Can you demonstrate your understanding of evolution?

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by AliceHouse, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    I say those that blindly accept the whole theory without question don't understand evolution and all I see are people afraid to reveal there own understanding while throwing out challenges to other
    test
  2. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    how about this:

    explain the process by which microevolution is supposed to work

    then explain the process by which macroevolution is supposed to work
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    we get that the pocess if true would be the same.

    The debate is the extent the process goes. which is why the transition is the most important part of this process
    test
  4. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the process is the same, so the difference is a matter of scope and time scale, right? really, when you get right down to it, they're 2 different ways of studying the same theory. you can study the small specific steps or you can look at the big picture. but it's the same basic theory, based on the same mechanisms.

    macro-evolution basically works by accumulating the adaptions observed as micro-evolution over time. once 2 relatively isolated populations in a species adapt to the point where they can no longer mate, you have speciation, which has been observed in the wild. i've been told by creationists that this is 'just micro-evolution.' but really it's a series of adaptions that would allow for such a divergence, which is actually macro-evolution.

    once you do have 2 populations diverge into separate species (i.e. they can no longer mate with one another), there's no more swapping of genes between them, and thus nothing to stop adaptions from accumulating in one or the other. so honestly what would prevent the kind of radical changes you say is impossible if accumulated adaptions can lead to speciation which can lead to more accumulated adpations which can lead to more speciation and so on?

    if you're going to say the debate is the extent to which the process goes, you need to identify a barrier that is always going to prevent these large scale changes from happening, because theoretically they follow logically from micro-evolution.
    test
  5. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I'm all ears for anybody who has reasons for believing that adaptions cannot accumulate to the point of such radical changes over time, reasons that are not tied to your religious belief and/or the fact you just don't want to believe in evolution. Because really, macro-evolution is apparent in nature through evidence that has been collected. However, I still have an open mind enough to say that this could be wrong.
    • +Rep +Rep x 1
    test
  6. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    I get what ur saying reg.
    but why if its so present in nature do we not see this still going on. if u say its because we cant witness it for reasons of time
    wouldnt something(anything) be in that process of change.

    the only way i see this not being possible to witness (if true)is if it all happened simultaniously. every change of every species happened before our time.

    but why would this be true.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    An being that Every species of animal would be going through these changes
    why are the fossils records of this so dismal to none.

    we have fossils of every kind of dinosaur from every period which should be harder to come by in a geologic sense. in fact on the way to these dinosaur fossils we should have stripped layers upon layers of fossilized transitional animals. but we havent. why?
    test
  8. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    How about no. I've shown basic understanding of evolution I will say in the contention of the two Micro-evolution is the evolution within a species that happens people believe that as we see that in our lifetime all the time. Macro-evolution is the idea of so many micro-evolutionary changes until it becomes a different species or (kind). Allot of the debate over the differences also matches debates over how old the earth is and how the earth came to be and the existence of an intelligent creator in general.
    test
  9. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    test
  10. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    in that process of change as in what? speciation? if so, then yes. even speciation takes quite a while by human standards, but it has been observed... for example:

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

    this took decades of dedicated observation. so you see why it might be a hard thing to come by.

    p.s. please, please don't respond with "they're still birds."
    er... we have fossils of every dinosaur that we have fossils of. those that we don't have fossils of, we don't know about. fossilization is a relatively rare and delicate process. the vast majority of dead things aren't fossilized. you can bet there are more dinosaurs we don't know about than there are dinosaurs we have fossils for.

    as for the transitional forms thing... there are examples of that in the fossil record. i'm sure we've been over this. you seem to think we should have more, so maybe i should just ask you how many transitional forms you'd deem acceptable and see if we can't meet your quota.

    also, can i take your lack of response as a concession that you don't know of a barrier that would prevent micro-evolution extended over time from resulting in macro-evolution?
    uh... i wasn't challenging your understanding. i was making a point which thebigpayback got but you apparently missed.

    also, species =/ kind

    species is a contentious scientific concept with multiple definitions
    kind is a made up creationist concept with no coherent scientific definition

    many creationists have made it a point to specify that by 'kind' they don't mean species, because they don't want to have to argue that speciation can't happen. are you saying you don't believe speciation can happen?
    test
  11. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    i was just about to say that. Seemed pretty obvious and i was surprised PB used that in his response.
    test
  12. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I need to ammend my last post, since I wrote something I didn't mean.

    I wrote
    I'm not open to the opposition of macro-evolution, but the whole "one 'kind' doesn't turn into another 'kind'" argument that creationists present. A 'kind' changing into another 'kind' isn't necessarily what macro-evolution is. Not sure how exactly you're supposed to define what a 'kind' is anyways.
    test
  13. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2904

    This "third level macro-evolution" is what I'm open to having my mind changed about, but is still apparent from evidence.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2013
    test
  14. Geedorah

    Geedorah King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,872
    Their*
    • -Rep -Rep x 1
    test
  15. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    What's so funny about this is that I haven't fully stated what my belief on evolution is I just believe the original posters comment is complete foolishness. And I feel non believers love throwing out challenges to try and trip up christians to try and negate their opinion on things they aren't willing to do themselves. I was just showing that in my debate that they won't accept their own challenges
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i explained pretty plainly why i thought you were wrong with your micro vs macro stuff and you basically just ignored each point i made. so yea, well done.
    test
  17. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,613
    oh you didnt? you told me one of the reasons you werent going to do what Alice originally asked was because you said youve done it already many times in various threads

    i see now. Thats cool

    still think it woulda been easier to just do it rather than put up so much effort into explaining why you wont.
    test
  18. FeedMeMore

    FeedMeMore Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,137
    I've explained it more than anyone else in the thread So I'm not the one dodging here
    test
  19. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Technically, every fossil is a transitional fossil. You might find this interesting, as it shows new discoveries are constantly being made (as would be predicted by the evolutionary model.)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7473470.stm

    Also, evolution is happening all the time. Even to humans. Right now.
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)