What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution?

[sfs]

One doesn't need a Harvard education to understand what theory is.

Which has nothing at all to do with supporting your claims about the theory of evolution.

So you consider yourself the authority on ALL that science has put forth? You know it all?

No, but I know quite a lot about evolutionary biology (along with several other fields of science, if that matters). You didn't answer my question: how much do you actually know about evolutionary biology? You're the one telling the professional scientists that they don't know the first thing about their own field. That has to mean you understand it even better than they do -- so what's the basis of your superior knowledge?

An you pre-suppose that me and others haven't?

I presupposed nothing: I asked you, but you seem to be doing everything except answer the question. If you regularly read evolutionary biology journals, great -- say so.

How many have you read? so .... we can all be impressed with the claimed knowledge you evidentially claim to possess

I have no idea. In part it depends on how broadly you're considering the subject. Hundreds, anyway, and listened to a thousand or more professional talks on the subject. And I'm not even primarily an evolutionary biologist -- I'm a geneticist. What I do for a living isn't a secret. You can see for yourself.

 

[sfs]

About what I expected.

So what's wrong with the answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why does matter and energy exist? Without using theory ... Where does matter and energy come from?

We don't know. And one could just as easily say that matter has always been here in some form as one can say that God has always been here in one form or another. Not knowing the answer is not evidence for God. If it was then one could also say that they have evidence that God was made. Sometimes the only correct answer is "We don't know yet".

 

[eleos1954]

Which has nothing at all to do with supporting your claims about the theory of evolution.

No, but I know quite a lot about evolutionary biology (along with several other fields of science, if that matters). You didn't answer my question: how much do you actually know about evolutionary biology? You're the one telling the professional scientists that they don't know the first thing about their own field. That has to mean you understand it even better than they do -- so what's the basis of your superior knowledge?

I presupposed nothing: I asked you, but you seem to be doing everything except answer the question. If you regularly read evolutionary biology journals, great -- say so.

I have no idea. In part it depends on how broadly you're considering the subject. Hundreds, anyway, and listened to a thousand or more professional talks on the subject. And I'm not even primarily an evolutionary biologist -- I'm a geneticist. What I do for a living isn't a secret. You can see for yourself.

you believe theories .... that's fine, as a geneticist then certainly you are well aware of the great complexities within the genetic code ... so you believe all those complexities "could" evolve over millions of years and millions of random occurrences ... ok .... please identify all those "facts" ... are they indeed facts or possibilities (theory)?

Please give us all the facts that prove evolution (without using theory).

 

[Subduction Zone]

enlighten me.

Okay, let's start with the concept of evidence. To reason rationally belief should come after sufficient evidence is produced, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

you believe theories .... that's fine, as a geneticist then certainly you are well aware of the great complexities within the genetic code ... so you believe all those complexities "could" evolve over millions of years and millions of random occurrences ... ok .... please identify all those "facts" ... are they indeed facts or possibilities (theory)?

Please give us all the facts that prove evolution (without using theory).

You might want to learn what a "theory" is in the first place.

 

[sfs]

you believe theories .... that's fine, as a geneticist then certainly you are well aware of the great complexities within the genetic code ... so you believe all those complexities "could" evolve over millions of years and millions of random occurrences ... ok .... please identify all those "facts" ... are they indeed facts or possibilities (theory)?

Please give us all the facts that prove evolution (without using theory).

I'm not going to give you a complete rundown of all the evidence that supports evolution as an explanation, since it covers a vast swathe of multiple scientific fields. Let's start with just one piece of evidence since I've already written it up in detail here. Read that, ask questions if you don't understand anything, and then tell me why it isn't evidence for macroevolution.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm not going to give you a complete rundown of all the evidence that supports evolution as an explanation, since it covers a vast swathe of multiple scientific fields. Let's start with just one piece of evidence since I've already written it up in detail here. Read that, ask questions if you don't understand anything, and then tell me why it isn't evidence for macroevolution.

If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years
(assumed) ... not known

That means they should look like mutations.

Now we are in a position to test whether genetic differences between humans and chimps look like mutations.

was glad to least-wise see this statement

Of course, none of this says anything at all about God’s role in human origins, nor does it rule out miraculous intervention.

But it does provide strong evidence that we share ancestry with other species.

ancestry
one's family or ethnic descent

Yeah ... agree God created family units ... but does not mean family units evolved from one another and there is a shared ancestry ... that is where theory comes in.

 

[sfs]

But it does provide strong evidence that we share ancestry with other species.

ancestry
one's family or ethnic descent

Yeah ... agree God created family units ... but does not mean family units evolved from one another and there is a shared ancestry

What I presented is evidence that we share ancestry with chimpanzees and other mammals. If you have another explanation for the data, by all means offer it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, from what I've gathered, the barrier between micro and macroevolution is either the Biblical 'Kinds', a term that is practically useless in biological science since it's all all-encompassing and also just wrong, or that people feel that macroevolution is just fake science.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is a consilience of evidence for common descent from fossils, anatomy, embryos, DNA, etc. in spite of creationists' peculiar beliefs.

If anything if God did create the Earth his creation dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Earth itself tells us that life did not begin that way.

What I presented is evidence that we share ancestry with chimpanzees and other mammals. If you have another explanation for the data, by all means offer it.

You claim there’s evidence for common origin and macroevolution because of the similarity of DNA sequences back to the trunk of one single tree of life. I think there was a grove of trees (kinds) with the common DNA actually coming from the soil they grow in (God’s building blocks), each tree having a lot less branches, which are variations of the same kind.

 

[inquiring mind]

Maybe they were direct divine creations.

Bingo!

 

[eleos1954]

What I presented is evidence that we share ancestry with chimpanzees and other mammals. If you have another explanation for the data, by all means offer it.

humans and apes are not from the same family unit.

the "ancestry" across family units is assumed/theorized.

Chimpanzees mate within their own family unit .... a elephant is a mammal .... but don't mate with other mammals other than their own .... and so on.

I do (evidentially not acceptable to you) that's fine ... the explanation is God created family units of various kinds and there isn't a cross over.

It's what we see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humans and apes are not from the same family unit.

the "ancestry" across family units is assumed/theorized.

Chimpanzees mate within their own family unit .... a elephant is a mammal .... but don't mate with other mammals other than their own .... and so on.

I do (evidentially not acceptable to you) that's fine ... the explanation is God created family units of various kinds and there isn't a cross over.

It's what we see.

Biologically we are from the same family. All of the Great Apes, and that includes humans are of the same family:

Hominidae - Wikipedia

You need more than "for the Bible tells me so" to make a valid argument in this part of the forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claim there’s evidence for common origin and macroevolution because of the similarity of DNA sequences back to the trunk of one single tree of life. I think there was a grove of trees (kinds) with the common DNA actually coming from the soil they grow in (God’s building blocks), each tree having a lot less branches, which are variations of the same kind.

Sorry, but that is not evidence for your beliefs. This is why you need to understand what is and what is not evidence. Proper evidence can cut both ways.


Scientists have to be honest. A lying or dishonest scientist loses all credibility. That is why various creationist sites are not scientific. Most of them require their workers to swear to not use the scientific method.

Once again, this is the key definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

To even claim to have evidence one first needs a testable hypothesis at the very least. If you want to claim to have evidence you need to be able to answer these two questions:

What is your hypotesis?

And what reasonable test could refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions you do not have a testable hypothesis and as a result you do not have evidence. This forces scientists to be honest. They have to be willing to admit "I was wrong".

 

[Frank Robert]

so why are you arguing? LOL because you have a different belief.

Your belief was your claim that intelligence was evidence so I bowed out. It is also evident that you believe that science is based on belief. You are entitled to your belief.

 

[inquiring mind]

Sorry, but that is not evidence for your beliefs. This is why you need to understand what is and what is not evidence. Proper evidence can cut both ways.


Scientists have to be honest. A lying or dishonest scientist loses all credibility. That is why various creationist sites are not scientific. Most of them require their workers to swear to not use the scientific method.

Once again, this is the key definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

To even claim to have evidence one first needs a testable hypothesis at the very least. If you want to claim to have evidence you need to be able to answer these two questions:

What is your hypotesis?

And what reasonable test could refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions you do not have a testable hypothesis and as a result you do not have evidence. This forces scientists to be honest. They have to be willing to admit "I was wrong".

I assign very little weight to posts such as this... maybe the geneticist will actually evaluate my representation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I assign very little weight to posts such as this... maybe the geneticist will actually evaluate my representation.

There's more evidence that supports the scientific claims then supports your claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

well christians who try to incorporate evolution into creation are dismissing the Genesis account as it is written and thereby causing confusion amongst themselves ... and others.

Your interpretation that Genesis is literal is what causes you confusion. The majority of Christians believe that their deity created the laws of nature to do the grunt work of evolution.

outside of that .... answer this question that another poster put forth ....
how/could, “mindless nature” put something in man that it doesn’t even have itself?

That science is ongoing is a feature not a bug.

as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusion with science ... it's on going ...

An all powerful deity would have no problem creating the laws of nature to do that through evolution.

What there is in science in regard to the origin of life is a lot of theories ... and it is still referred to in that manner .... Theory of Evolution and will always be. Nobody was there.

The ToE starts with evolution which, unlike intelligent design, the ToE is supported by an overwhelming consilience of evidence from many unrelated scientific fields.

 

[eleos1954]

Your belief was your claim that intelligence was evidence so I bowed out. It is also evident that you believe that science is based on belief. You are entitled to your belief.

yeah and science often bases their "beliefs" on theory.

I agree everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.