Macroevolution:

[pitabread]

It is unclear exactly what you want but it sounds a lot like you want a "freeze frame photograph" of an animal literally morphing in real time from one species to another.

This speaks to the biggest problem of trying to give examples of transitional fossils being a conceptual issue. Most people not familiar with evolutionary biology tend to create these odd-ball conceptualizations of how it should work and consequently what the by-products should look like. Hence, these weird demands for things like half-cats/half-dogs or crocoducks or whatever.

Not sure what the ideal solution to that is, especially given the inherent resistance one encounters when trying to teach how evolutionary biology really works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you don't use medicine or doctors or anything that is underlain by biology?

Sure I do, but I don't really understand most of it.

And you will have "faith" that the paint will work. Unless you fully understand latex chemistry, colloidal dispersions, DLVO theory etc. Right?

I have confidence based on experience that it will stick to the wall. I don't know the chemistry of it.

 

[lesliedellow]

So there's no changes at the atomic level in evolution?

Did he say that? Any chemical change by definition involves atoms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not sure what the ideal solution to that is, especially given the inherent resistance one encounters when trying to teach how evolutionary biology really works.

It doesn't help if the teacher can't present it so it makes sense. Skeptics are like kids who keep asking "why" until the parent runs out of answers and tells them to go out and play. In the case of an adult the scientist runs out of patience and tells the person to take a science course (the same course that they took).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Did he say that? Any chemical change by definition involves atoms.

Exactly. And what would cause a change at that level?

He said "1" change, implying a macro change. My contention is that any change requires multiple changes, even into the millions. A modern organism would require trillions of successful changes. The smallest change would need a chain of changes a mile long. I need every one of these changes to be observed and cataloged. As it is evolution is shot through with miraculous changes, like the cartoon portrays.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly. And what would cause a change at that level?

He said "1" change, implying a macro change. My contention is that any change requires multiple changes, even into the millions. A modern organism would require trillions of successful changes. The smallest change would need a chain of changes a mile long. I need every one of these changes to be observed and cataloged. As it is evolution is shot through with miraculous changes, like the cartoon portrays.

The changes involved in a chemical reaction occur almost instantaneously. Would you regard the breaking down of cellulose when you cook vegetables to be one change, or many, which have to be performed by you, one after the other?

 

[pitabread]

It doesn't help if the teacher can't present it so it makes sense

It can make sense, but I think one needs to first set their preconceptions at the door before trying to learn about this stuff. In my experience, this is a huge stumbling block for creationists because they have little honest desire to learn about the sciences. All they care about is trying to poke holes in 'evolution' or whatever other science they feel disagrees with their faith. It's much easier to do that when one can rely on caricatures of science, rather than trying to get at how it really works.

I realize this is a generalization, but I've seen very few creationists that appear to make an honest effort to learn the fundamentals related to evolutionary biology and the like.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It can make sense............

Then they should be a little more detailed in their explanation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The changes involved in a chemical reaction occur almost instantaneously. Would you regard the breaking down of cellulose when you cook vegetables to be one change, or many, which have to be performed by you, one after the other?

Let's use the caterpillar/ butterfly process instead. How many individual changes, including the ones at the atomic level must occur. Break it down to a chain of events, one link for each change.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sure I do, but I don't really understand most of it.

But you don't believe evolution because it doesn't make sense to you?

I have confidence based on experience that it will stick to the wall. I don't know the chemistry of it.

But you won't accept evolution because it doesn't make sense to you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's use the caterpillar/ butterfly process instead. How many individual changes, including the ones at the atomic level must occur. Break it down to a chain of events, one link for each change.

I don't know. A great many no doubt, but they all occur well within the space of a single year. Evolution has had something like 4 billion years. You are arguing against yourself.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Then they should be a little more detailed in their explanation.

Teaching science is hard work, admittedly. And scientists often do a poor job of making it easily digestible for those with little to no experience in certain fields. But that doesn't make the science any less compelling or real.

Blaming science for one's ignorance of the technical details is not a valid criticism of the science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you don't believe evolution because it doesn't make sense to you?

But you won't accept evolution because it doesn't make sense to you?

Yup.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Teaching science is hard work, admittedly. And scientists often do a poor job of making it easily digestible for those with little to no experience in certain fields. But that doesn't make the science any less compelling or real.

Blaming science for one's ignorance of the technical details is not a valid criticism of the science.

So science......is for scientists.

You and others here are not scientists, but advocates for science. I doubt if a scientist would waste time arguing with me.

 

[lesliedellow]

So science......is for scientists.

You and others here are not scientists, but advocates for science. I doubt if a scientist would waste time arguing with me.

As it happens, Obliquinaut is a scientist.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As it happens, Obliquinaut is a scientist.

Arguing, but not explaining much. He too has directed me to go 'study' evolution.

 

[xianghua]

In evolution we arrange them according to WHEN THEY SHOW UP IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That's, pardon the pun, "carved in stone". So, no, we can't really just move 'em around to make a nice picture.

are you sure? see this for instance:

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

you can see that the first tetrapod tracks falsified the whole hierarchy. and this is isnt a single case.

 

[lesliedellow]

Arguing, but not explaining much. He too has directed me to go 'study' evolution.

Not a bad idea. I wouldn't try arguing against somebody who had a PhD in X unless I had at least a BSc in X, otherwise I would be likely to find myself well out of my depth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not a bad idea. I wouldn't try arguing against somebody who had a PhD in X unless I had at least a BSc in X, otherwise I would be likely to find myself well out of my depth.

I agree, but questioning is hardly arguing. I will remain a skeptic until all my questions are answered. Sadly we can't get past the defensive stances to the real questions.

 

[tevans9129]

You quoted your post.

Was my post addressed to you or to DH?