Matthew777 said:
Tell you what. We won't refer to talkorigins for a week if you refrain from pointing us to Amazon and suggesting that we buy or read a book instead of answering simple questions.
Upvote
0
Macro Evoultion Evidence?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Tell you what. We won't refer to talkorigins for a week if you refrain from pointing us to Amazon and suggesting that we buy or read a book instead of answering simple questions.
Matthew777 said:
Given a turnover rate etc, obviously not.
Any given person who accepts evolution as most likely? Yes.
It's just a very good archive, and it's pretty much the top of every relevant google search, making it rather difficult to find web sources that aren't TO and are any good.
Now, a bit of effort...
hmm, I'm not allowed to make external links yet, I assume as a spam-prevention mechanism.
However, www dot skepticfiles dot org /evolut/observed3.htm is a non-TO website with some observed speciation events.
Two plants, Drosophilia paulistorum, and some fruit flies.
And I'm assuming you simply won't accept anything from the fossil record, which does mean you're basically trying to define it into something that is not necessary for even the most athiestic evolutionary claim.
Because, honestly, let's look at it.
How many generations does it take for one species to branch into two, according to, well, anyone who thinks it's possible?
A quick google indicates a hundred, at MINIMUM.
So. Let's run with that.
How long have we even had any classifications of species? Well ... that would be Linnaeus, in 1753.
So... one hundred generations since then ... what's the maximum generation length? That's about 250 years, or a generation length of two and a half years.
Can you think of any mammals with a generation length that short?
I can't. And remember, that's the most GENEROUS assumption. A rather more reasonable one would say we've got a much shorter time (since biologists only really started making the sorts of records that are meaningful to this comparatively recently), and that it takes more generations.
Up generation length by even a factor of ten to one thousand, and drop it to a hundred years...
...and we need a species that reproduces ten times in ONE YEAR.
There's a reason the only cases of observed speciation recorded are those in insects and plants and such.
That said, ever hear of Helactyon Gartleri?
Upvote
0
I'm not looking for evidence for variation as this obviously occurs. I'm looking for something more like a change for example, from a bird to a dinosaur. I'm looking for the single best evidence for macro evoultion. If fossil reccord is the best evidence then show the evidence.
Upvote
0
Jimmy The Hand
I Have Been Complexified!
First define Macroevolution. Exactly where is the deliniation between it and "microevolution"?
In the meantime.....
Twin nested hierarchies confirmed by DNA analysis (already mentioned several times).
I will also add...
Endogenous Retroviruses (just google it)
And also...
The fossil record is littered with transitionals. Your requested dinosaur to bird is not my personal favorite, so I will let someone else handle that one. Instead, here is my personal favorite. A clear line showing the adaptation of a reptilian jaw into the mammalian ear structure.
In the meantime.....
Twin nested hierarchies confirmed by DNA analysis (already mentioned several times).
I will also add...
Endogenous Retroviruses (just google it)
And also...
The fossil record is littered with transitionals. Your requested dinosaur to bird is not my personal favorite, so I will let someone else handle that one. Instead, here is my personal favorite. A clear line showing the adaptation of a reptilian jaw into the mammalian ear structure.
Upvote
0
Jon said:
My point is that we shouldn't EXPECT "good" non-fossil evidence.
And if you want fossil evidence, why not just look at the huge lists of transitional forms found, as well as the significant number of species that are now extinct; this makes NO SENSE in a YEC context, and if you propse OEC, then you sort of have to accept evolution, because it's simply silly to say the earth existed for several billion years without change.
Furthermore, here's a question: What can PREVENT little changes from becoming big changes?
Upvote
0
nothing. But I don't understand how there could be a big change without some big problems.
---------------
What i've seen so far on this thread is:
a) minor changes... this would prove that changes can happen, but it doesn't prove that big changes did happen.
b) similar items... what does this prove?
nice job on the photo editingBargainfluger said:
!
Upvote
0
Jimmy The Hand
I Have Been Complexified!
Mammals and reptiles to this day have completely different jaw structures. I showed you clear "big" change from reptile to mammal. Maybe you could define "big change". If you say going from a dog to a cat, then we have probably reached a dead end.
Upvote
0
As much as I love stealing credit, that wasn't me, I got it off a site.Jon said:nice job on the photo editing
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I would consider big change to be more than just a change in species, for example from ape to human.Jimmy The Hand said:
Yes you did, now how do we know that these were mutated and not just simmilar designs?
Significant defects in the DNA.Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Upvote
0
Because it is unreasonible to think that good mutations can happen but bad ones can not. (unless there is evidence that shows it did)Douglaangu v2.0 said:
Upvote
0
Because it comes about from a lot of cumulative little changes.Jon said:
All the bad ones get weeded out.
All the good ones stay.
And it becomes a big, good change.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
good answers...
my other question:
How do we know that these(the examples given) were mutated and not just simmilar designs?
my other question:
How do we know that these(the examples given) were mutated and not just simmilar designs?
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
How do we know that God didn't make a whole series of mammal-like reptiles with both reptile and mammal jaws (in addition to reptiles and mammals), that just happened to all die off? How do we know that God made it so the mammal-like reptiles would be buried between the earliest reptiles and the earliest mammals in the geological column? I guess we don't know that he didn't, but it sure is a longshot that he did.Jon said:
Upvote
0
Jimmy The Hand
I Have Been Complexified!
Okay, just to be fair, reptile to mammal is not just change in species but change in class. So I would think that would satisfy your rather vague criteria.
If you are going to say it could be common design, then there really is no point, because any common ancestor with similar morphology could just be common design. Its a standard that can never be met.
But let's go down this common design road. Was my example common design? In a word no. There is substantial change in the entire structure of the jaw from the first example to the last. That's not common design at all! That's radically different design! So if you look at all the evidence in the mammal to reptile series, common design simply falls apart.
If you are going to say it could be common design, then there really is no point, because any common ancestor with similar morphology could just be common design. Its a standard that can never be met.
But let's go down this common design road. Was my example common design? In a word no. There is substantial change in the entire structure of the jaw from the first example to the last. That's not common design at all! That's radically different design! So if you look at all the evidence in the mammal to reptile series, common design simply falls apart.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
We don't. There's no way to tell. But the better hyposthesis, the one which uses less assumptions and more science, is evolution.Jon said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
