Macro: Where is the Evidence ?

[Ed Vidence]

Nobody disputes microevolution.

Darwinists, based on the facts of microevolution assume macroevolution.

Assumptions are not evidence.

Charles Darwin:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." [Origin of Species, chapter 10]

Richard Milton:

"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.

Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.

It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.

When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.

This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record."

[source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]

In the 19th century Darwin confirmed no geological evidence showing macroevolution in fossil formations.

Over a 100 hundred years later atheist Richard Milton confirms the situation had not changed.

Where is the evidence to justify the assumption of macroevolution ?

If macro is true then why doesn't fossil formations show abundant intermediate examples ?

Answer: Because macroevolution is false. It is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.

Ed Vidence

 

[gunglepus]

Nobody disputes microevolution.

Darwinists, based on the facts of microevolution assume macroevolution.

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time.

 

[Ozymandius]

Ok so who do you usually post as? Lil nipper? Dad? cameronw? willowtree maybe?

 

[Ed Vidence]

Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time.

You evaded.

Why doesn't geological fossil formations show abundant intermediate snapshots ?

Ed Vidence

 

[z3ro]

Are you sure there's no macroevolution? Cause it's all really the same. And we've observed speciation.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Ok so who do you usually post as? Lil nipper? Dad? cameronw? willowtree maybe?

Why are you evading the simple OP content ?

Is it falsification proof ?

Ed Vidence

 

[The Seeker]

*wishes he knew where that picture with all the skulls is*

 

[Loudmouth]

In the 19th century Darwin confirmed no geological evidence showing macroevolution in fossil formations.

Really? In the same chapter as your Darwin quote: "I need give only one instance, namely, the manner in which the fossils of the Devonian system, when this system was first discovered, were at once recognised by palaeontologists as intermediate in character between those of the overlying carboniferous, and underlying Silurian system."

Hmm, fancy that. Darwin notes that there is one exceedingly well documented case of intermediate forms and macroevolution. Funny that you missed it.

And Milton must be forgetting the well documented macroevolution of horses, as seen here:

 

[rmwilliamsll]

again it is the evolution from ape-like creatures to human beings that really matters.

look at the evidence for human evolution
1-GLO pseudogene
2-2nd centrosome and backwards telomeres in human 2 chromosome as the result of the fusion of chimp 2q 2p

AFAIK there is not YECist arguments explaining either of these crucial pieces of data.

then there are HERV especially HERV-W.
and their confirmation of the existing dual nested hierarchy etc.


...
....

 

[mikeynov]

Macroevolution is, by definition, the formation of new biologically distinct taxa. Speciation is an example of macroevolution by definition, as it involves the formation of new species.

In fact, Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of species from pre-existing lineages, at which point you established a pattern of divergence which matches, past and present, the groups within groups long-recognized within the field of biology, and first systematized by Linnaeus.

Unfortunately for you, we've seen macroevolution in the form of speciation, fulfilling Darwin's prediction of how new species come to be.

Peer reviewed examples of speciation
---------------------------------------

http://www.christianforums.com/t155...speciation.html (Dr. Lucaspa's list of observed instances of speciation)

[size=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/size] (Talk.origins list #1)

[size=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/size] (Talk.origins list #2)


Creationists 0, people who actually do real science, 1.

 

[Ed Vidence]

[/b]

Really? In the same chapter as your Darwin quote: "I need give only one instance, namely, the manner in which the fossils of the Devonian system, when this system was first discovered, were at once recognised by palaeontologists as intermediate in character between those of the overlying carboniferous, and underlying Silurian system."

Hmm, fancy that. Darwin notes that there is one exceedingly well documented case of intermediate forms and macroevolution. Funny that you missed it.

And Milton must be forgetting the well documented macroevolution of horses, as seen here:

Lets get back to your horses claim a little later - I promise.

Would you please address the Darwin quote itself AND the utter lack of intermediate snapshots in geological fossil formations ?

Ed Vidence

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Here are 29 evidences of macroevolution, including observed speciation. The examples have all been published in major peer-reviewed science journals.

And here is the oft-posted picture of hominid skulls:

(A) is a modern chimp. (N) is a modern human. Everything else in between is a human ancestor or cousin. (B) is an australopithecus at 2.6 million years old, (I) is homo heidelbergensis at about 200,000 years old, and (M) is homo sapiens at about 30,000 years old. See link above for other species and dates.

 

[z3ro]

Lets get back to your horses claim a little later - I promise.

Would you please address the Darwin quote itself AND the utter lack of intermediate snapshots in geological fossil formations ?

Ed Vidence

Darwin is not god; the theory does not live or die on what he said.

Any you've already been given transitionals.

 

[gluadys]

Richard Milton:

"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.

Incorrect. In short lived species macro-evolution has been observed in a matter of years well within human life-spans. It is only the large, long-lived species in which macro-evolution is too gradual to observe directly.

In the 19th century Darwin confirmed no geological evidence showing macroevolution in fossil formations.

We have found a lot more fossils since Darwin's time and all are supportive of macro-evolution.

Over a 100 hundred years later atheist Richard Milton confirms the situation had not changed.

Richard Milton: writer, journalist and broadcaster. If I had a nickel for every journalist who manages to screw up when it comes to reporting science, I'd be able to retire early.

Is this guy any better informed than the journalists who invented Nebraska Man or Moab Man? Or the journalists who decided a scoop for National Geographic was more important than checking that the fossil they were going to feature was genuine? Doesn't sound like it.

Where is the evidence to justify the assumption of macroevolution ?

Since macro-evolution has been observed, it is not an assumption.

If macro is true then why doesn't fossil formations show abundant intermediate examples ?

They do. Check out Acanthostega, Ambulocetus, Archeopteryx, Australopithecus..to mention only a few from the "A" section of a long list.

It is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.

And you checked this out how?

 

[mikeynov]

Lets get back to your horses claim a little later - I promise.

Would you please address the Darwin quote itself AND the utter lack of intermediate snapshots in geological fossil formations ?

Ed Vidence

Firstly, it should be noted that the proper definition of a transitional form is one which displays a mosaic of characteristics between two lineages, and should exist, chronologically, between a hypothesized descendent lineage and an ancestral lineage.

Note that it's technically more complex than this, and a "transitional" need not be in the direct line of descent between two lineages, but since you're probably ignoring everything I'm writing anyways, we'll disregard that unless it becomes an issue.

Here's a list of "intermediate snapshots" you deny exists. Have fun:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm

http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

So, get back to us when you look through some of these. How about starting with, say, transitionals between synapsid reptiles and mammals?

Unless you were just making a thread to say "*** EVILUTION IS FAKE!!!onE!!!" But surely a YEC wouldn't do something like that, right?

I'm with HRE, I think - most of the YEC's in this forum are so pathetically out of touch with reality that responding to this drivel over and over gets tiring.

 

[Nymphalidae]

Nobody disputes microevolution.

Darwinists, based on the facts of microevolution assume macroevolution.

Assumptions are not evidence.

Charles Darwin:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." [Origin of Species, chapter 10]

Richard Milton:

"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.

Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.

It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.

When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.

This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record."

[source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]

In the 19th century Darwin confirmed no geological evidence showing macroevolution in fossil formations.

Over a 100 hundred years later atheist Richard Milton confirms the situation had not changed.

Where is the evidence to justify the assumption of macroevolution ?

If macro is true then why doesn't fossil formations show abundant intermediate examples ?

Answer: Because macroevolution is false. It is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.

Ed Vidence

Scientists don't differentiate between micro and macro evolution.

 

[rjw]

Nobody disputes microevolution.

Darwinists, based on the facts of microevolution assume macroevolution.

Assumptions are not evidence.

Charles Darwin:

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." [Origin of Species, chapter 10]

Richard Milton:

"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.

Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.

It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.

When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.

This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point;
that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution
in the fossil record."

[source: Richard Milton (atheist), "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", pages 152-3, 1997]

In the 19th century Darwin confirmed no geological evidence showing macroevolution in fossil formations.

Over a 100 hundred years later atheist Richard Milton confirms the situation had not changed.

Where is the evidence to justify the assumption of macroevolution ?

If macro is true then why doesn't fossil formations show abundant intermediate examples ?

Answer: Because macroevolution is false. It is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.

Ed Vidence

Gidday Ed Vidence,

There is plenty of observable evidence for macro evolution (common descent with modification). Some of it is:-

1) Our ability to construct an objective and unique phylogenetic tree of life, (with the possible exception of micro-organisms, due to the nature of their reproduction.)

2) Our ability to objectively slot new fossil discoveries into this tree.

3) Our abitlity to construct this unique tree from independent data (i.e morphology on one hand and molecules which have nothing to do with morphology on the other.)

4) The discovery of fossils which are mosaics of animals which occur at earlier geological periods and at later geologic periods eg artiodoctyls/whales, dinosaurs/birds, reptiles/mammals etc.

5) Our ability to reproduce and hence understand some of the transitions in the laboratory.

6) The existence of vestigial organs and avatars

7) Etc.



That Milton wished to shatter the myth of Darwinism hardly means that macro evolution does not happen. There are plenty of non-Darwinian scenarios for macro evolution. You do understand this don’t you?

You imply that micro has been observed whereas macro has not. However, have you or anyone else actually seen micro occur in the wild? Or is it just a name you give to the fact that you saw (say) a bacterium one day and then a slightly different version of the same bacterium at some time later? If so, then in what sense have you observed micro?

Do you have any evidence that those who accept macro evolution do so in proportion to their “hatred” of Genesis? How do you define their “hatred” of Genesis?



Regards, Roland

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets get back to your horses claim a little later - I promise.

Would you please address the Darwin quote itself AND the utter lack of intermediate snapshots in geological fossil formations ?

Ed Vidence

What "utter lack"? Even Darwin listed an obvious transition in the fossil record.

What Darwin was talking about is the selective nature of the fossil record, which isn't too unexpected given the rare occurence of fossilization. Let's see what Darwin actually said:

"For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."

What Darwin is saying is that fossil preservation is rare and will not always capture each small change, or as Darwin put it "more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters".

Other important quotes (from Chapter 9:On the Imperfection of the Geological Record). You can read Chapter 9 here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

"The frequent and great changes in the mineralogical composition of consecutive formations, generally implying great changes in the geography of the surrounding lands, whence the sediment has been derived, accords with the belief of vast intervals of time having elapsed between each formation."

"I n regard to mammiferous remains, a single glance at the historical table published in the Supplement to Lyell's Manual, will bring home the truth, how accidental and rare is their preservation, far better than pages of detail. Nor is their rarity surprising, when we remember how large a proportion of the bones of tertiary mammals have been discovered either in caves or in lacustrine deposits; and that not a cave or true lacustrine bed is known belonging to the age of our secondary or palaeozoic formations."

"But the imperfection in the geological record mainly results from another and more important cause than any of the foregoing; namely, from the several formations being separated from each other by wide intervals of time."

Also, only a scant percentage of fossil bearing sediments have been searched. Can we really say that these fossils are absent if we have only looked at 0.00000001% of the earth?

 

[Ed Vidence]

Scientists don't differentiate between micro and macro evolution.

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

It is assumed driven by the horror of Genesis looming onward.

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, because there is no evidence like the OP evidenced.

It is assumed driven by the horror of Genesis looming onward.

You evos have evaded the TWO quotes.

You have evaded the lack of intermediates in fossil formations.

If there was NO macro in the 19th century as Darwin admitted - then what evidence was macro based on ?

Answer: Darwinism is atheist religion asserted to be science as an attempt to make it objective.

Ed Vidence

Ray Ray, your anti-intellecutalism is showing.