORMATION there then be my guest but simply asserting that the site is "partisan" will not do. That is akin to saying that 2+2 does NOT equal "4" because you think mathematicians are "anti-faith" or somesuch. BTW, I have never encountered a pop-up at the talkorgins site contrary to Hacken's earlier assertion.

Again, if the information is false it should be easy enough to refute the information without tossing out excuses and bald assertions and specualting on the motivations/character of scientists.

Notice how I am, addressing your arguments/challenges and not just saying "American Optimist is biased so I will ignore him".

1)There are currently over 3,000 species of fruit flies some of which are incapable of breeding with other types of fruit flies.

2)Evolution occurs fundementally at the "micro" level. "Macroevolution" merely describes microevolution over the course of millions or billions of years. Therefore humans are not likely to directly observe macroevoutionary changes(seings how we have only been around, at best a few million years and have only been actively studying our universe scientifically for several thousand years at best). Species do not change classifications as the scientifically illiterate might expect due to these microevolutionary changes. A chimp is still a primate, a primate is still an animal etc. A chimp never becomes a plant for example.

Again, I will save us a lot of time and effort trying to make out my own unecessarily complicated answer and give you the response from the scientists at Talkorgins:


http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


Complete with references even(something creationists are apparently unfamiliar with)!

See above and alsoAgain from Talkorgins)

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

I will refute this one right off the top of my head without even consulting any reference materials or web sites. There is no such "law of biogenesis" and the field of ABIOGENESIS has nothing to do with evolution!

Also we HAVE created self-replicating molecules in laboratories!(See E. Rhezra Ghadiri's experiments for example)

Common ancestorS(note the plural). Darwinian lineage from a single "trunk" applies mostly to modern species but early biodiversity likely occured along "horizontal" lines where multiple "trunks" gave way to multiple "trees of life". In other words the same single celled organism that lead to dandelions did not likely lead to HUMANS.

There have likely been MANY such disasters throughout earth's history but I fail to see why you think this means life stopped developing!?

Scientists are still answering this question We can trace our descent unmistakably from miocene apes to homo sapiens(and down a multitude of evolutionary "dead ends" such as neanderethal and(possibly) cro magnon) but this question is somewhat poorly phrased because it could be answered with ANY of the following:

1)Amino acids
2)Australiopithicus
3)Homo Habilus

etc.

That is NOT macroevolution! The terms "micro" and "macroevolution" are pretty much meaningless distinctions in biology. Macroevolution basically describes micorevolutionary processes over the course of ages and eras adn has nothing to do with one species transforming into a different species.

Wrong and wrong again!

a)You have a misonception of "macroevolution".

b)We have observed microevolution in fruit flies( and other insects) lead to distinct types which are incapable of breeding with other types of fruit flies.


============================

???


The earth and moon have been independently dated at 4.5 billion years old(so far no independent tests/dating methods have contradicted this) but in any case, you are an IDer then?

[ April 28, 2004, 19:30: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Hold on RQ,

Before you hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, I think we need to establish what you have shown to be "nonsense"...I think judging from the responses on the board WE ALL made it clear that it was "nonsense" to even continue a debate that was as polarizing as this one.

Based on the lack of persons flooding the forums to thank you for saving them from the darkness of "Belief in God"...I would hold off on the award acceptance speeches

What you have done is post a series of quick, one word answers that don't even address the issues that have been raised...but mostly...the things that you take for proof are theories that are based on other theories, all of which are dependent upon a denial of the existence of God in the first place.

In other words, the evidence you cite seems to support your claims (to you) because you interpret it from the standpoint of assumption that there is no higher power than yourself. You can't prove or disprove anything...only rattle back the interpretations of theory held by the majority of the scientific community.

Remember, majority is not = correct...everyone was willing to believe the Emperor wasn't butt-nekid either

As soon as you come to the understanding of the limitations of your powers, we can perhaps begin a conversation like rational men (who, by the way, were created above the animals )

 

I cannot even begin to reply in a timely manner to the number of issues address on both sides of this arguement. Modern humans originated (at best current estimate) about 120,000 years ago. That, evolutionarily speaking, is a blink of an eye. Observing macroevolution would be impossible even if you were the first human to walk the earth, and were still alive todaay. While I think that the mere existance of mammals (nevermind humans) is a good indicator that macroevolution does in fact occur (despite the seeds of macroevolution occurring at the micro level), people will see what they want to see. If anyone would like a detailed explanation of how all this evolution stuff works (and why some but not all of American's claims are not accurate), PM me, and I'll discuss it in a rational manner. I'm not going to post all my answers here, just to get shot down by people who take this emotionally charged issue way too seriously, and will nitpick every single point with me. If you want to discuss it rationally, I'm more than happy to talk.

EDIT: @ Beren Sorry for riding your coat-tails there. Your post came while I was writing mine.

 

Unlike other creationists, I look at what Science has to show for its theories, hypothesis, e.t.c. and I give it the benefit of the doubt. If it's proven false then so be it.

RUNEQUESTER
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cite? ... Transitionals.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm very familiar with the TalkOrigins website. I am familiar in being 'confused.'They use 'Theories' to back up the 'Theories' to back up Macro-Evolution.

Talk Origins says this:
"Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them."

Yip yip yip yahoo.
This is 'Micro-Evolution.' If I ever raise a son that is not impotent but can not breed with the current Human Species, then I will swallow this as Macroevolution. But there is no proof to suggest that breeding wasn't universal amongst the 'HUMANOID' fossils identified.

All Science has is the 'claim' that Austerophalcus (whatever the spelling) is an ancestor of Humans and Apes. But this thing is 1.9 Million years before the recognizeable Human Creature shows up. (Forgive my spelling, too lazy to look it up).

Besides, Scientific sources place 'Disclaimers' on Mr. Austioperosis.

"O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost."

The GENOME project should be able to get to the bottom of whether or not new GENES can miraculously appear out of thin air. In my understanding, we can see if genes are merely turned off and on.

"The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops"

TalkOrigins in all its wisdom doesn't have a link to an E-BOOK to explain what species of Trilobyte, Phacop, is the transitionary species.
Please forgive me my pursuits through GOOGLE:

As according to http://www.phacops.com/cambrianperiod.html

There were 10,000 species of Trilobytes. Some burrow, some have spines, some float/swim and don't burrow, all eat Algae. Fascinating. Next?

"A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost.""

The what the? ????! Gradual Transitional Fossil is one that connects the gobbledygook with the gibble flibble and modifies the shell. Huh?

LET ME SUM IT ALL UP LIKE LEGOS:
=======================
We connect a PROTIST:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html

With a Photosynthetic Cockatrice or if you prefer an O. Universa.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/imagelibrary/orbulinauniversa.html

Hmm. The O. Universa's shell is made up of Calcium Carbonate.

The Protist's shell is made up of Sand Grains or Crystalline Calcite and other particles cemented together.

Protists have cytoplasm called reticulopodia,

O. Universa has photosynthetic symbionts of which millions of organisms live off of.

I'm sure with further research I can grab another mouthful of differences here... How can we claim that there's a transition?

We would have to find a PROTIST that is part PROTIST and part O. Universa. We do not see such a thing dicussed at Talk Origins. Can't we at least have the shells made up of the same materials? Is that too much to ask Talk Origins?

"The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay"

Morphospecies? What the heck is a Morphospecies?
Is it an animal? A parakeet perhaps? A kangaroo?

Nope. Morphospecies is a 'Scientific Theory' (here we go with the Theory within a Theory)

of evalutating how different in bone structure one organism is to another." When this guy says 'Morphospecies' he is actually saying 'Similarities.' Folks.. I am highly similar to a Chimpanzee but I don't dangle from Tree Branches, pound my chest, and munch on Banana Peels all day (unless it picks up chicks).

Yip yip yip yahoo! http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_61578.htm

 

Technically, every organism is a transitory organism. So, it would be impossible for you to be more wrong. There are numerous fossils the infer a linkage between hominids and other hominoids. Looking at the hominid fossil record, we see many traits evolve from what we consider ancestral hominonid traits into derived hominid traits. For instance, there is a transition from distal to apical wear in canines. Also, the increase in brain size is *gradual*. The australopithecines had ape-sized brains 400-500cc. The early homo fossils have a mean around 800 cc. Later homo fossils mean around 1100 cc and modern humans mean around 1350cc. There is plenty of overlap. And there is plenty of ambiguity (i.e. "which species does this belong to?").

I've worked with the casts myself... the increase is gradual, there is no denying it.

That is one of a plethora... nay, a countless number of examples.

 

Ankiseth Vanir (In Quotes)

"Technically, every organism is a transitory organism. So, it would be impossible for you to be more wrong."

Talk Origins sites a process known as Morphospecies (Similarities) that is required to find a 'transitionary' anything.

Then you list a bunch of examples of which most if not all are 'Micro-Evolution' examples.

" The australopithecines had ape-sized brains 400-500cc. The early homo fossils have a mean around 800 cc. the increase in brain size is *gradual*. "

(Yawn) Humans = 1 Species = MICRO

"For instance, there is a transition from distal to apical wear in canines."

(Yawn) All Canines are of one Species = MICRO

"I've worked with the casts myself... the increase is gradual, there is no denying it."

And I do not deny the existence of MICROEVOLUTION. I deny the existence of MACRO-EVOLUTION whereby 1 species splits into 2. Now you state it is gradual but there has never been any evidence to suggest that any organism is the 'parent' of a different can't breed with species organism.

"That is one of a plethora... nay, a countless number of examples."

And I am sure you are confusing all those examples with microevolution.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Fruit Flys are still Fruit Flys that are capable of breeding with each other.

 

Please learn how to properly quote

 

In addition to getting the quotes right, could you gentlemen also refrain from quoting everybody else's posts in their entirety?

This thread is an incomprehensible mess.