Question About Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, you want to be educated? I'll take some time and hold your hand through this.

You want an example of macroevolution? The earliest known ancestor of modern day horses (hyracotherium) was actually more like a canine than anything we would call a horse. In it's environment, that was what allowed to survive. As habitats for hyracotherium (and other related animals I presume) to become the open grasslands that horses live on today, that animal evolved into the horse you know today (over an extremely long period of time). They also grew quite a bit, hyracotherium was around 0.4 metres in height, substantially smaller than a horse.

Here's a simple image that shows this evolutionary path:

[img][658:800]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Horseevolution.png[/img]

That is a textbook example of macroevolution, supported by the fossil record. Feel free to refute this with some BS quote from your torah, I need a good laugh to wake up in the mornings.

Question: why are you going on about materialism? What does that have to do with forces and fields and time and numbers? No one that isn't ignorant or an idiot will tell you those things don't exist. Especially not a materialist. Materialism is the concept that what we observe, we observe because it exists (versus idealism, what we observe exists because we observe it). Your ignorance is showing through in a spectacular way here.

You want an explanation for a human being having the eyesight of a cheetah? May I ask why? It would appear pretty simple to me. Cheetahs and humans are both hunters, and keen eyesight is a good trait for a hunting creature to have. A trait that increases survivability (like keen eyesight for a hunting species) is more likely to be passed down through generations. Over a long period of time, that trait will become more and more common among that species until it becomes a defining characteristic of said species.

In simpler terms: both species evolved good eyesight because it helped us survive. Simple as that.

Edit:

Note the time scale for the evolution from hyracotherium to modern horse. That is why you can't go out and watch macroevolution take place.

Last edited by abacacus on 03 Nov 2012, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

The issue is NOT Jews and christian hitching their boat of faith TO the big bang, and evolution, etc.

The issue is Jews and christians opposing the big bang and evolution etc, and tieing their boat to the sinking ship of creationism.

Thats what you oughtta be worried about!

at least if you dont count fruit flies and the thousands of bacteria where actual speciation has occured in weeks simnply because of rising antibiotic levels in their growth medium.

very nice post btw, havent seen that specific lineage used before and i wonder why, it really is exemplary.

The only critique I have about the reasoning behind macroevolution (the bolded part) is that would make it unfalsifiable. You're making an INFERENCE from the fossil record. You have a better case with fruit flies and bacteria.

The down side is that with insects and bacteria, you don't see a whole lot that's really NEW between various evolving species. You could see, for instance, a DDT-resistant strain of mosquitos develop in a DDT-heavy environment since it would eliminate most non-resistant mosquitos. If you're working with an open system, all you have to do is remove the environmental factors, e.g. pesticide, and the former populations of resistant vs. non-resistant mosquitoes should predictably return to normal. Rapid speciation could be interpreted as just another form of adaptation, so it might not be as convincing to some to call this macroevolution. Well-informed creationists can concede that evolution occurs on that level without much argument. But they wouldn't see the evidence for evolution on a higher level as all that convincing.

The bacteria example is another good case for microevolution/against macroevolution. Antibiotics have conventionally been used in such a sufficiently wide rotation that new bacteria strains resistant to newer antibiotics don't stand a chance against old-school drugs such as chloramphenicol. It would appear that the evolution of certain bacteria shows a REgression rather than a PROgression. (There are probably better examples. Chloramphenicol was known to have been overprescribed, but it fell into disuse due to potentially fatal side effects. It's a last-resort for critical MRSA patients. If you're going to die anyway, you probably aren't all that concerned by 1:10,000 risk of side effects.)

Evolution is not directional. It is impossible for a species to "regress", only become more fit for the habitat they live in.

I don't read it that way. I think MarketandChurch agrees with you. Try this:
Statement 1: Evolution doesn't challenge the existence of a God
Statement 2: only the understanding that God was not involved in any creation process excludes the existence of any God.

Seeing the two statements as alternatives instead of equivalent is at least a possible interpretation.

Depends on whether you allow humans to interfere with the evolution or not. Sheep are for instance bred deliberately to be stupid and docile, and probably won't survive without us anymore. This is why you won't see feral sheep ither places than isolated aras where food is abundant and predators are nonexistant.

The inference in that lineage is pretty firm. We can see that hyracotheirum was there, then vanished to be replaced by mesohippus, which vanished to be replaced by merychippus, etc. Unless those animals died off and the next step in the evolutionary line appeared from nowhere, I can't think of any explanation other than evolution. If you can think of a reasonable explanation (other than evolution) that has evidence supporting it, please educate me.

Seems my Banana Bomb was a Dumb Fire Munition

Read that way, which is probably the way it was meant to be read, IS something I mostly agree with except I would not say "the understanding that God was not involved..." because to say there is understanding of that implies that the nonexistence of God is something that can be understood while I do not think that is the case. If we really knew enough to "understand" this subject, we would be like Gods ourselves (maybe we are, but it sure looks to me like we're a bunch of crazed monkeys).

Still, even if we agree on some things, MarketAndChurch uses the oogity boogity incredible complexity and astronomical odds arguments that have been shown to be bogus arguments, has not answered the questions I asked him about the genetic evidence for evolution, grossly misrepresents the quality of the fossil record, and denies that the fossil record DOES show humans and tortoises have a common ancestor. MarketAndChurch also asks to see calculations of what it would take to turn a zebra into a whale. First, that is NOT how evolution works, and second, there is a well-documented series of transitional fossils that do clearly show the transition from land animals to whales, and examining the DNA of living species also produces the same tree of life as is found in the fossil record.

The bottom line is that MarketAndChurch is apparently not stupid, but since he is not stupid and has been told about the evidence he can't claim ignorance unless he willfully refuses to look at that evidence, which puts MarketAndChurch into either the insane or the wicked category. The Discovery Institute are well known for their sleazy slimy sneaky dishonest tactics, weasel words and BS definitions that are NOT meant to aid understanding but instead to spread confusion and lies so they can institute their theocratic agenda to repeal the enlightenment and send America and the world back to the Dark Ages. They are EVIL!

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 03 Nov 2012, 5:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Let's put a stop to this debate, shall we?

[img][800:750]http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/book1qts/embryo-compare.jpg[/img]

Exactly. Another possibility is that God "poofed" each species (or maybe even each individual organism of each species) into existence, let that species die out after thousands or millions of years, then magically "poofed" another similar species into existence at just the right place in the fossil record to make it LOOK like evolution happens. Oh, and he also leaves even stronger clues in the DNA that only make sense if evolution happens, just to fool us!

Really, AngelRho, MarketAndChurch, is your God REALLY like that? Why not accept the reality that all the evidence clearly shows humans DID evolve and DO share common ancestry with other creatures. You can still say "Goddidit", but to deny what the evidence shows is just crazy. IF evolution did not happen that makes God a liar. If evolution is a lie, that lie does not come from the pits of Hell but instead comes directly from the throne of Heaven.

It is just as stupid and just as wrong as if the two of you were to insist that the earth is flat in spite of all evidence to the contrary and were to argue with us that the odds are astronomically against it being spherical. IT IS THAT STUPID! If you see that, you would understand why I am so amazed how anyone can be so out of touch with reality as to deny that the evidence for evolution exists.

It isn't just looking at the evidence and interpreting it according to one's world view either. The data has certain patterns that only make sense if evolution happens and do not seem consistent with the idea of separate creation of "kinds." The evidence ALL supports evolution, even macroevolution. If you are honest you may find that you are arguing against this not for scientific or logical reasons but for theological reasons. Possibly you both are badly misinformed about this subject in spite of the efforts of several here on this forum to try to educate you. There really is NO excuse for being so pig-headed and ignorant.

I don't believe God lies to us. If He wants the world to look as if it's billions of years old, and life has evolved upon it, who are we to argue with Him?

http://www.talkorigins.org/ - useful to show how evolution really works and how creationism is dishonest BS. It is a really neat website.

That's all I have. I treat people who openly advocate Creationism the same as 9/11 Truthers, Holocaust deniers, and anti-vaccination loons: I don't talk to them, I just show links and sources to show why they are wrong. It's energy vampirism, you waste too much battery life trying to explain to them basic facts only to have it be wasted keystrokes.

@AngelRho, @MarketAndChurch:

Don't even try talking to me, it's not going to work. Say anything you want, I don't care if it's even a personal smear or completely not true. If I find anything else I'll post here, but this is a good start. Good night.

Good night, sweet prince.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, there are logical inconsistencies, and some beautiful cases of straw man argumentation here. But what is remarkable is the extreme emotional attachment to an idea or thing that results in outbursts like this. I have to question the arguer's objectivity and ability to even present a rational argument.

I'm somewhat honored to be mentioned in the same context as MarketAndChurch. For the record, we strongly disagree on a number of theological issues, though I applaud some of his convictions on the state of Christianity. I disagree on how to fix it, but he's dead on about some of the issues. But he has done a much better job of articulating the problems with evolution than I ever could. What amuses me about it is MarketAndChurch has been amazingly reasonable about it, but the other side has resorted to ad hominem attacks for US being "pig-headed." So much for intellectual honesty!