No slave race: no evolution

[True_Blue]

Doesn't sound like evolution at all

You're right--it isn't evolution. At best, it's microevolution. I don't believe in macroevolution. There isn't a powerful enough mechanism to drive macroevolution.

 

[TheGnome]

You're right--it isn't evolution. At best, it's microevolution. I don't believe in macroevolution. There isn't a powerful enough mechanism to drive macroevolution.

Can you define macroevolution for us, please?

The scientific analysis for microevolutionary events and macroevolutionary events are different, but the mechanism for both is the same.

 

[Vene]

Just about everything about sexual reproduction is antithetical to evolution, Vene. I'm not the least bit surprised about your first sentence, and I'm not surprised about your second sentence. Sexual reproduction causes mean regression on both ends. If you look at dynasties over time, extremely fit rulers that come to dominate those around them and create empires are followed by increasingly less fit successors that increasingly resemble the average of humanity. I've observed in my own family and in the literature that sexual reproduction strips out undesirable genetic defects.

Beyond that, the evolution of sexual reproduction in the first place makes no sense to me. "The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_nuacgpo8

 

[Split Rock]

You're right--it isn't evolution. At best, it's microevolution. I don't believe in macroevolution. There isn't a powerful enough mechanism to drive macroevolution.

Can you define macroevolution for us, please?

Yes... please do so!

 

[Bombila]

Vene, loved it. Fun vid.

 

[Blayz]

You're right--it isn't evolution. At best, it's microevolution. I don't believe in macroevolution. There isn't a powerful enough mechanism to drive macroevolution.

Why is the word "powerful" in there? How much power does it take?

Methinks TB's god-brain-hole is growing.

 

[Axioma]

Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying that you believe in centimeters, but there's no way anyone can convince you that you can get enough to get a meter.

 

[Tomk80]

Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is like saying that you believe in centimeters, but there's no way anyone can convince you that you can get enough to get a meter.

It's worse. Saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution after saying that the biological species concept is broken, can only be the result of a lobotomy.

 

[Bombila]

No, Tom, one of my aunts was subjected to a lobotomy in the early fifties, and though psychiatrically and neurologically damaged in several ways, was still able to comprehend the concept of evolution. Gotta be something else.

 

[True_Blue]

Can you define macroevolution for us, please?

The scientific analysis for microevolutionary events and macroevolutionary events are different, but the mechanism for both is the same.

Microevolution is the process of living organisms of a particular "kind" developing new racial characteristics. Giraffes, horses, zebras, and donkeys are all of the same "kind" even though scientists have unwittingly classified them in different orders and families. My definition of a "kind" is whether the egg and sperm of the animals, if placed in a test tube or petri dish, could combine and create a viable embryo. This is a better definition than looking at spots and stripes and the overall phenotype because it's a rigorous and uniform definition. It should be obvious that a wolf and a chihuahua would never mate in the wild, even though they are both properly dogs. The differentiation of the original canine pair into wolves, chihuahuas, and all other sorts of dogs is what creationists call microevolution. The differentiation of the human race into whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. is exactly the same thing.
It's tempting to believe that because we've made hundreds of dog breeds, the rest of life could have arisen by the same process.

"Macroevolution" as I use the term is the process of a bunch of chemicals combining to form anything with any cognizable type of organization, like even one base pair of DNA, and base pair of DNA forming any sort of organized higher order life precursor, those precursors forming a viable life form, that hypothetical first cell becoming multicellular, and the multicellular life form reversing its metabolism to consume its own waste, a unicellular life form becoming multicellular, and the first multicellular form moving from plants to animals to humans. Maybe some of you will immediately want to fire back with points regarding semantics, but the bottom line is that you can't believe in human evolution without importing all the baggage that comes with it, including the baggage of abiogenesis. Each of those discrete steps above is utterly impossible from a scientific perspective, and it takes a great amount of faith to suppose that any of those steps could occur in the absence of a guiding Hand. I've written on these points ad nauseam. Since the Bible says that God did not create life via an evolutionary process, I do not believe this process took place.

 

[True_Blue]

Just for fun:

Vene, besides the video being somewhat cheesy (but that's ok), I can't help but note how many more orders of magnitude there are of bacteria than there are of sexually reproducing animals. I also note that the video confirms for purposes of the discussion that evolution is much more difficult in sexually reproducing animals by reducing the mutation rate 16x.

Edit: to make sure my point comes across, it's hard to imagine how the very first sexually producing creature could have evolved in the first place, given its inherently more difficult ability to adapt, and given the extreme difficulty in reproducing itself and competing for nutrients. I just do not see a satisfactory evolutionary construct to explain sexuality.

 

[Tomk80]

Vene, besides the video being somewhat cheesy (but that's ok), I can't help but note how many more orders of magnitude there are of bacteria than there are of sexually reproducing animals.

And? They've got a niche where they are successful.

I also note that the video confirms for purposes of the discussion that evolution is much more difficult in sexually reproducing animals by reducing the mutation rate 16x.

Two points:
1: where in the video was this statement made?
2: Do you ignore the point of the video on purpose, or are you just that dense?

 

[Vene]

2: Do you ignore the point of the video on purpose, or are you just that dense?

He's just that dense. For example:

Giraffes, horses, zebras, and donkeys are all of the same "kind" even though scientists have unwittingly classified them in different orders and families. My definition of a "kind" is whether the egg and sperm of the animals, if placed in a test tube or petri dish, could combine and create a viable embryo.

He thinks that giraffes and donkeys can have viable offspring. I thought cabbits were bad.

 

[True_Blue]

He's just that dense. For example:


He thinks that giraffes and donkeys can have viable offspring. I thought cabbits were bad.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t39696.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/76707150@N00/133016114/
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/06/30/zebra-horse-giraffe-zoraffe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quagga

 

[Vene]

lol, an okapi is an entirely separate species from the giraffe. Read your links, the second one even states, "Actually, it is called an Okapi, and isn’t a crossbread at all (but certainly looks like one)."

 

[Tomk80]

lol, an okapi is an entirely separate species from the giraffe. Read your links, the second one even states, "Actually, it is called an Okapi, and isn’t a crossbread at all (but certainly looks like one)."

I don't know what it is with true_blue. My guess at this point is that he only reads the first two lines of an article. After that, he gets tired and can't concentrate anymore.

 

[Vene]

I wonder what True_Blue would make of ring species. Are they all one kind?

 

[Bombila]

I'm trying to figure out if TB even watched the same video that I did. And with the Okapi 'example', I'm beginning to think Robert Byers at last has a kindred spirit.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Since the Bible says that God did not create life via an evolutionary process, I do not believe this process took place.

And this is why the entire crevo debate is pointless. Science keeps marching onwards and upwards, while creationists keep rejecting it on religion grounds. Science is progressive, while creationism is reactive. And as a result, the latter can never truly threaten the former.

 

[Chalnoth]

Quick comment on the slave race idea:

If this were true, would we not make use of the most intelligent animals, bar humans, as a "slave race"? Why don't we use, then, chimpanzees or gorillas as slaves? Why haven't we ever done so to any reasonable extent?