Macroevolution:

[tevans9129]

OldWiseGuy? Never has a name been more inappropriate.

Now that I could not disagree with more, if compared to many posts made in this group.

 

[xianghua]

You are making a category error.

A human is a kind of ape but a car isn't a kind of truck.

why not? they are both very similar. like ape is similar to a human. what is the problem?

"Ape" is not a single kind of creature, it is a name, a category for a group of related creatures.

if god created both human and a chimp without a common descent. you will still consider human as ape in this case?

 

[lesliedellow]

And I will do that if you can quote me asserting "that Latin evolved into present day French". How absurd can one get?

No more absurd than you wanting the 4 billion year history of evolution in the minutest detail. And as a matter of historical fact, several European languages have Latin as their common ancestor. French being one of them.

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks but no, it does not. For one thing, they will not answer my questions and in addition, I see no verifiable proof of their speculation.

"This image shows a representative sequence, but should not be construed to represent a "straight-line" evolution of the horse."

Which IMO, is nothing more than an artist's rendention. It has previously been asserted there are no fossil images of "in between" species so there is no verifiable evidence of one species "evolving" into a different species, would you agree with that?

No, I wouldn't agree? It appears that you are commenting on the description of the first image, and how is a fossil an "artists rendition.

I'm not sure what an "inbetween" species is exactly, what do you mean?

A brief summary of the page....

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

How do you explain thousands of fossils, in chronolgical order, that show a clear gradual development from Eohippus to the modern horse?



to this

 

[tevans9129]

No, I wouldn't agree? It appears that you are commenting on the description of the first image, and how is a fossil an "artists rendition.

I'm not sure what an "inbetween" species is exactly, what do you mean?

A brief summary of the page....
to this

We have very different views of the subject Jimmy and the only way that you can convince me that my views are incorrect is to ask me questions that I cannot give plausible, clear, verifiable answers to. OTOH, you cannot convince me that your views are correct unless you can answer every question that I may ask with the same kind of answers.

With that being said, I will enthusiastically engage in a serious discussion with you on the subject if you will agree to that simple request with an honest intent to honor the agreement. What say you?

 

[lesliedellow]

OTOH, you cannot convince me that your views are correct unless you can answer every question that I may ask with the same kind of answers

That's a useful get out. Unless he knows more than a trained biologist with FRS after his name, and a couple of Nobel Prizes to boot, he won't be able to convince you.

 

[bhsmte]

That's a useful get out. Unless he knows more than a trained biologist with FRS after his name, and a couple of Nobel Prizes to boot, he won't be able to convince you.

Those defense mechanisms, are on full tilt.

 

[Speedwell]

why not? they are both very similar. like ape is similar to a human. what is the problem?




if god created both human and a chimp without a common descent. you will still consider human as ape in this case?

Right. The taxonomy is based on observed similarities. Evolution merely explains the similarities. Special creation does not.

 

[Speedwell]

To be honest, I never expected you to answer the questions that I asked. Many folks can preach, not so many can teach? Grand overviews are certainly easier to explain than the details involved in that overview. Big difference in speculation, conjecture from provable facts.

Except that you clearly do not even understand how evolution is claimed to work. How can you then expect to understand the evidence, if you don't know what it is evidence of, exactly? Overview first, details and evidence after.

I don't even care if you are ever convinced. However, I would rather see you arguing against the real theory of evolution, not some made-up version of your own. It's more fun for the rest of us that way.

So, answer my question in post # 459:

Consider the following:

With each new generation of offspring, a species presents to the environment a range of variant individuals. This is called random variation because the variation is randomly distributed--think 'bell curve.'
If the environment is stable, those variants close to the central tendency of the distribution will tend to survive, those in the tails of the distribution not so much. On the other hand, if the selection criteria begin to change, there will be individuals at one extreme or other to take advantage of it and tend to pass that advantage to their offspring. As this continues, the central tendency of the distribution will begin to shift in that direction and eventually it will have shifted enough that we will observe that a new species has formed.

Is that what you mean by "adaptation?"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It takes a special kind of speciousness to get from "heat can trigger chemical reactions" to "heat can trigger evolution".

OldWiseGuy? Never has a name been more inappropriate.

Why? I asked for evolutionary changes at the atomic level. You changed the subject.

 

[tevans9129]

he won't be able to convince you.

Well, thanks for an acknowledgement for Jimmy...he will not be able to ask me questions that I cannot answer and unless he is a Nobel prize winner, he will not be able to answer my questions. Now that is funny, IMO.

I can see where you would get that idea, my hope is that Jimmy will have a different idea.

 

[xianghua]

Right. The taxonomy is based on observed similarities. Evolution merely explains the similarities. Special creation does not.

why not? the similarity is because a common designer. not common descent. very simple and we dont need the evolutionery belief.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why? I asked for evolutionary changes at the atomic level. You changed the subject.

QUOTE: "I want to know the 'trigger' for change at the atomic level. A detailed explanation will suffice."

That can mean only one of three things: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or chemical reactions. Since the subject under discussion is evolution, I assume the first two can be discounted.

 

[Speedwell]

why not? the similarity is because a common designer. not common descent. very simple and we dont need the evolutionery belief.

But you need a "designer" who periodically tinkers with genetics at the molecular level. Why is that better than a God who could conceive of common descent?

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, thanks for an acknowledgement for Jimmy...he will not be able to ask me questions that I cannot answer and unless he is a Nobel prize winner, he will not be able to answer my questions. Now that is funny, IMO.

I can see where you would get that idea, my hope is that Jimmy will have a different idea.

I see you are up to your favourite trick of taking a phrase, and quoting it out of context. Intellectual dishonesty is another name for that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

QUOTE: "I want to know the 'trigger' for change at the atomic level. A detailed explanation will suffice."

That can mean only one of three things: nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or chemical reactions. Since the subject under discussion is evolution, I assume the first two can be discounted.

If changes must occur at the 'atomic' level for evolution to proceed how does it happen?
You gave me a tome that had nothing to do with my question. I want to know what triggers a change in atoms when evolution occurs.

 

[lesliedellow]

If changes must occur at the 'atomic' level for evolution to proceed how does it happen?
You gave me a tome that had nothing to do with my question. I want to know what triggers a change in atoms when evolution occurs.

Atoms do not change; molecules do, and that is what is involved in chemical reactions. The only way in which atoms change is in rearranging themselves to produce molecules of another substance.

 

[AirPo]

why not? they are both very similar. like ape is similar to a human. what is the problem?

Understanding what words mean.

 

[Kylie]

You are making a category error.

A human is a kind of ape but a car isn't a kind of truck.

A human is a kind of ape like a car is a kind of motor vehicle.

"Ape" is not a single kind of creature, it is a name, a category for a group of related creatures.

And both cars and trucks were developed using knowledge and technologies from earlier motor vehicles, just the same way that humans and other apes all evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[Kylie]

OK, what was the next species they "evolved" into? Do you have some verifiable evidence other than someone's claims? Can you begin with bacteria and follow through with perhaps the next 10 or so steps, in sequence? IOW, what "creature" came immediately after the bacteria, then what "creature evolved" from that, and so on? I am not interested speculations, conjectures, what may have happened, what looks impressive on some chart but what can actually be proven to have happened, are you up to that?

So unless we can show specific life forms every step of the way, you won't be convinced?

Can you trace your family tree back to who your ancestors were in the year 295BC? No? Well, if you can't trace your family tree back 2300 years, why do you demands that we do it for a period of billions of years?