For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[ottawak]

If you understand how evolution works, please describe how nature produced each of the evolutionary steps for the whale's blowhole.

That would be each generation over a period of milions of years. Many tens of thousands, probably. You want every one or you're not going to believe in evolution?

 

[Buzzard3]

So you aren't disputing that evolution happened, meaning that you accept that it has happened, and yet you simultaneously don't think "it's the truth".
Tell me, how is it that you can accept that evolution happened, while also thinking that it isn't truth or the truth?

I will attempt to clear up your confusion:

I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began perhaps billions of years ago, after which more complex and diverse life-forms appeared.

I also accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but I don't accept ToE as the truth because I believe
(a) the truth cannot ever be known (not in this life time, at least) and
(b) ToE cannot explain all the evidence.

 

[Buzzard3]

Can you explain why?

Micro evolution demonstrates how difference is generated and how it can accumulate.

The existence of macro-evolution requires there to be significant accumulated difference.

If accumulated micro evolution is the explanation for macro evolutionary change then particular evidence would be present... and it is.

If you know how evolution works, please chose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the evolutionary steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.

 

[ottawak]

I will attempt to clear up your confusion:

I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began perhaps billions of years ago, after which more complex and diverse life-forms appeared.

I also accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but I don't accept ToE as the truth because I believe
(a) the truth cannot ever be known (not in this life time, at least) and

True, but the theory of evolution is not being represented as "the truth," merely as the best explanation currently available given the evidence now on hand.

(b) ToE cannot explain all the evidence.

For example?

 

[Shemjaza]

"demonstrable" changes?

A inheritable mutation is a demonstrable change. That's what I'm talking about.

Macro evolution is just a series of micro changes, not a different method.

It's demonstrable and consistent with the scope of changes.

Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a eurkaryote from a prokaryote.
Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a bird from a reptile.

The inability to demonstrate every single step is irrelevant if the method is can be demonstrated and is consistent with the evidence.

To bring back my stone wall analogy the inability to describe the precise order that the stones were placed doesn't add to the idea that the wall appeared all at once .

If you know how evolution works, here is your chance to demonstrate your knowledge.

I've explained it multiple times... it just seems that you think that extrapolating logically from the data we have isn't good enough.

Perhaps you can point out what exactly doesn't line up with the evidence and explanation?

If you know how evolution works, please chose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the evolutionary steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.

Okay, hominids spread over Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

The group in Europe lived more by hunting and so the advantages went to a sturdier shorter build with heavier bones. The instances of paler hair may indicate paler skin as an adaptation to the lower sunlight of ice age Europe.

Meanwhile the group that stayed in Africa developed a taller and lither frame with a looser muscle structure that supported more long distance weaponry like bows or spear throwers. They also relied on gathered food much more than their northern cousins. Evidence indicates that the majority had a darker skin tone at this point.

These two species had varied from a common ancestor and a multitude of small changes that left both still hominids but different enough to be classified as different species or at least sub species.

It's all about tiny changes becoming statistically more common and if enough build up it's a new species and thus macro evolution.

Neanderthals weren't designed to live in Europe, but living in Europe created a pressure that left the better adapted offspring more common.

 

[Buzzard3]

How did I know that all you'd do is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA! Not evidence! Not evidence!"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.

In fact I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has "evolved" over vast periods of time and I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

My argument is that no one can possibly know HOW life evolved.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.

In fact I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has "evolved" over vast periods of time and I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

My argument is that no one can possibly know HOW life evolved.

It's not a totally complete picture, but no one ever claimed it was.

The evidence does given enough details to logically make conclusions.

 

[Buzzard3]

True, but the theory of evolution is not being represented as "the truth," merely as the best explanation currently available given the evidence now on hand.

I didn't say ToE is being represented as the truth.

For example?

I'm not going to waste any more time and effort on that discussion. Been there, done that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not claiming there's no evidence for evolution, if that's what you think.

In fact I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has "evolved" over vast periods of time and I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.

My argument is that no one can possibly know HOW life evolved.

Which is a nonsensical position. We know HOW life evolved: via the process of natural selection via random mutation due to environmental pressures. You just refuse to accept that for no good reason.

The entire premise of your question is akin to "Well if you can't explain the step by step process for how a car is made, then the Model T Ford never became a Lamborghini Sesto Elemento."
It's a nonsensical premise.

 

[Buzzard3]

The inability to demonstrate every single step is irrelevant if the method is can be demonstrated and is consistent with the evidence.

Very well, then please describe the process involved in just one macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record, the steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.
Then all you have to do is prove that your description is factual and not simply a product of your imagination.

If you know how evolution works, that task should be easy.

 

[Buzzard3]

Okay, hominids spread over Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

The group in Europe lived more by hunting and so the advantages went to a sturdier shorter build with heavier bones. The instances of paler hair may indicate paler skin as an adaptation to the lower sunlight of ice age Europe.

Meanwhile the group that stayed in Africa developed a taller and lither frame with a looser muscle structure that supported more long distance weaponry like bows or spear throwers. They also relied on gathered food much more than their northern cousins. Evidence indicates that the majority had a darker skin tone at this point.

These two species had varied from a common ancestor and a multitude of small changes that left both still hominids but different enough to be classified as different species or at least sub species.

It's all about tiny changes becoming statistically more common and if enough build up it's a new species and thus macro evolution.

Neanderthals weren't designed to live in Europe, but living in Europe created a pressure that left the better adapted offspring more common.

Fail.

Firstly, I asked you to describe a MACRO-evolutionary transition - the changes in skin/hair colour and physical build and statue that you mention are examples of MICRO-evolution.

Secondly, you can't prove that any of the environmental pressures and their effects that you mentioned are factual - they're just figments of someone's imagination. Inventing untestable stories is not even close to knowing.

 

[Buzzard3]

We know HOW life evolved: via the process of natural selection via random mutation due to environmental pressures

In that case, please describe how one the first alleged macro-evoltionary transitions took place - how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced each of those steps.

Please describe how a whale's blowhole evolved. Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced each of those steps.

Please describe how birds evolved from reptiles. Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps.

Please describe how amphibians evolved from fish. Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps.

 

[Buzzard3]

That would be each generation over a period of milions of years. Many tens of thousands, probably. You want every one ...?

I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.
To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?

Then all you have to do is demonstrate that your description is factual and not simply a figment of your imagination.

or you're not going to believe in evolution?

When did I say I don't believe in evolution? I said I don't believe anyone can know how evolution works.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not going to waste any more time and effort on that discussion. Been there, done that.

So you don't have anything then.

 

[Shemjaza]

Fail.

Firstly, I asked you to describe a MACRO-evolutionary transition - the changes in skin/hair colour and physical build and statue that you mention are examples of MICRO-evolution.

Secondly, you can't prove that any of the environmental pressures and their effects that you mentioned are factual - they're just figments of someone's imagination. Inventing untestable stories is not even close to knowing.

You are misunderstanding what a macro evolutionary change is... it's just a build up of very tiny changes.

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are clearly different species... but that's only when you take clearly separate examples across a long period of time. If you met each animal in each generation you wouldn't be able to describe the first sapiens or the last erectus.

The changes built up over a course of 10s of thousands of years, each change the kind of micro change that even most creationists will accept as "micro evolution" or "change within a kind".

 

[Shemjaza]

I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.
To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?

Then all you have to do is demonstrate that your description is factual and not simply a figment of your imagination.

When did I say I don't believe in evolution? I said I don't believe anyone can know how evolution works.

Evolution isn't scripture that describes in detail and perfection. It's an explanation for the physical evidence we found in the real world.

Genetically whales are linked to land animals and the fossils we've found that match that family of animals show a steady change from land animal to fully aquatic and at the same time the migration of an air hole from the tip of the snout to the top of the head.

Now scientists can't explain with total precision what exact mechanism was effected by what environmental pressure what they can describe is reasonable and logical deductions from existing evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.

"Generous and reasonable" and dishonest. In your previous post you requested

Describe the steps involved and how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced each of those steps.

which is a generation-by-generation description.

To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?

Description: every step was a small genetic mutation. But that's not enough for you, is it? You demand to know exactly what each mutation was, right?

Generous and reasonable, he says. Lol.

 

[Buzzard3]

Doubling down when you've been given an explanation only makes you look blinkered and unwilling to try to understand.

??? I don't recall anyone describing how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced the steps involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that you don't like or understand it doesn't mean it's not there.

Did you see the word "proof" in my post?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

??? I don't recall anyone describing how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced the steps involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.

Tripling down only serves to emphasise your desperation.

Did you see the word "proof" in my post?

I did, and on behalf of those who understand science allow me to post this response:

 

[Buzzard3]

There are many scientists who accept evolution and find it perfectly compatible with their religious faith. There are also churchmen and churchwomen (including the Pope) who also have no difficulty in accepting evolution.

... and yet William Provine said "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."