Macroevolution examples

[jamstigator]

You wouldn't necessarily find 'between-species' remnants, for lots of reasons. One, there may not *be* such things. Evolutionary change may happen quickly and dramatically. Mutation results in beneficial alteration, that increases survival trait. Say, binocular vision. If said mutation is inherited, and it significantly increases chance of survival, it will spread rapidly, and before long, there won't be any members left with monocular vision. And there might not be any intermediary steps, like 1.5-eyed creatures.

Secondly, when you're talking about the size of the planet, and millions of years of time, not a whole lot remains that we *can* see, just from the sheer wasting effects of weather and natural events over immense spans of time. We get to see the minute fraction of what survives in the geologic record from such distant times, surely not even one one hundredth of one percent of what was actually there.

And random chance doesn't necessarily 'require more time than a few billions of years'. Let's say you have 1000 6-sided dice and you roll them. What are the odds that they will all come up 6's? 6^1000 power, or 1.4166e+778 to 1 against it. Okay, pretty darned unlikely. However, it's just as likely to happen the very first roll of the dice as it is on the twelve trillionth time, or whatever. Obviously, the more rolls the greater the likelihood that it will happen (and reaching *certainty* that it will happen eventually, given enough time), but nothing at all says that something unlikely cannot happen quickly, even immediately. That's random chance for you -- you just never know when it will happen. That's what makes it random.

Also, you're thinking about this in a myopic kind of way. While it's not necessarily likely that a few billions of years would result in the random chance that begins life *on any particular planet*, there are trillions of stars, maybe more, with probably quadrillions or quintillions of planets and all of them got billions of years of rolling the dice too. So if it only happens on one planet out of a billion, because the odds are low, even so, there are a whole lotta planets. Could be we got one of the lucky rolls of the dice. I've seen no evidence to the contrary, anyway.

jamstigator Reviewed by jamstigator on 08-22-2007. Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5

[stinkyattic]

But it seems that no one finds things that are between species. Isn't that odd?.

Not at all. If it is different enough to merit 'between' status, it is different enough to merit naming as a separate species... I have never understood this argument.
Creationists more than anyone else should undertand the concept that if you haven't found proof of something yet, doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't ever there...

[Hardcore Newbie]

The problem is that most people carry the theory of evolution to an extreme. Like the autobiogenisis idea and the idea that evolution is always toward a better more complex animal.

Evolution doesn't always make a good progression. Someone mentioned how a rabbit has to eat it's own turds to properly get the nutrients.

[jamstigator]

BTW, couch-potato, I liked your link up there - thanks! I got absorbed in it for about an hour; some fascinating stuff there. Especially the monumental amount of evidence, coming from many fields, from all different directions, that supports the 'common ancestor' theory. Whoever wrote that even included things that would *invalidate* evolutionary theory...if such things existed.

Most interesting, I thought, was the stuff about human tails, and how there was an example of a family who had tails, which was passed on through three generations. Obviously we did have an ancestor, evolutionarily-speaking, that had a tail. And even now, when we have evolved past the point of needing the tail, sometimes it still pops up, even for multiple generations.

Also interesting was the stuff about eyes, and how mammalian eyes with their blind spot are defective compared to the eyes that cephalapods evolved, which do not have the blind spot. There's no reason for us to have that defect, except that our evolutionary ancestors had that same blind spot and passed it on to us, whereas the cephalapods evolved along a different branch and did it a little bit better.

Very good and meticulously-researched article, that.

[Delta9 UK]

I know what you were doing. You conclusion is based upon the already made assumption that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. ". You state this like a fact when it's not a fact at all.

Show me a scientific journal that says otherwise.

I studied these, retroviruses in particular - especially HIV and HERV-K. HERV-K has been active very recently (past 100,000 years or so) in our genome.

Other virus remnants are MILLIONS of years old - but that doesn't fit your ideas either now, does it?

What orginally was hastilly and foolishly called junk dna by evolutionists, after research there has been more and more functions found for these so called useless remnants. It's alot like the old vestigial organs myth. Over 100 organs were pronounced useless leftovers of evolution. This was once a popular idea for evolution, but as it turns out, the list of vestigial organs has shrunk to almost nothing.

Well that's utter rubbish - there are loads of examples in the animal and plant kingdoms.

For those who don't know Vestigal Organs are left-over remnants from previous stages in evolution. There are many examples from Humans with tails (from our primate days) to leg bones of whales (as they evolved from land mammals) and all manner of much harder to spot remnants.

Creationists have a hard time with this as you can well imagine.

Here's a list of "Almost Nothing"

Ostrich Wings

Atavisms like Whales with Hind Legs
or Humans with tails!

wings in earwigs

I could go on but its just getting boring. There are molecular examples too. You know it and I know it.

Well, I know it

You're blinded by your pressupposition. It looks like humans and some primates have the same "junk" dna but you fail to consider that they're not junk at all, and they serve a common purpose created by a common design.

Keywords: Kettle, Black, Calling, Pot

I didn't say it was junk - I said it was retroviral DNA. HIV does the same thing - I didn't study 2 years of Virology for nothing.

My pressupposition doesn't exist - it's in your head.

That DNA did serve a purpose, for a Virus.

So it's similar with the cat arguement. It could be argued that they both had the dna but when the larger cats became more specialized they lost that information. Or maybe there's another reason why.

Well, they were just a couple of examples - I'm sure you could come up with "maybe's" for all of them.

We're dealing with a topic that is one of the most incredibly complicated of all sciences. I don't even come close to understand all of the technical data and terms and no doubt neither do you.

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but I DO, remember I have a degree in this stuff - you have a creationist website. To be honest - it isn't THAT complicated - only if you don't like the results and have to make up something to fit.

There are four major kinds of junk DNA:.....

I know all this and you can copy and paste as much as you like from answersingenesis but it WILL NOT convince anyone that YOU know it, or that any of it is based on non-biased evidence.

Besides you don't know what you are talking about as Introns are not junk DNA, a non-coding sequence isn't junk.

More creationist twaddle and pseudo-science.

Here are some ideas of what the dna might be also. They don't rule out the possibility that there is some truly junk dna, but not like evolutionists think of it, but rather as previously useful dna that has been affected by mutations. But there is still much work to be done in weeding out the working dna that currently serves a purpose with the other stuff.

So let's just pretend that its not retroviral DNA then and say God put it there and then evolution went and ruined it with mutation. Makes perfect sense..... :wtf:

So no, it's not established as a fact that " Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. " And it shows how far you're willing to go to believe in evolution. The evidence is showing more and more that the genome is more complex than we ever expected.

LOL, this really is silly now. Endo-genous retro-virus - That sort of literally tells you what it means...

They ARE viruses IT IS A FACT and there is a shitload of science to back it up. A couple of French chaps even made one in the Lab last year - be sure :thumbsup:

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith.

You on the other hand offer NO EVIDENCE of your claim.

[stinkyattic]

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith..

A brilliant end to a very very good post.

[Delta9 UK]

The missing link debates are premature at this point because the theory of evolution has so far failed to justify it's own exsistance, scientifically.

Read this - save some time:
Arguments creationists should not use - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

[BlueDevil]

Here's a couple for you too nature:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Straw man argument)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the logical fallacy. For other uses, see Straw man (disambiguation).

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

and

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method.[2][3][4][5]

The term pseudoscience is based on the Greek root pseudo- (false or pretending) and science (derived from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge). The first recorded use was in 1843 by French physiologist François Magendie[1] considered a pioneer in experimental physiology.

The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[6] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method.[7] Professor Paul DeHart Hurd[8] argued that a large part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, eugenics, quackery, the occult, and superstition.[9] Certain introductory survey classes in science take careful pains to delineate the objections scientists and skeptics have to practices that make direct claims contradicted by the scientific discipline in question.[10]

Beyond the initial introductory analyses offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way.[11]

Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development.

----

Your hero and his website have nullified their own credibility just fine without my help, I'm happy to say. Does this mean I can look forward to you acknowledging the questions I provided about Mortenson? Feel free to refute any of what I wrote there if you're feeling up to it, I am really interested to hear how having a Phd in history of geology qualifies anyone to lambast others across the multiple fields that comprise evolutionary science. All that I ask is you leave the circular-reasoning at the door, quoting AiG as supporting evidence doesn't work if AiG validity itself is in question. But then I'm sure you'd provide just another YEC website... *yawn*

I digress - I just think it's funny that you keep quoting data from them as valid proof for your positions, when they're anything but valid or proof.

I don't need to "believe in evolution" - this doesn't require faith..

Quite so and well said. :thumbsup:

[jamstigator]

Lol, I just finished reading some of the theocratic BS over on Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Very entertaining!

I like especially how they recommend you argue science with evolutionists: first, get them to accept that the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular, are the literal truth. (E.g., that the world isn't billions of years old, just a few thousand, and was created in 6 days, blah blah blah.)

This statement was also enlightening: "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christiansâ?? presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts."

Translation: "Our 'science' rests on the foundation of first assuming that everything written in the Bible is the literal truth." Well, gee, that's a convenient tack to take. So, no real facts or observations to support stuff, just...the Bible. In other words, if you accept that I'm right and you're wrong first, *then* we can argue. ROFL!

That ain't science. But if you wanna get high by huffing on logic errors, that place is really entertaining!

I'm also not entirely sure they believe what they preach (and make no mistake, there's far more preaching going on there than anything one might mistake for science). The site is clearly a money-making enterprise, and they wouldn't be the first folks to want to tap into Christian gullibility and rake in some easy bucks by telling (and selling) a subset of the populace exactly what they want to hear, however distorted or downright incorrect it may be.

[BlueDevil]

Lol, I just finished reading some of the theocratic BS over on Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Very entertaining!

Good stuff huh? I still can't get over the gall it requires to have a 'statement of faith' like...

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

..and then still expect to be taken seriously!