Macroevolution:

[tevans9129]

I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. The Earth appears to be over 4 billions of years old and life on Earth has appeared to have existed for almost as long (based on earliest fossil life). It's just the way things appear, what's the issue exactly?

I do not have an objection, I think the word was “curious”.

The question as to how it began and that's what they are trying to figure out. Biology is complicated and research takes time; especially given the technological advancements that have been required to make such study possible.

Yep, the reason for my curisority, “I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began”

If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?

Huh? Not sure what your point is here.

The point is, like in building, one begins with the foundation, not the floor. If one is teaching about evolution, start with the foundation, where did life come from, where and how was the environment for life created, IOW, the beginning, not jumping in at the floor level.

If you take an introduction to biology class you will certainly start with some of the basics of evolutionary biology. This should include basics of DNA, population genetics, evolutionary mechanisms, basic phylogenetics, and so on.

Does that “introduction to biology class” teach you how life began from nothing? If it does, there are many folks that post in this group who skipped the class or slept through it would you say?

 

[lesliedellow]

If you show the same six year old a picture with a monkey, a gorilla, a person and a giraffe in a picture and he will still pick the giraffe. Your argument supports the fact that you are the same kind as other apes.

Not to mention that outward appearance is just about the shallowest basis for classifying species it is possible to dream up, and it is certainly no basis for a sweeping statement that one "kind" can't evolve into another.

 

[Speedwell]

Does that “introduction to biology class” teach you how life began from nothing? If it does, there are many folks that post in this group who skipped the class or slept through it would you say?

It would teach that at the present time nobody knows.

 

[bhsmte]

"If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?" (post #224)

"Oh, now I see the question. Pardon me, please. If you are going to teach evolution, then you teach evolution. If you re going to teach abiogenesis, then that's what you should teach, but you're going to have to wait until a coherent theory of abiogenesis is propounded. Or are you going to suggest that we wait to teach what we know about evolution until there is a theory of abiogenesis?" (post #248)

Here is my question: You exaggerate the certainty with which scientific theories are presented and then fault science for it. You blame evolution for not being able to explain abiogenesis, but you have no explanation of your own. You complain about science not knowing what happened before the big bang when you don't know, either. What's your point?

Maybe this is one of those; if science doesn't know everything, it can't know anything type of deals we have seen before on this site.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If I understand what you mean by “observe”, no, I did not see them physically traveling through space but yes, I did see and measure them on a scope.

And that was sufficient to prove to you they were real, correct?

That's what we're talking about with the evidences for evolution. There's all this SIGNAL (fossils showing change over time, as well as the other biochemical connections and genetic connections as well as known changes in real time by bacteria etc.)

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[tevans9129]

So you say, can you quote my question and your answer to that question as it was asked?

"If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor?

My goodness you are slick, did you study under slick Willy?

“question as it was asked”

Your answer.

If you are going to teach evolution, then you teach evolution. If you re going to teach abiogenesis, then that's what you should teach, but you're going to have to wait until a coherent theory of abiogenesis is propounded. Or are you going to suggest that we wait to teach what we know about evolution until there is a theory of abiogenesis?"

Great answer…for whose question? You do understand what “question as it was asked” means, do you not? So, can you tell me how your response answers my question about building a house?

 

[Speedwell]

My goodness you are slick, did you study under slick Willy?

“question as it was asked”

Your answer.



Great answer…for whose question? You do understand what “question as it was asked” means, do you not? So, can you tell me how your response answers my question about building a house?

(Sigh) I answered your question about evolution. We both know the answer to your question about the house--that is what is called a rhetorical question.

 

[pitabread]

Yep, the reason for my curisority, “I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began”

Because geologists can study the Earth, date stratigraphic layers and identify fossils of microbiological organisms that are ~4 billion years old. Is that the answer you're looking for?

The point is, like in building, one begins with the foundation, not the floor. If one is teaching about evolution, start with the foundation, where did life come from, where and how was the environment for life created, IOW, the beginning, not jumping in at the floor level.

Current evolutionary theory deals with the diversity of species on Earth and the mechanisms by which they undergo evolutionary change. It does not cover either the origin of the life nor anything to do with the origin of the Earth.

One can learn about and study the evolution of life without needing to know its origin, in the same way that one can learn how to drive a car without knowing how to build one.

 

[tevans9129]

If I understand what you mean by “observe”, no, I did not see them physically traveling through space but yes, I did see and measure them on a scope.

And that was sufficient to prove to you they were real, correct?

Correct.

That's what we're talking about with the evidences for evolution. There's all this SIGNAL (fossils showing change over time, as well as the other biochemical connections and genetic connections as well as known changes in real time by bacteria etc.)

I beg to differ, I can show you in real time and demonstrate a microwave signal, can you show me an image of of an animal evolving from one kind to a different kind? If you can, show it or provide a link, I have searched for such a critter and cannot find one. Many thousands of fossils but not one can I find that was in the process of evoloving.

No, you are not right. They can be generated and can be seen and measured on a scope.

No, they are not seen. The SIGNAL which is generated by the waves interacting with a detector is what is seen.

Do you remember this?

If I understand what you mean by “observe”, no, I did not see them physically traveling through space but yes, I did see and measure them on a scope

So, you have the same benefit, you did not see one kind evolve into another kind but I am perfectly willing to accecpt an undoctored image of such an event, can you provide that?

I will not pretend to speak for others but I have never argued that “life forms” do not change, that would be ludicrous. I simple ask for the “evidence” that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that one “kind” changes into a different “kind”.

First off: "kinds" isn't really a technical term in biology.

Gads, how many times have I heard that…kinds do not mean kinds in biology, theory does not mean theory in science, it must be nice to pull whatever meaning you need out of the air.

Use whatever normenclature you wish to use to distinguish one “kind” from a different “kind” so what would it be? Or, are you saying everything is of the same “kind”?

No exemption to it, if, you challenged my belief in microwaves for transmitting data, I could hook up a scope to a MW gen and show you visually the signal and also measure its frequency and level.

Oh, well, you see there are no microwaves. When you show me the oscilloscope I can simply unplug it and the signal goes away. If microwaves are REAL you should be able to SHOW them to me, not some squiggly line on an oscilloscope which is just a really boring computer screen.
(Hope you get the point here).

So, are you saying that anything you cannot see is not real even if the effects can be seen, is that what you are saying? I certainly hope so.

I can show you pictures of unicorns on a computer screen, doesn't mean they are real.

Do you mean like images of fossils evolving from one kind to a different kind?

Can you do something comparable to that with one kind changing to another kind?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Where is the image of one kind evolving into some different kind, not adaptation, but a different creature all together? I could not find it at the link you provided.

I did not see your response to the remainder of my post and I am interested in your answers to the questions.

Are you suggesting that a pakicetus skeleton was not an animal that became extinct? If it was, then how could that be evidence of one kind changing into another kind? Do you have an image of the “creature” before the pakicetus skeleton and/or one that evolved from it to some other creature? Where is your evidence for that?

I have seen claims made alluding to that fact but I have not seen verifiable evidence that supports those claims. What it seems to boil down to for me is, science makes this argument and since it is science, I must accept it without question. Sorry, but science has not always been correct in its assertions. Make a believer out me, show me how anything can “evolve” from nothing, can you do that? At least without starting after some substantial developments have happened first.

BTW, what I mean by “kind” is, there is a chimp, a monkey, a gorilla and a giraffe in a picture. You show this picture to a normal six year old and ask him to pick out the one that is different from the others, which one do you suppose would be selected? One is definitely a different kind, the others are different but with many similitudes, would you agree?

 

[tevans9129]

that is what is called a rhetorical question.

That is what you call "rhetorical" but I am the one that asked it and it was not rhetorical.

 

[tevans9129]

Detective interviewing a murder suspect…Billybob, can you tell me where you were and what you were doing this morning from Midnight to 10AM this morning, sure answers BB. OK, right it all down in detail and the timeline. The detective goes for a cup of coffee and when he come back, BB hands him his statement, very detailed, except, it started at 4AM not midnight. Detective, why did you not start at midnight like I asked you to BB? Because I do not know where I was or what I was doing in that time. OK, did you kill Bettysue between 2 and 3AM? No sir replied BB, I did not. Very well then, since you said you did not do it, I guess you are free to go.


What happened before does not seem to make any difference for some folks, all they must do is say, I do not know and that is sufficient in their view, but not so much for others.

 

[pitabread]

Detective interviewing a murder suspect…Billybob, can you tell me where you were and what you were doing this morning from Midnight to 10AM this morning, sure answers BB. OK, right it all down in detail and the timeline. The detective goes for a cup of coffee and when he come back, BB hands him his statement, very detailed, except, it started at 4AM not midnight. Detective, why did you not start at midnight like I asked you to BB? Because I do not know where I was or what I was doing in that time. OK, did you kill Bettysue between 2 and 3AM? No sir replied BB, I did not. Very well then, since you said you did not do it, I guess you are free to go.

What happened before does not seem to make any difference for some folks, all they must do is say, I do not know and that is sufficient in their view, but not so much for others.

A more apt analogy for what you seem to be suggesting would be like interviewing a murder suspect about their wearabouts the previous night by starting with them describing where they were born and then detailing every moment of their life up to and including the previous night.

But that would just be silly wouldn't it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

So, are you saying that anything you cannot see is not real even if the effects can be seen, is that what you are saying? I certainly hope so.

-Sigh- So I guess you didn't get my point. Too bad.

Not surprising, but still sad.

 

[Speedwell]

That is what you call "rhetorical" but I am the one that asked it and it was not rhetorical.

Since it was obvious that we both new the answer to that question, and that it was a prelude to the real question which was about evolution, the only reason you would regard it as a "real" question is because you were trying to lay a rather silly rhetorical trap and now your nose is out of joint because it didn't work, which is the real reason I ignored it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you believe in chemistry?

It gets to the heart of my original question: how do you determine which science you don't believe and which you do?

I believe what I can reasonably understand, or see demonstrated. This includes most of science. I work with stuff that science has created every day, so it's basically evolution (as it pertains to the 'origin of species') that I don't accept.

Not everyone is cut out to view life through a microscope. I'll let the chemists formulate the paint, and I'll put it on the wall.

 

[Kylie]

1. Is just a theory.

Come on, AV, I'm sure you've been educated on this point. Did you forget you did you decide you didn't like it?

2. Is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

And when we go from 1, to 2, to 3, and so on, how can you then claim that we are wrong?

3. Is anathema to the Bible.

So?

4. Cannot be observed.

Yes it can. Observed Instances of Speciation

5. Is mistaken as a result of microevolution.

Please explain how macro evolution does not follow on from microevolution when the processes of both are precisely the same.

6. Was forged by a runaway, who later made a deathbed confession.

Wow, you are so wrong here. Darwin never made a deathbed confession. And where did you get the idea that he was a runaway? He didn't even come up with the idea - people had suggested that life forms evolved long before Darwin came up with his theory - Darwin was just the first guy who proposed a method by which such changes happened.

7. Is a lie of the Devil.

Now now, calling it names just because you don't like it won't make it go away.

8. Is 1 of 7 types of cosmic evolution.

Again, this has been explained to you...

9. Is defended by some who are very aggressive against Christianity.

So what?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[AV1611VET]

And where did you get the idea that he was a runaway?

Guatama also ran away, leaving his son without a father.

Only he came back as the "Enlightened One;" whereas Darwin came back with a communicable disease.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is observed is a variation within a means, A trip to Wal Mart and back as opposed to a one way trip to the moon. There are a variety of dogs but no dogs jumping to other species never to return. They can breed dogs for special effects but when put back in the wild there is a gradual return to the original. (Mean) That is what is observed. No Poodle is on a one way trip to becomming a cockroach and it is nonsense to suppose such things. Introduce a Poodle back into nature and it breeds then the offspring will eventually return to the means. After 5 or 6 generations there will not be a Poodle anymore but there will be a dog.

If you are really so hellbend on trying to argue against the backbone theory of mainstream biology, I'ld advise to finally learn what it says first. It will prevent you from saying such silly things and making false comparisions.

You can take that to the bank.

One thing you can't take to the bank, is ignorance.
Luckily, ignorance is easily cured.

But I'm guessing you're not interested in that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A change has taken place with doctors. They no longer answer such questions for legal reasons. In their office visits they only concern themselves with the immediate medical issue. All other questions are simply ignored.

Doctors have access to health knowledge that the common people don't have. They withhold this knowledge, or reveal it in bits and pieces scattered throughout their literature in an incomprehensible way, so the people remain ignorant of how to attain true health. That said I understand their frustration that the knowledge they do reveal is ignored by most.

Yes, yes.

When you enter medicine school, they make you swear a blood oath, punishable by torment and death if you break it, to keep this mysterious "health knowledge" a secret.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are trying to increase evolution in medical training by force. Not by persuasion

Yes, yes.... "they" do a lot of icky things, ey?
"They" are out to get you.
"They" are after you children.
"They" feed themselves with the bodies of aborted babies.

By applying top down pressure thru licensing and funding agencies. It is useless to already overburdened medical students who have real things to learn.

But how else will "they" make sure that the conspiracy persists?