My Evolution Challenge

[Anaximander]

I believe it is Split Rock who will support me on this.

He has (if I have the right person) shown that microevolution is indeed a useful term behind scientific doors.

Yes, it can be a useful term, but it's like the $2 bill. Where it is used to the extreme is in creationist literature.

 

[kharisym]

I don't.

There are some things that can be done in a laboratory that I'm sure nature herself is not allowed to do.

So just because they pass with flying colors in a laboratory -- (like Thalidomide did) -- doesn't mean it's the way God set it up to operate.

You do it -- I'm not interested.

Like I have said before, if tomorrow they create a star quarterback in a laboratory from scratch, or the next world Chess Champion that can beat Nigel Short or Viswanathan Anand -- cool!

I have fears, but I don't have those kinds of fears.

You're the one making the positive claim, and I think you're full of it. You test it or else you've got nothing. Without proof (which you haven't provided), your just making an accusation and expecting everyone to bow before you to kiss your feet because the mere fact that its you making the statement should be enough evidence.

 

[Targ]

I don't.

I do. The discovery of tiktaalik roseae is one successful demonstration of the predictive capabilities of the theory of evolution.

Like I have said before, if tomorrow they create a star quarterback in a laboratory from scratch, or the next world Chess Champion that can beat Nigel Short or Viswanathan Anand -- cool!

That would be cool, but it would not be analogous to anything that the theory of evolution states could happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it can be a useful term, but it's like the $2 bill. Where it is used to the extreme is in creationist literature.

Whatever.

Is there a point here I've made that needs clarification?

I mean -- you don't have to agree with it, but not agreeing with something is not the same thing as not understanding it.

 

[Skaloop]

but not agreeing with something is not the same thing as not understanding it.

True, but sometimes they go together. Like you and evolution, for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do. The discovery of tiktaalik roseae is one successful demonstration of the predictive capabilities of the theory of evolution.

Well, good for you guys.

You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.

I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.

I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.

Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.

 

[Targ]

Well, good for you guys.

You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.

I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.

I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.

Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.

What do you mean? I don't understand your challenge.

 

[rockaction]

Well, good for you guys.

You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.

I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.

I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.

Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.

Ooooh you're getting feisty here. Starting to get irritated that no one is letting you get away with saying ridiculous things?

 

[Anaximander]

...and is your new challenge pertinent to your original theory challenge?

 

[kharisym]

Well, good for you guys.

You predicted tiktaalik and then found one.

I could stoop to act like you guys and say it was somehow retrofitted, but I won't.

I'll give you guys the benefit of a doubt.

Now let's see evolution predict a whole species of animal return to its native habitat from being displaced in history.

I have no clue what you're asking here, but I've got an idea for you too:

Why don't you produce some proof for your claim that evolution is false by providing some evidence that <insert whatever it is you believe> is true. Evolution has very large amounts of evidence behind it, creationism/intelligent design/goddiditism has nothing but logical fallacies, half-truths, and lies- or at least that's all the creationists on this board have shown me.

 

[Cabal]

Ooooh you're getting feisty here. Starting to get irritated that no one is letting you get away with saying ridiculous things?

Well, as much as it was coupled with an "I'd never do THAT, unlike you" when AV has repeatedly claimed in the past that Tiktaalik et al were retrofits, I think we should at least try and encourage him in his outlier decisions to change his stance when they occur.

 

[Naraoia]

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Thanks!

So why did you want evolution not to be a theory?

Greg is right on.

What we call 'adaptation', you guys call 'microevolution'.

And both of you are wrong. Adaptation can occur on micro- and macro-scales, and microevolution can be non-adaptive (hello, genetic drift!).

"Microevolution and Macroevolution" are creationist terms.

Nooooo, they aren't! They have good scientific definitions. Whether you think those definitions are useful or meaningful (I'm not sure) is a different issue. So is the way creationists abuse the terms.

You quote mine and find a couple of scientists that refer to this and then you embellish it. Here's my challenge, go through the peer reviewed literature and see how many times scientists use these words. Now, I'm waiting for you quote mining.

best,

Macroevolution: 18 600 Scholar hits (11k of these from the last decade). Microevolution: 21 300.

I'd say macroevolution is a regular in my area of interest (evo-devo, palaeontology etc.). You don't see it in every second sentence, but it's certainly in use.

 

[Freodin]

The "scientific" versions of micro- and macroevolution differ slightly (hah, understatement!) from the "creationist" counterparts.

The creo-versions can be defined like that:

Macro is when you cry out "Ugh, that is never ever the same species as it´s parents!"
Micro is when you whine "But is is still a (whatever it´s parents were)!"

 

[Naraoia]

The "scientific" versions of micro- and macroevolution differ slightly (hah, understatement!) from the "creationist" counterparts.

The creo-versions can be defined like that:

Macro is when you cry out "Ugh, that is never ever the same species as it´s parents!"
Micro is when you whine "But is is still a (whatever it´s parents were)!"

Spot on

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you produce some proof for your claim that evolution is false by providing some evidence that <insert whatever it is you believe> is true.

I thought the subject was Tiktaalik?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I thought the subject was Tiktaalik?

Have you read Shubin's book?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you read Shubin's book?

No

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No

Yes, I know. It was rhetorical. Your silly comments make this quite obvious.

 

[kharisym]

I thought the subject was Tiktaalik?

Since the OP has been answered, it seemed like we were all just chatting. Tiktaalik is proof that evolution has the capacity to not only explain real world phenomena but also prove it. Thus far I've only seen you deride evolution without providing anything of equivalent functionality to replace it. I don't remember seeing you provide anything equivalent to tiktaalik to show <insert your pet idea here> is equal to evolution on any level. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is. Creationists only seem to put their feet where their mouths are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the OP has been answered, it seemed like we were all just chatting. Tiktaalik is proof that evolution has the capacity to not only explain real world phenomena but also prove it. Thus far I've only seen you deride evolution without providing anything of equivalent functionality to replace it. I don't remember seeing you provide anything equivalent to tiktaalik to show <insert your pet idea here> is equal to evolution on any level. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is. Creationists only seem to put their feet where their mouths are.

Creationism, the antithesis of evolution, has no predictive power.

It simply was a fact of history -- nothing more, nothing less.

Whereas evolution is considered an ongoing process.