betsy Posted May 18, 2016 Author Report Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) Yet, I gave a concrete living example of two populations of organisms that can no longer interbreed despite having recent common ancestors that still exist and can still be genetically tested. There is no assumption in the example I provided to you. Your post here doesn't apply or make sense in this context. Your world view is incompatible with the evidence. If, as you have claimed, you go where the evidence takes you, I urge you to explore the evidence in this area and ask questions and challenge what you have been told to believe. Which specific examples did you give? I must've missed those. Can you give them again? My world view has nothing to do with this. I gave corroborating articles from credible sources.........starting with James Tour (from the OP article). That the evidence(s) lean to favor my religious belief.....is just the way it is. Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted May 22, 2016 Author Report Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) See. So even when you are presented with the evidence, you go on to pretend it doesn't exist. Pack it up everyone. betsy doesn't care about evidence. She just wants a soapbox. It's been debunked! What part of being debunked, is so hard to understand? I already highlighted the precise statement that stated that. If it's been debunked, then of course that alleged evidence no longer exist... .........and there's no pretending about it, either! Cheeeesh. Read again. Post # 89. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25773-no-scientist-alive-today-understands-macroevolution/page-6 Edited May 22, 2016 by betsy Quote
The_Squid Posted May 22, 2016 Report Posted May 22, 2016 It's been debunked! So DNA has been debunked? You don't believe in DNA?? You don't believe in evolution. Or common ancestry.... But you believe in a man in the sky who created everything... And you believe a flood covered the world and a guy made a boat to hold 2 of every animal on the planet... And that the inbreeding in the bible produced everyone today... hmmm...... I don't believe that anyone would willfully choose to be that ignorant of science. Quote
eyeball Posted May 23, 2016 Report Posted May 23, 2016 It's just disbelief is all. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted May 24, 2016 Report Posted May 24, 2016 Evidence, Squid. Evidence. Give an evidence for Macro Evolution. You won't find one. Read the OP! There's plenty of examples of Macro Evolution and plenty of evidence. All splitting of species are examples of Macro Evolution IF the new species can no longer be bred with the original species. Cross-breeding is also macro-evolution IF the two species are cross-bread and the offspring is fertile. There' s literally countless examples of this... Some of them rely on the fossil record but there's also many cases that we have directly observed macro evolution. A new species of primrose was created when Oenothera lamarckiana developed with a different number of chromosomes and could no longer be bred with the original plant. A new species (Oenothera gigas) was created. Hemp Nettle is a new hybridized species created from aleopsis pubescens and galeopsis speciosa... another example of macro evolution. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted May 24, 2016 Author Report Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) There's plenty of examples of Macro Evolution and plenty of evidence. All splitting of species are examples of Macro Evolution IF the new species can no longer be bred with the original species. Cross-breeding is also macro-evolution IF the two species are cross-bread and the offspring is fertile. There' s literally countless examples of this... Some of them rely on the fossil record but there's also many cases that we have directly observed macro evolution. You're confusing microevolution with macro. A new species of primrose was created when Oenothera lamarckiana developed with a different number of chromosomes and could no longer be bred with the original plant. A new species (Oenothera gigas) was created. Oenothera Gigas has exactly twice the number of chromosomes as Oenothera Lamarckiana. You're referring to hybridization. No new genetic information was created. Hemp Nettle is a new hybridized species created from aleopsis pubescens and galeopsis speciosa... another example of macro evolution. You said it: hybridized specie. That's an example of microevolution. Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy Quote
dre Posted May 24, 2016 Report Posted May 24, 2016 You're confusing microevolution with macro. Oenothera Gigas has exactly twice the number of chromosomes as Oenothera Lamarckiana. You're referring to hybridization. No new genetic information was created. You said it: hybridized specie. That's an example of microevolution. No you are completely and totally wrong. Macro-evolution is evolution that transcends the species level. Hybridization IS Macro Evolution. Micro evolution is evolution below the species level and normally constrained to small populations or subsets of a species. The Primrose example I gave you is a real text book example of MACRO evolution because it resulted in speciation. Now to be totally clear here... You don't know the first thing about either of these terms, and you have clearly not spent even a semester in a biology classroom. What you have done is seized on some blogs written by someone else, and picked this issue up from a creationists perspective. The attempts to play games with these terms are well documented... There's a whole section devoted to this in the Wiki on macro evolution. Symantic issue[edit]Main article: Objections to evolution See also: Speciation The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[16] While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[17] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[18] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community. Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[6][19] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[6][20] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[21] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[22][23] Describing the fundamental similarity between Macro and Microevolution in his authoritative textbook "Evolutionary Biology," biologist Douglas Futuyma writes, One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations. — Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8[4] In any case you got the examples you asked for. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted May 24, 2016 Author Report Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) No you are completely and totally wrong. Macro-evolution is evolution that transcends the species level. Hybridization IS Macro Evolution. Micro evolution is evolution below the species level and normally constrained to small populations or subsets of a species. The Primrose example I gave you is a real text book example of MACRO evolution because it resulted in speciation. Now to be totally clear here... You don't know the first thing about either of these terms, and you have clearly not spent even a semester in a biology classroom. What you have done is seized on some blogs written by someone else, and picked this issue up from a creationists perspective. The attempts to play games with these terms are well documented... There's a whole section devoted to this in the Wiki on macro evolution. In any case you got the examples you asked for. The primrose you gave is an example of hybridization. There are no new genetic information that was created. It's not an evidence for macroevolution. So, no, I still didn't get the evidence I ask for. Oenothera lamarckiana is an old, invalid synonym for the plant species Oenothera glazioviana, which has the common name ‘large-flower evening primrose’.1 Oenothera gigas (gigas means ‘giant’ in Greek) was the name used a century ago for tetraploid2 mutants of various Oenothera species, including tetraploids of Oenothera lamarckiana. Both these names were bestowed by Dutch evolutionist botanist Hugo de Vries, O. gigas in 19013 and O. lamarckiana a short time earlier4. However, both these names are now defunct. With respect to O. gigas, today there are well over a hundred recognised species6 of Oenothera, but Oenothera gigas is not one of them. De Vries had assumed that tetraploid Oenethera plants would ‘breed true’, forming a distinct species. However, the tetraploid specimens of Oenothera that de Vries and other botanists cultivated did not form their own self-perpetuating populations, requiring constant special care and consistently generating a range of chromosome sets (diploid, triploid, tetraploid, etc.) in their offspring. In his zeal to provide evidence for evolution, de Vries had presumptuously proclaimed tetraploid Oenotheras to be a new species, but this was in spite of direct evidence to the contrary, including from his own breeding efforts. The idea that these plants constituted an example of speciation is wrong, and this was realized at least as long ago as 1943,7 more than six decades ago. That O. gigas is still presented as an evidence for evolution8,9 reflects very poorly on evolutionists. The situation is similar with many other evolution evidences, such as Haeckel’s notorious embryo diagrams, which continue to be used as evidences for evolution generations after they have been discredited.10 Polyploidy Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes—this is called polyploidy. Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself. This can then be considered a new species. Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information. Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted May 24, 2016 Author Report Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) No you are completely and totally wrong. Macro-evolution is evolution that transcends the species level. Hybridization IS Macro Evolution. Micro evolution is evolution below the species level and normally constrained to small populations or subsets of a species. The Primrose example I gave you is a real text book example of MACRO evolution because it resulted in speciation. Hugo de Vries (1848-1935)Most of his research involved crossbreeding experiments on the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana). Later it was shown that the "species" was a hybrid and the dramatic "mutations" were due to recombination of existing alleles https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/deVries.html The O. gigas is an evidence for MICRO evolution. Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy Quote
Scott Mayers Posted May 24, 2016 Report Posted May 24, 2016 Micro-evolution IS all that is required to justify evolution. It is THE logic that connects each part of evolution. "Macro-" evolution is just taking a step back to look at the whole to attempt to draw links between the micro-evolutionary steps. You cannot find absolute evidence of all large-scale changes just as you cannot go back in actual time to observe actual life changing. Thus we require inferring from what we ALREADY know is true of evolution as a fact and extending it on a large scale. The attacks against "Macro-evolution" is only just another religious means to legitimize what they hope to be an 'alternative' of some indeterminable 'variable' they just prefer to label as "God" and then TRANSFER this unknown in the minds of believers or potential candidates for belief to the PARTICULAR Historical Anthropomorphic "God"....especially, with arrogance, to some Judaeo-Christian one. I'm watching "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" again and see how they are presenting what could be legitimate complaints against authoritarianism that DOES occur in most institutes through time, as presumed PROOF of bias against "Intelligent Designers", a renewed term of "Creationism" these religious people are deluded into thinking is somehow sufficiently remote from specifying religion as its intent. But the "Intelligent" and "Design" in these are intended to suggest a god by default. Even pretending some possible real criticism of methodology as valid, it still has zero connection to allow for any 'holes' to simply be filled in by some theory of God into the subject of biology. And, betsy, If "no scientist today understands macroevolution", your understanding of the term would lack substantial meaning to those scientists. So how do you justify imposing your own definition there? It is as if you named your kid, "Dave", but I, as an outsider, assert that you don't understand the meaning of "Dave" but that the name refers to a different person I know instead; therefore, your son's name cannot be "Dave" but something else. Quote
dre Posted May 24, 2016 Report Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) The primrose you gave is an example of hybridization. There are no new genetic information that was created. It's not an evidence for macroevolution. So, no, I still didn't get the evidence I ask for. Not only is it an evidence for macroevolution its a classic textbook example thats used to teach students what macroevolution is. Again, you're asking for evidence of something without even bothering to learn the basics of what it is. Macroevolution is simply evolution on a scale that transcends a single species. Both of the examples I gave you are classic macroevolution examples. Neither are considered microevolution which happens within a single species or population. The primrose you gave is an example of hybridization. There are no new genetic information that was created. Again... No. Since the new plant that resulted cannot be bred with the original plant it is by definition... a new species. Since speciation occurred its considered macroevolution, not microevolution. Edited May 24, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Micro-evolution IS all that is required to justify evolution. It is THE logic that connects each part of evolution. "Macro-" evolution is just taking a step back to look at the whole to attempt to draw links between the micro-evolutionary steps. Read the OP again, and the article. You're merely regurgitating the very same thing he's criticising about! The so-called "connection" between micro and macroevolution, is what he's calling an, EXTRAPOLATION! You've gotta read the argument - there's no getting around that. That's the only logical thing to do when you're in a discussion or debate! Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
dre Posted June 25, 2016 Report Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) Read the OP again, and the article. You're merely regurgitating the very same thing he's criticising about! The so-called "connection" between micro and macroevolution, is what he's calling an, EXTRAPOLATION! You've gotta read the argument - there's no getting around that. That's the only logical thing to do when you're in a discussion or debate! But the entire assumption underpinning your argument has already gone up in flames, and you ABANDONED THREAD. The connection between the two is clear and well documented and in fact they are the exact same phenomenon except that macro-evolution produces a new species. Edited June 25, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Posted June 25, 2016 (edited) But the entire assumption underpinning your argument has already gone up in flames, and you ABANDONED THREAD. The connection between the two is clear and well documented and in fact they are the exact same phenomenon except that macro-evolution produces a new species. It's the God of Abraham that I abandoned, meaning - I'm not posting the rest of the evidences! The reason for that is, I'm not inclined to make extra effort in composing an "original" post for this forum (18 evidences so far) - when all I have to do is copy/paste my own evidences from the other forum. I'm not allowed to do that here. But I still counter-rebutt anyone responding to the thread. We'll just have to make do with the evidences that's given so far. How's abandoning the thread become a rebuttal? That's so funny. That's like saying..."Aha! You left the room! You left the room! You lose!" Nice try, Dre. You're trying to pull a fast one, because that's the only option left to you. Btw, your so-called evidences that you tried to fire up went PFFFFFFFFT.....they're all duds! What you brought up have been debunked ages ago, except that you didn't even know about it! Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted June 26, 2016 Report Posted June 26, 2016 We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for some science from Dr. Theobald. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2016 Report Posted June 26, 2016 Not only is it an evidence for macroevolution its a classic textbook example thats used to teach students what macroevolution is. Over and over, it seems Betsy has not been able to grasp the difference between macro/micro. You put it in a clear way, but that won't stop Betsy telling you that you are wrong. I believe these two threads can be merged with her other creationism threads. There is nothing new here at all. It all feels like spam now. Quote
?Impact Posted June 26, 2016 Report Posted June 26, 2016 God created a huge pallet of almost 300 naturally (Divinely) occurring amino acids, but picked only one (adenosine triphosphate - ATP) as the common unit for energy storage for the metabolism of all life. God created a huge pallet of over 100 naturally (Divinely) occurring nucleosides (and dozens of others man has been able to artificially synthesize), yet picked only four (deoxycytidine, deoxyguanosine, deoxyadenosine, and deoxythymidine) as the building blocks of all RNA & DNA. God bought the giant box of Crayola crayons, yet only used a couple in all his drawing. Ours is not to question the ways of God, and come up with theories of common descent. Our is just to accept the word of the scriptures. Deuteronomy 14:11-18 - Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. and conveniently ignore that the bat is more closely related to wingless mammals, and that birds are more closely related to wingless dinosaurs Quote
betsy Posted June 26, 2016 Author Report Posted June 26, 2016 (edited) We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming for some science from Dr. Theobald. That's old news. He also revised it after it was critiqued! Looks like he's still tweaking with it..... Of course, you can't mention Theobold's alleged "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" without giving..... A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”by ASHBY CAMP NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications. https://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php Looks like Mr Theobold keeps going back to the lab! Can't make up his mind! Edited June 26, 2016 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted June 26, 2016 Author Report Posted June 26, 2016 (edited) Ours is not to question the ways of God, and come up with theories of common descent. Our is just to accept the word of the scriptures. Deuteronomy 14:11-18 - Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. and conveniently ignore that the bat is more closely related to wingless mammals, and that birds are more closely related to wingless dinosaurs Is there a biological error here? Aren't bats mammals, not birds? Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.php Edited June 26, 2016 by betsy Quote
GostHacked Posted June 26, 2016 Report Posted June 26, 2016 But the entire assumption underpinning your argument has already gone up in flames, and you ABANDONED THREAD. The connection between the two is clear and well documented and in fact they are the exact same phenomenon except that macro-evolution produces a new species. I'd argue more that genus and family would be examples of macro evolution. Species being the micro.... however i could be wrong. Quote
?Impact Posted June 26, 2016 Report Posted June 26, 2016 Looks like Mr Theobold keeps going back to the lab! Can't make up his mind! Yes, you finally got one right. Science is about discovery, learning from the past and others and making corrections. That is what differentiates it from deluded fantasies. or at least quoted batbird Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. After your arguments about the correctness of "stretched", now you are reverting to the model of simplistic explanation for the age of understanding. I'll take fries with that. Quote
betsy Posted June 27, 2016 Author Report Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) Yes, you finally got one right. Science is about discovery, learning from the past and others and making corrections. That is what differentiates it from deluded fantasies. After your arguments about the correctness of "stretched", now you are reverting to the model of simplistic explanation for the age of understanding. I'll take fries with that. Translation: Oooops. No, I don't have a single evidence for macro evolution. I thought I did. My bad. Edited June 27, 2016 by betsy Quote
?Impact Posted June 27, 2016 Report Posted June 27, 2016 Translation: Oooops. No, I don't have a single evidence for macro evolution. I thought I did. My bad. Some of us don't have to rely on bold red lettering, just reason. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 27, 2016 Report Posted June 27, 2016 If only we had an evolutionary biologist on the board who would reply to these threads instead of rolling his eyes and getting back to work because this nonsense is ludicrous. Quote
dre Posted June 27, 2016 Report Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) I'd argue more that genus and family would be examples of macro evolution. Species being the micro.... however i could be wrong. http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html There's a good definition and some examples there. The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is that macroevolution results in speciation. The new offspring can no longer breed with the species it emerged from and a new species is created. That's why you cant f&^k a bird and expect to have a little human/bird baby even though we have common ancestry. Edited June 27, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.