Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[Armoured]

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

None of whom are active in the relevant fields of biology. A rocket propulsion scientist who dissents from evolution? Say it ain't so!

Have you not heard of this?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

 

[DogmaHunter]

Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Not really, actually..

Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be.

That's like saying that inches are proven, but miles aren't.

Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.

That is just blatantly false.
The mechanisms behind micro and macro are the exact same mechanisms. The only difference is the amount of generations.

If you do this 1+1+1+1+1, you'll get a small number: 5.
Continue to do that for a few hours and you'll end up with hundreds of thousands, millions and more.

Biological evolution works through the accumulation of changes over generations.
More generations = more accumulations.

"macro evolution" is not some kind of rare event where a dog gives birth to a non-dog or anything equally ridiculous.

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

There is no "theory of macro evolution".
That's where you get lost in this nonsense. Someone has been lying to you or you have been reading on very uninformed websites or alike.

There is only the "theory of evolution".

Micro and macro evolution are based on the exact same mechanisms.
There is no "micro theory" on the one hand and a "macro theory" on the other.

There is just one theory of evolution. One mechanism.
Once more: the only difference between micro and macro is the amount of generations.

 

[Armoured]

I'm not confusing anything, they are discrete things.

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

The way you and YECs use the term is misleading and not how it is scientifically meant.

You really think you know better than the Pope and the Vatican bodies who have studied evolution and pronounced it accurate? Really?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.

Actually, it's one of the most accurate things in this entire thread.

Yes, evolution theory is one of the most solid theories in all of science.
Meaning: one of the most evidenced. I'm sure you've heared the words "the evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming" before, right?

Guess who spoke them. Hint: it's a theist that is oftenly quote mined by creationists and, unsurprisingly, the above quote is never part of the mining...

On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

That link does not agree with you.

Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time

Just like is being said, macro is just a set of micro.
The difference between both is time. ie: the amount of generations.

The mechanisms are THE EXACT SAME.
Macro is a collection of micro.
Macro is not a mechanism by itself, standing next to micro as a seperate process.

Just like a mile is a collection of inches.

Complex mechanical organisms have been found where the 'gradual change leads to large change' hypothesis completely falls down and so far no solution has been found.

Citation?

So yes, there are gaping holes in the evidence for macro-evolution,

Don't confuse evolutionary history with the mechanism of evolution.

I suggest you actually read up on them, unless of course you wish to remain wilfully ignorant.

I suggest you actually cite them first.

 

[Armoured]

I suggest you actually cite them first.

Tick...tick...tick...

 

[Holoman]

Now, please present the work of "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported, as you claimed!

Stop dodging and present your evidence.

Have you suddenly forgot how to use Google? There are plenty, just need to google it.

The dubbed 'Altenberg 16' for example met to discuss the changes that needed to be made to evolutionary theory because the Darwinian natural selection & gradual processes was failing to explain rapid development of multiple species such as in the Cambian explosion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd.

That is simply false.

Chimps have 48, humans have 46.

If we have a common ancestor, that ancestor either had 46 or 48. Seeing as other great apes have 48, we would expect that somewhere in our ancestral bloodline, something happened that reduced ours from 48 to 46.

Lo and behold: human chromosome nr 2: a chromosome that has a telomere in the middle, suggesting chromosomal fusion (a mutation). Telomere's mark the "end" of a chromosome.

Scientists in a lab pulled this chromosome apart at the fusion cite of this telomere and then compared the two halves to chimp chromosome.

Unsurprisingly, they found an exact match in chimp chromosomes 2 and 13 respectively for each of the halves.

Boom. Macro evolution confirmed.

You seem to be confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution when I was perfectly clear that I was referring to the evidence for macro-evolution.

It's the same evidence and the same mechanism.

And to suggest there is more evidence for this than for example the theory of relativity is quite comical.

It's not. There IS more evidence that this.
Physics, btw, is kind of problematic. We actually are quite certain that there are errors in our understanding there, because quantum physics can't really play nicely with classical physics.

One of both is wrong, or we miss a third ingredient to unify them. Some seem to think that a theory of quantum gravity might help with that - but I'm not gonna pretend to understand that stuff

In any case, in physics, there is NO "unified field theory".
In biology, THERE IS. It's called "Evolution".

It's the theory that unifies just about all fields related to biology. Bio-chemistry, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc.

Remove the theory of evolution and the thing collapses.
That's how solid it is.

That's another thing that the theist dude I mentioned is known to have said: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution".

 

[Holoman]

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time

Just like is being said, macro is just a set of micro.
The difference between both is time. ie: the amount of generations.

The mechanisms are THE EXACT SAME.
Macro is a collection of micro.
Macro is not a mechanism by itself, standing next to micro as a seperate process.

Just like a mile is a collection of inches.

And the proof that micro adds up to macro is where exactly?

 

[Armoured]

Have you suddenly forgot how to use Google? There are plenty, just need to google it.

The dubbed 'Altenberg 16' for example met to discuss the changes that needed to be made to evolutionary theory because the Darwinian natural selection & gradual processes was failing to explain rapid development of multiple species such as in the Cambian explosion.

Discussing new discoveries, aspects and elements of TOE =/= "evolution is wrong"

 

[Armoured]

And the proof that micro adds up to macro is where exactly?

Every cell nucleus you possess.

 

[Holoman]

That is simply false.

Chimps have 48, humans have 46.

If we have a common ancestor, that ancestor either had 46 or 48. Seeing as other great apes have 48, we would expect that somewhere in our ancestral bloodline, something happened that reduced ours from 48 to 46.

You don't see the presupposition there? If we have a common ancestor

This chromosome example just illustrates the 'evidence' of macro evolution perfectly and how circumstantial it is. We share such similarities therefore we must have evolved from a common ancestor. That isn't evidence on the level of evidence that supports the theory of relativity. That isn't tested in experiments, it isn't supported by mathematics.

 

[Armoured]

Just for fun, some observed instances of "macro" evolution.

Example one:



Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:



Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:



Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:



Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

I await the forthcoming handwave with great anticipation.

 

[Holoman]

The idea that life evolved in tiny minute increments is such an outdated view I'm surprised people still use it. Biologists have long dispensed of it because it just flies in the face of the evidence

 

[Armoured]

The idea that life evolved in tiny minute increments is such an outdated view I'm surprised people still use it. Biologists have long dispensed of it because it just flies in the face of the evidence

Uh-huh. Well, if you're such an expert, perhaps you'd like to tell us what said biologists DO think?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And the proof that micro adds up to macro is where exactly?

In the inevitable consequence of continued accumulation of changes through the hereditary nature of reproduction.

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+..... = a large number.

 

[lesliedellow]

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

I see Michael Behe's name is inevitably on the list. YEC's should be a lot more careful in who they choose to count as their friends. Here is a quote from the great man himself:

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."

If similar lists posted by creationists are anything to go by, a very sceptical eye should be cast over the rest of that list also.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't see the presupposition there? If we have a common ancestor

Yes. That's how science works. You formulate a hypothesis to explain a set of data and you then test that hypothesis.

Our fused second chromosome didn't HAVE to match chromosome 2 and 13 of chimps.
But it does. Exactly like we would expect if evolution happened.

This chromosome example just illustrates the 'evidence' of macro evolution perfectly and how circumstantial it is.

How is it circumstantial?
Chromosomal fusion is a known type of mutation.
If it happens, it looks exactly like our second chromosome: a very long chromosome with a telomere in the middle.

This matches the predictions of common ancestry exactly.
What is the problem.

Keep in mind, it is only just ONE example. There are lots of them.

Like, for example, the thousands of shared ERV's.

We share such similarities

Nested hierarchies are not mere "similarities".
It's not about being similar, it's about the pattern of the similarities.

This pattern didn't have to exist. In fact, if evolution didn't happen, there would be no reason for it to exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

Have you not heard of this?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

 

[joshua 1 9]

If your God is "outside of time" then he can play no part in this universe. Because, in this universe, time is required for ANY action, even the act of simply existing. So, bye bye God.

You are only showing us the limits of your finite mind that can not comprehend how the infinite can act upon the finite. Of course for Christians that have been touched by the God of infinity they know that this is indeed possible. Sense you have never had this experience then you have no testimony to this effect.

 

[joshua 1 9]

SCIENCE ACTUALLY WORKS.

Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates. Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.