| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Spidey
Hotshot
|
|
|
|
 |
Thorne
Hotshot
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:52 pm    |
|
Ok.
Haven't we been over the proof before, though? Is there something I need to repeat? Healings (even within my own family), prophecies of scripture (even that being fulfilled/worked out as we speak in the end-time prophecies), continuity of scripture, preservation of scripture, veracity of the Bible's moral guidelines... If you're asking for something that has no other explanation out there--no contest, and at the same time can submit itself to a microscope (should you happen upon one  figurative assumption), then that pretty much rules everything out. So what do you want?
I believe that the naturalistic assumption is so pervasive in people's lives and in the culture, and it would almost literally take a miracle to see the facts in favor of anything but, without either a predisposition or a personal interest. Mine, I suppose, being initially a predisposition, having been raised, at least in my early years (and again in my mid-teens, in a Christian home).
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:25 am |
|
While not questioning the sincerity of your beliefs, it's pretty clear you understand most of why I have difficulty accepting your evidence. I feel much of it is subjective, even if open to "objective scrutiny". The simple fact that none of if it can be tested in a controlled, repeatable way would be enough. Concepts such as falsifiability and predictive power come into it for me as well. I also think you know how I feel about the assertion "this book is true, because it says it is true", as well as the other arguments centering around scripture.
Regarding prophecy: Fulfillment of prophecy has always been a race between inevitability, vagueness, self-fulfillment & as a last resort retro-diction. Let's not forget all of the prophecies that were not fulfilled. That being said, you see what you want to see, and yes I know that cuts both ways.
Now, as I understand it, when you say "naturalistic assumption" you mean "ruling out the supernatural from the get-go". The context in which you use it implies a sort of closed-mindedness on the part of those who operate from the naturalistic assumption. I think that is a mistake - "show me" isn't closed-mindedness. My assumptions are also colored by the words of Arthur C. Clarke, who said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I'd love to see some real magic...
_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
|
|
|
|
|
Grendel
Shadow Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:25 pm |
|
| Bunyip wrote: | | "this book is true, because it says it is true" |
I think you should understand that I recognize the circular reasoning in that statement, and in any statements equating to that. If you've somehow gotten the impression, through my quoting of scripture that I use circular reasoning, it is a mistaken impression. I do not believe in a truth that somehow transcends the retarded nature of circular reasoning.
You should also understand that God, as presented in the scriptures, does not require such blind and backwards faith.
A lot of things, with regard to the scriptures are at once much simpler and far more complicated than people make them.
| Bunyip wrote: | | Regarding prophecy: Fulfillment of prophecy has always been a race between inevitability, vagueness, self-fulfillment & as a last resort retro-diction. Let's not forget all of the prophecies that were not fulfilled. That being said, you see what you want to see, and yes I know that cuts both ways. |
I would say this is true, but also mistaken. You have pretty well hit the nail on the head regarding "prophecy" in general, I think, but the fact is that Biblical prophecy differs in that the true fulfillment is not subject to endless interpretation, a lot of which derives mainly from "spiritual" people trying to fill in the blanks by jamming in the puzzle-pieces of modern-day occurrence to the best of their ability, and in the process coming up with something plausible that takes too many liberties and ultimately doesn't really agree with the scripture it supposedly comes from. I do not subscribe to popular methods of understanding Biblical prophecy. I believe in fulfillment that is as literal as when Jesus fulfilled prophecy coming from the old testament. I don't need prophecy to be fulfilled, that's God's responsibility, and it's not in God's nature to say one thing and then only partially deliver.
I don't know what you mean when you speak of prophecies that haven't been fulfilled, but in my mind there is only two answers to such a scenario. The prophet was what the Bible calls a "false prophet", or the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.
I appreciate some of the other statements you made, and I hope to answer a few when I have more time (finishing up a website right now).
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Smotie
The Wombat
|
|
|
|
|
Zuruck
Ace
|
|
|
|
|
roid
Insane!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:18 am |
|
| Smotie wrote: | | Just curious....Has the big bang theory or the moment "life" came to be (according to evolution) or evolution itself (in respect to man evolving from apes) ever been tested in a controlled repeated way? |
We can probably recreate abiogenesis eventually, that's more in our grasp. We can't recreate it as yet because we don't actually understand all of the steps yet. Unlike the theory of Evolution, our understanding of Abiogenesis is still not very robust as yet. It is still however a lot more robust than theories of Creationism.
Evolution itself is repeatable and testable though. Not man evolving from apes, no, that takes a long time. And if you think man evolved from a still-existing species of apes - you're mistaken and need to learn what the theory of evolution actually suggests.
When viruses and bacteria become drug resistant, that's natural selection happening before your very eyes.
There have also been documented events of speciation of animals witnessed in our modern day. That's real-time evolution before your very eyes, new species that can no longer inter-breed with the old species, but can only interbreed with it's own NEW kind.
I have a feeling i'm repeating myself. Havn't we already been over this? How many videos do we need to link to you before you understand? i don't want you to agree - i'd just be happy that you actually gain an accurate understanding of the concepts you are debating against - so you can at least choose arguments that stand up.
BLAAEERG, read on your own time and then come back.
The big bang event itself cannot be recreated in full with our tech, but i understand that particle physics experiments such as the Large Hadron Colider come close. However the evidence available for the big bang can indeed be tested repeatedly - yes. It's based on understood, demonstratable and repeatably testable theories of physics.
If anything SUPERNATURAL could be successfully understood, demonstrated and repeatably tested in the same way - it would also be incorporated into our understanding of the universe. Unfortunately there is no such evidence. If any supernatural force is out there - it's doing it's darndest to avoid our detection, throwing up all manner of alternate better explanations to throw us off it's trail.
BLEERARGGHp
_________________
ARRR!!
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
|
|
|
|
Smotie
The Wombat
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:53 am |
|
| roid wrote: | | Smotie wrote: | | Just curious....Has the big bang theory or the moment "life" came to be (according to evolution) or evolution itself (in respect to man evolving from apes) ever been tested in a controlled repeated way? |
We can probably recreate abiogenesis eventually, that's more in our grasp. We can't recreate it as yet because we don't actually understand all of the steps yet. Unlike the theory of Evolution, our understanding of Abiogenesis is still not very robust as yet. It is still however a lot more robust than theories of Creationism.
Evolution itself is repeatable and testable though. Not man evolving from apes, no, that takes a long time. And if you think man evolved from a still-existing species of apes - you're mistaken and need to learn what the theory of evolution actually suggests.
When viruses and bacteria become drug resistant, that's natural selection happening before your very eyes.
There have also been documented events of speciation of animals witnessed in our modern day. That's real-time evolution before your very eyes, new species that can no longer inter-breed with the old species, but can only interbreed with it's own NEW kind.
I have a feeling i'm repeating myself. Havn't we already been over this? How many videos do we need to link to you before you understand? i don't want you to agree - i'd just be happy that you actually gain an accurate understanding of the concepts you are debating against - so you can at least choose arguments that stand up.
BLAAEERG, read on your own time and then come back.
The big bang event itself cannot be recreated in full with our tech, but i understand that particle physics experiments such as the Large Hadron Colider come close. However the evidence available for the big bang can indeed be tested repeatedly - yes. It's based on understood, demonstratable and repeatably testable theories of physics.
If anything SUPERNATURAL could be successfully understood, demonstrated and repeatably tested in the same way - it would also be incorporated into our understanding of the universe. Unfortunately there is no such evidence. If any supernatural force is out there - it's doing it's darndest to avoid our detection, throwing up all manner of alternate better explanations to throw us off it's trail.
BLEERARGGHp |
Wow...Curiosity killed the cat...Just asked a question. Sure did ruffle your feathers there Roid hahahha
I wasn't arguing at all, you misread my valid question. I was unsure as to whether or not these things had actually happened. Thank you I have the answers.
1. No
2. No (With a species cant reproduce within itself from older species and bacteria changes)
3. No (With a soonish tacked on)
You believe in scientific evidence, only that which can be recreated in a laboratory in a controlled and repeated way.
*Valid questions....
1. How is it that you can believe in something that has no scientific (under definition above) evidence to support it.
2. How is it you can ridicule and highlight that those who believe in a creator have no scientific evidence that God created the universe and man, or that he even exists.
Also Roid, you remind me of myself about 4 years ago when I was quick to make assumptions about people's comments. I know according to evolution that man didn't evolve from the current species of apes. Bunyip explained that to me a few years and arguments ago lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Smotie
The Wombat
|
|
|
|
|
Floyd
Hotshot
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:21 am |
|
Smotie, you're making more mistakes..
General: Observational evidence can be obtained in the field under controlled, repeatable conditions and is every bit as valid as that obtained in a laboratory. In fact, the lab is inapplicable to many subjects until after the data (and/or sample) gathering has taken place. Archaeology is a good example of this.
Evolution: We've observed actual evolution taking place in actual animals (as opposed to microbes).
Big Bang: As of February, we had created conditions in the laboratory which mimic those as of ONE MILLIONTH OF A SECOND before the "big bang". Furthermore, the great majority of the evidence is based upon observation of our universe. You may not realize this, but a telescope is the nearest thing to a time machine we possess. The question isn't whether the universe came into being 13 something billion years ago... it's much more fundamental than that.
Now here's the kicker: Once you've accepted the evidence, there's still a problem. A mystery. Possibly even a Mystery: What came BEFORE the big bang?
_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
|
|
|
|
|
Spidey
Hotshot
|
|
|
|
|
roid
Insane!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:20 pm |
|
| Smotie wrote: | I wasn't arguing at all, you misread my valid question. I was unsure as to whether or not these things had actually happened. Thank you I have the answers.
1. No
2. No (With a species cant reproduce within itself from older species and bacteria changes)
3. No (With a soonish tacked on) |
when one species splits into 2 sub-species that can/will no longer interbreed - that is the defining characteristic of speciation.
and speciation is one of the defining mysteries that the theory of evolution was initially developed to explain.
so that's clearly not a no. It's a YES.
Evolution is not merely "man evolving from apes". Evolution is changes in biological organisms over generations. Speciation is a defining event of evolution, where 1 interbreeding species has genetically diverged so much that it splits into 2 that do not and/or cannot interbreed.
Normally in nature this takes a long time (eg: Humans and Chimpanzees speciated from a now-extinct common ancestor 4.1 million years ago), but we've recreated it in laboratories with fast breeding species such as the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly (see more). That's not to mention bacteria and viruses. "Nylonase" is an interesting one.
Also, i'm repeating myself to mention ring species. I want to mention it to show that speciation, and thus lines between species themselves, are not so clear cut. Because evolution is merely a force and does not "know" when it has split 1 species into 2, all it is is the gradual change of genetics. The categorisation of different species as different is a purely intellectual categorisation, such solid lines do not exist in nature - but only in our heads. Ring species are a perfect illustration of this. This time i'm not going to explain it, you will read it yourself in the link.
| Smotie wrote: | You believe in scientific evidence, only that which can be recreated in a laboratory in a controlled and repeated way.
*Valid questions....
1. How is it that you can believe in something that has no scientific (under definition above) evidence to support it.
2. How is it you can ridicule and highlight that those who believe in a creator have no scientific evidence that God created the universe and man, or that he even exists. |
Some of my beliefs may be held with little to no evidence, the difference is that they are not strongly held beliefs. If evidence comes up either way, i am quite ready to change my mind.
(I think i am also quite ready to change my mind with regard to ANY of my beliefs, even those held strongly. But the thing is that any evidence presented to me with regard to such things must first trump the already existing evidence before it's worth being considered. Basically, my strong beliefs are generally held strongly for good, rational and non-subjective reasons.)
I may tend to "ridicule and highlight" those who hold strong beliefs that are so clearly, obviously, and demonstrably wrong. ie: those beliefs that are conflicted by a lot of strong evidence.
I will likely feel more urge to ridicule and highlight such beliefs if these beliefs negatively impact on my world. eg: http://xkcd.com/154/
Sure - religion in general is a blight on this world, with it's encouragement of ignorance, religious wars, and outdated morality*.
But Creationism is a worse extreme.
(*please don't misread this as saying that ALL morality is outdated. I'm specifically referring to scriptural laws & moral absolutes contained within, to be more specific i'd only be referring to when that morality conflicts with commonly accepted notions of morality in society (typical example: freedom of sexuality). Such relativistic and fluid morality exists in society, even in a Bible vacuum).
_________________
ARRR!!
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:24 pm |
|
Relativistic and fluid morality exist especially in a "Bible vacuum", and aren't worth the paper they're written on (typical example: freedom of sexuality). The concept of fluid morality, as you've briefly described it is so utterly backwards and wrong that it's incredible. I mean, if you totally leave the Bible out (you can't, but if you could), "fluid morality" is plainly responsible for the degradation of society, by any reasonable measure. But people that are emotionally invested (enjoy the "freedom" that a fluid morality affords) have a strong reason for not recognizing that.
Oh, but your fluid morality is better, right? I wash my hands of such notions. May you fully reap what you sow, and hope you recognize the folly of it.
Society in its fluidity is swirling down the fucking toilet.
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:30 pm |
|
By the way, why don't you enlighten me as to what these commonly accepted notions of morality are, in society, and let's see if you have half a clue how they even got there. For sexual depravity (oh, is it called freedom now?) the route has been nothing but a deranged, highly-effective marketing campaign, wherein terms are changed (just like in modern-day politics), to make the ideas less offensive to people, and facts are covered up through doubt cast upon them by misinformation campaigns and outright lies or perversions of reality (a happy family with Dad, dad, and son).
Unbe-fucking-lievable.
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
TheWhat
Insane!
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:45 pm |
|
| Thorne wrote: | By the way, why don't you enlighten me as to what these commonly accepted notions of morality are, in society, and let's see if you have half a clue how they even got there. For sexual depravity (oh, is it called freedom now?) the route has been nothing but a deranged, highly-effective marketing campaign, wherein terms are changed (just like in modern-day politics), to make the ideas less offensive to people, and facts are covered up through doubt cast upon them by misinformation campaigns and outright lies or perversions of reality (a happy family with Dad, dad, and son).
Unbe-fucking-lievable. |
Haha.
Small dick and buck teef, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Bee
Miss Priss
|
|
|
|
|
roid
Insane!
|
|
|
|
|
Smotie
The Wombat
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:28 am |
|
So your talking about observational evidence in the field Bunyip. I understand this, I understand you are talking about Micro-evolution taking place in animals (It is happening in my physique as we speak lol, I'm getting fatter) but Macro-Evolution is another thing entirely isn't it? You can't observe the evolution of man over millions of years. And the fossil evidence isn't there to support it from our previous discussion (limited fossil evidence).
Our universe tells us more about a creator than a Big bang doesn't it? To re-create the big bang you need to have an explanation of what was before the big bang (as you stated) and recreate the same conditions etc. But is this possible?
Observing the universe at large leads me to stand in awe at a creator who the Bible tells us holds the universe in the palm of his hand.
I guess it depends on what telescope you are looking through?????
Roid I disagree regarding religion and creationism. Religion (and I am talking about structured) is far worse. Within it's ranks you find domination, worthless rituals, taking advantage emotionally, financially, and relationally of people, wars etc..... I think people who believe in God and in creation without a man made structure of religion are far better off.
Usually they read the Bible for themselves and live according to Christ's teachings. And you have a better individual morally speaking.
Morality is not outdated, especially Biblical. We see the effects of ignoring morality upon society as we speak. For EG: The sexual revolution did not free women from the stigma of being a second rate person bound to a marriage in subornination but it released all sorts of misery on women including abortions, rapes, men treating women as a sex objects and the list goes on.
We may live in a free-er society in regard to Biblical morality but it certainly hasn't enhanced our behavior or improved it.
My opinions anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Flatlander
Hotshot
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:38 am |
|
| Bettina wrote: | | Fwords coming from a religious and moral person speaking of the degradation of society doesn't bode well for your credibility. |
Well, you've really got me there. I guess my use of the word, or other words, on occasion stems both from a convenient temporary ignorance of the true vulgarity involved (that's really a terrible word, I just don't tend to think of it in literal terms), and a feeling that there are much worse things than language being perpetrated around us by people who's only desire is to push the limits of "acceptable" behavior for their own self-gratification without thought for the harm and the difficulty it poses to everyone around and after them. People really are wicked...and I wouldn't necessarily set myself up as an exception, but I am, at least, in that I do really try to do what is right by the people that I come into contact with in every way that I can, beginning with honesty and treating them with some respect and courtesy ("do unto others ..."). It's when people expect this courtesy to extend past their persons to their twisted notions of right and wrong, or morality, that they're going to be disappointed.
Let me tell you something, Flatlander, and this is something that people like to ignore in favor of "reason" or intellectual checks--everyone has a conscience. That's the way God made us. People use reasoning and logic (unsound or ignorant in both cases) to do away with the voice of their conscience on a regular basis. People's conscience troubles them when they are about to do, are doing, or have done something that is inherently immoral. It doesn't take a mental comprehension of a "liquid" morality to know what is right and what is wrong. We could go into specific physical, spiritual, or emotional reasons for homosexuality being wrong, but I'm just going to stick with the conscience right now, because it's the one thing that everyone involved actuallly knows.
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:57 am |
|
| And it is not bigoted to disallow the adoption of a child by a homosexual "couple". It is actually based on the idea that a child needs to be adopted into a healthy environment for that child. The healthiest environment in the world is a caring mother and father, and there is a lot of evidence that a child needs both to even have proper development! A homosexual "household" is not a healthy environment. Homosexuality began as a sexual deviation, at at its core it has not changed for all their dressing it up. A homosexual household is a confused lie. There is a place for same-sex relationships, very strong ones, and then there is a place for marital relationships, but the two will never overlap. Marriage needs to be between a man and a woman, and there is a mountain of evidence/reasons, historical, logical, and spiritual for this.
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Smotie
The Wombat
|
|
|
|
|
Flatlander
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:33 am |
|
| Smotie wrote: | | Why???? Why bring it up when nobody even mentioned it? One sure way to hijack an already hijacked topic is to mention homosexuality.... |
Me? I didn't bring it up, Thorne did:
| Thorne wrote: | By the way, why don't you enlighten me as to what these commonly accepted notions of morality are, in society, and let's see if you have half a clue how they even got there. For sexual depravity (oh, is it called freedom now?) the route has been nothing but a deranged, highly-effective marketing campaign, wherein terms are changed (just like in modern-day politics), to make the ideas less offensive to people, and facts are covered up through doubt cast upon them by misinformation campaigns and outright lies or perversions of reality (a happy family with Dad, dad, and son).
Unbe-fucking-lievable. |
(emphasis is mine) I think that my post (and the story I linked to) are relevant to Thorne's post.
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:50 am |
|
| Smotie wrote: | So your talking about observational evidence in the field Bunyip. I understand this, I understand you are talking about Micro-evolution taking place in animals (It is happening in my physique as we speak lol, I'm getting fatter) but Macro-Evolution is another thing entirely isn't it? You can't observe the evolution of man over millions of years. And the fossil evidence isn't there to support it from our previous discussion (limited fossil evidence).
Our universe tells us more about a creator than a Big bang doesn't it? To re-create the big bang you need to have an explanation of what was before the big bang (as you stated) and recreate the same conditions etc. But is this possible?
Observing the universe at large leads me to stand in awe at a creator who the Bible tells us holds the universe in the palm of his hand. |
Re: Evolution - We've observed both macro and micro evolution in the field - and recreated it as well. Look at any domesticated horse, cow, pig, dog, chicken or cat, just for example. There is ample evidence for many many species. When you start talking about the fossil record, remember you're discussing an overwhelming body of evidence. Even with the so-called gaps in the fossil record of the descent of Man, there is a preponderance of evidence, with correlation from many other fields of science. By analogy with the alphabet, it's like you're disputing the existence of Z because you can't find the tile for K or X in your scrabble set.
Re: Cosmology - The thinking on what happened BEFORE the beginning is that time itself didn't exist yet...so the idea is meaningless - yet mindblowing. Interestingly enough, Augustine of Hippo (a Christian saint) answered pagans who asked what his deity was doing before the creation of the universe in a similar vein: The world, he claimed was made, "not in time, but simultaneously with time." A deeper truth? Perhaps. At our present level of understanding, it is certainly impossible to say. If you want to say "God made the Big Bang happen" I will neither disagree or agree with you. It is, after all, a possibility.
_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
|
|
|
|
|
Krom
Ace
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
|
|
|
|
Bunyip
DBB Staff
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:41 pm |
|
First off, don't insult my intelligence, Thorne: "Macro" evolution is a convenient lie that creates a false distinction which creationists use to deny observed facts. When the facts are inconvenient, they 'raise the bar' again.
Darwin's finches are a good example however  There are others. Selective breeding makes the case all by itself, really. Selection, is, after all selection, whatever the mechanism.
_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
|
|
|
|
|
Grendel
Shadow Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:03 pm |
|
| Bunyip wrote: | First off, don't insult my intelligence, Thorne: "Macro" evolution is a convenient lie that creates a false distinction which creationists use to deny observed facts. When the facts are inconvenient, they 'raise the bar' again.
Darwin's finches are a good example however There are others. Selective breeding makes the case all by itself, really. Selection, is, after all selection, whatever the mechanism. |
Macro evolution, as I've heard it described, is the notion that one species can evolve into a separate species. Reptiles from birds, humans from your ape-like creatures, and so forth. And unless I am very much mistaken selective breeding does not make the case for this at all.
As for the finches, why is it supposed that this is not just survival of the fittest causing the gene pool to skew off in a very specific direction? Or is there an "observed" fact that compels us to accept that something else is happening?
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
Grendel
Shadow Admin
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:13 pm |
|
| Thorne wrote: | | Macro evolution, as I've heard it described, is the notion that one species can evolve into a separate species. Reptiles from birds, humans from your ape-like creatures, and so forth. |
Sort of:
| Macroevolution wrote: | Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. [..]
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale[.] However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation - this is especially common in plants. |
| Thorne wrote: | | And unless I am very much mistaken selective breeding does not make the case for this at all. |
Quite the opposite:
| Artificial selection wrote: | | It should be emphasized that there is no real difference in the genetic processes underlying artificial and natural selection, and that the concept of artificial selection was used by Charles Darwin as an illustration of the wider process of natural selection. The selection process is termed "artificial" when human preferences or influences have a significant effect on the evolution of a particular population or species. Indeed, many evolutionary biologists view domestication as a type of natural selection and adaptive change that occurs as organisms are brought under the control of human beings. |
| Thorne wrote: | | As for the finches, why is it supposed that this is not just survival of the fittest causing the gene pool to skew off in a very specific direction? Or is there an "observed" fact that compels us to accept that something else is happening? |
See above.
_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
|
|
|
|
|
Thorne
Hotshot
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:20 pm |
|
| Is there any evidence, outside of someone's mind, that should compel me to believe that these birds will ever be anything but birds? Or domestic dog, cats, horses, etc, anything but dogs, cats, and horses?
_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
