Evolution giving practical results in many fields today

[juvenissun]

I'm still waiting to hear the biological mechanism which prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

Can you tell me how did a single-cell life evolve into a multiple-cell life?

 

[shernren]

Can you tell me how did a single-cell life evolve into a multiple-cell life?

Origins of multicellularity: All in the family

Also, oldie but goodie:

http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html

 

[Papias]

Species to your average person means something entirely different than to a biologist.

Umm, no - "species" is a biological term. If some people are ignorant of what it means, that doesn't mean that we can redefine terms. Think of how silly I would sound if I said "Camshaft to your average person means something entirely different than to an auto mechanic."

Here I thought I was talking to average people and they would get my point, but apparently they can't handle my point so they move to a semantics argument and when victorious declare their opponent to be a hack because he isn't as l33t with word games.

No, it's just that your "point" is based on a common creationist method of misleading people by teaching them falsehoods. It's not a point, it's a PRATT.

How am I supposed to take any of you seriously when the majority of your posts are attempts to mock rather than address?

I'd like to have a more serious conversation. Even the huge amount of misunderstanding would be surmountable, if it wasn't coupled with the arrogance of someone who is apparently proud to be ignorant, and wants to stay that way.

Of course believing in creationism doesn't save a person, but neither does believing in evolution protect somebody from the flu. Evolutionary theory leads to the development of the flu vaccine, just as creation leads to the knowledge of God.

I've seen the opposite to be true - where someone is taught creationism, taught that being a creationist is important for being a Christian, and then they find out that creationism is built on lies, half-truths, and willful ignorance, and then they think "since that's what Christianity is apparently all about, I have no interest in being Christian". I think that's a significant part of why Americans are leaving Christianity in droves. Creationist evangelism appears to be a "godsend" to the atheists, who don't even have to do anything, they just sit back and watch some Christians reach people that would never listen to the atheists themselves.

It's sad to see.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

Set up the conclusion first. Then try to find evidence to support it.

It is absolutely no less scientific than any conventional scientific methods.

Wow, this has to top even the New Age pole shifting, "Noah living during the Cambrian", and other howlers Juvie has posted!

No Juvie, that's not the scientific method - what you posted is a sure ticket to ignorance and superstition, which in the past has given us all kinds of idiocy from "earthly falling", astrology, and phrenology. AIH has given me some forehead slappers, but your statement tops those.

And we wondered how anyone could have such a distorted view of the real world! There's our answer.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Origins of multicellularity: All in the family

Also, oldie but goodie:

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

So, in this unique case (the only case they are able to work on), they are still not sure what caused the change.

Does this mean we simply do not know how does microevolution lead to macroevolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie wrote:


Wow, this has to top even the New Age pole shifting, "Noah living during the Cambrian", and other howlers Juvie has posted!

No Juvie, that's not the scientific method - what you posted is a sure ticket to ignorance and superstition, which in the past has given us all kinds of idiocy from "earthly falling", astrology, and phrenology. AIH has given me some forehead slappers, but your statement tops those.

And we wondered how anyone could have such a distorted view of the real world! There's our answer.

Papias

You obviously are not one who works in science.

Let me teach you a little bit: One translation on what I said could be:

I want this to happen, how could I do it?

 

[Mallon]

You obviously are not one who works in science.

No, it's definitely you. Don't forget: You lied to us before about being a university professor in geology.

 

[Mallon]

What word should I have used to express my disbelief that dinosaurs couldn't turn into birds?

You could have said that evolution doesn't occur past the artificial levels of class or order.

Of course, if birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, you'd have to wonder about all those feathered dinosaurs...

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I was merely defining the type of argument you were describing.

In what way have I been offensive? Because I keep asking a question you refuse to answer?


What is the biological mechanism that separates so-called "microevolution" from so-called "macroevolution"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Again... I never said there was one. I'm not really sure how many times I need to type that for you to figure it out. What part of anything I said made you think I thought there was? Have you been reading this thread? Or only the odd post?

And I don't mean offensive as in insulting if thats how you took it.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

You could have said that evolution doesn't occur past the artificial levels of class or order.

Of course, if birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs, you'd have to wonder about all those feathered dinosaurs...

Evolution doesn't occur past the artificial levels of class or order.

Whew! Now we are getting somewhere! Thanks!

 

[Mallon]

Evolution doesn't occur past the artificial levels of class or order.

In other words, you're equating a biological "kind" with the Linnean rank of class or order? So you accept all evolution below those ranks?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Are we almost at the point where we try to define "kind" but wind up going in circles for 15 pages?

 

[Mallon]

You know it.

 

[laconicstudent]

Again... I never said there was one. I'm not really sure how many times I need to type that for you to figure it out. What part of anything I said made you think I thought there was? Have you been reading this thread? Or only the odd post?

And I don't mean offensive as in insulting if thats how you took it.

What gave me the idea that you believed there was a difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution was your use of the term "microevolution". I'm glad to see you've recanted.

 

[laconicstudent]

Evolution doesn't occur past the artificial levels of class or order.

Whew! Now we are getting somewhere! Thanks!

Can you explain the biological mechanism that prohibits that?


And can you please make up your mind whether you believe in the micro/macro false dichotomy or not?


Does anyone else see it? He says that there is no biological mechanism that differentiates micro/macro evolution but then claims that evolution does not progress beyond an arbitrary point? I'm still waiting to hear why, physically, this is the case? Its been 2 pages now.

 

[Mallon]

Does anyone else see it? He says that there is no biological mechanism that differentiates micro/macro evolution but then claims that evolution does not progress beyond an arbitrary point? I'm still waiting to hear why, physically, this is the case? Its been 2 pages now.

To his mind, the only thing preventing evolution from producing new classes or orders is time. He thinks there's not enough time for higher ranks to evolve.

 

[laconicstudent]

To his mind, the only thing preventing evolution from producing new classes or orders is time. He thinks there's not enough time for higher ranks to evolve.

I saw that. I assumed, since he never bothered explaining, that it wasn't his actual answer. That, and I felt bad and wanted to give him a chance to think over what he was actually saying.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Wow, this has to top even the New Age pole shifting, "Noah living during the Cambrian", and other howlers Juvie has posted!

No Juvie, that's not the scientific method - what you posted is a sure ticket to ignorance and superstition, which in the past has given us all kinds of idiocy from "earthly falling", astrology, and phrenology. AIH has given me some forehead slappers, but your statement tops those.

And we wondered how anyone could have such a distorted view of the real world! There's our answer.

Papias

You obviously are not one who works in science.

Let me teach you a little bit: One translation on what I said could be:

I want this to happen, how could I do it?

Juvie, all you did was restate your pseudoscientific method. It's still just as messed up as it was the first time you stated it. Sorry, but the scientific method is not "Set up the conclusion first. Then try to find evidence to support it.". I'm amazed that anyone is trying to defend that.

Repeating an error doesn't make it any less of an error, though it appears that creationists think it does.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Mallon wrote:

To his mind, the only thing preventing evolution from producing new classes or orders is time. He thinks there's not enough time for higher ranks to evolve. 27th July 2010 12:04 PM

To his mind, the only thing preventing evolution from producing new classes or orders is time. He [AIH] thinks there's not enough time for higher ranks to evolve.

For AIH's benefit, and the benefit of Christianity, here is information that AIH may find useful. Please take the time to read it, understand it, and consider it. Thanks-

Papias

******************************
If we are to look at the evidence, it is quite clear that the earth is millions of years old. The geologists (which includes many Christians) agree that the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, by a large number of very different methods.

We've had another thread on that, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/

From that thread:


"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and literally dozens more), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"


If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer.

I understand that you may be unaware of that these many different methods exist, but please take some time to look into them, because by being a Christian who is claiming something that all the experts agree is preposterous, you are making Christianity look preposterous to everyone you come into contact with.

Papias

 

[laconicstudent]

Still waiting for someone to either state a biological mechanism that allows "microevolution" but not "macroevolution", or at least reiterate the "Time" thing, and explaining further. It has been 2 pages.