Flann wrote:We are talking about macro-evolution. You claim a lot of areas support this. What is the best of these that supports macro-evolution and how does it support it?

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution other than length of time.

I gave you a bunch of dots. Honestly, you can look into everything I posted by searching. Although I know you'll connect all these dots incorrectly, because rather than seeking to understand, you seek to misunderstand. Dots can be connected countless ways.

Take a college course. Read books from evolutionary biologists rather than creationists. Seek understanding rather than misunderstanding. I know you won't do this. You'll think it's unfair that I refuse to give you an elevator speech to convince you that megatons of evidence exist in support of evolution. The only way to see the truth in front of your eyes is to seek to understand while learning. That's what the Vatican did, most likely realizing that this path is the only way to know for sure. The Catholic Church was sick of being wrong. The alternative is a quagmire of bias, which you're currently stuck in.

Before reading how creationists connect the dots, understand how the dots connect within the context of the entire theory. Not just some dots. Connect enough of them that a picture forms.

Flann wrote:Universal phylogeny is the claim of inter-relatedness and universal common ancestry. Data is interpreted. A common genetic code accords with a common designer.

If each organism had a completely unique genetic code, it would point to a designer creating unique species. Common genetic code accords with evolution, not a designer. If there were a god who designed organisms, why the hell would he copy/paste the genetic material of a snail into humans? C'mon Flann, don't swallow the garbage you read on creationist websites. Critically analyze it before you regurgitate it here. I'm not trying to be insulting, you're more intelligent than this.

Look at the comparison in the link you provided between the stated prediction and the one Camp re-stated. They're different, and that difference is a crucial one. Camp doesn't understand the original argument. I browsed through a few of his following "rebuttals", but they all suffer from similar mistakes. We can critically analyze it if you wish, but that's for another thread.

And macro-evolution is not undisputed in the science world.

No theory in the history of man is undisputed. People dispute everything. That isn't an indicator of whether or not something is true. Even a hypothetically perfect theory that is supported by incontrovertible evidence will be disputed. Because people dispute stuff. Often for bad reasons. If you appeal to this, you need to understand it doesn't mean a thing except to make you feel better about not believing in evolution.

Whale evolution has a lot of problems.

So what? Are you saying that because there are things we don't know, then we therefore don't know anything?

A far more recent article

You're not getting what I mean about perspective. Evolution is like a thousand piece puzzle where we have 950 of the pieces in place. If you ignore the overall perspective and zoom in on a single area where pieces are missing, you might argue that we don't know what the picture represents. But we do Flann. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Stop looking "issues with evolution" and learn about the entire theory so you can gain the perspective I'm talking about.

Interbane wrote:If each organism had a completely unique genetic code, it would point to a designer creating unique species. Common genetic code accords with evolution, not a designer. If there were a god who designed organisms, why the hell would he copy/paste the genetic material of a snail into humans?

The fact that we have a common genetic code explains why the same gene sequences often occur in many different kinds of organisms.
Of course there is genetic similarity which you find more of in dogs,cats.and families among themselves . Why can a designer not use the same materials to make different creatures? Orphan genes suggest you cannot make a complete connection of relatedness between the major groups.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Whale evolution has a lot of problems.




So what? Are you saying that because there are things we don't know, then we therefore don't know anything?

You can just ignore the objections. These things are presented as fact in museums of natural history even when discredited.
It's up to the proponents of the theory to show that the mechanisms they advocate are up to the task.

Like it or not neo-Darwinism is in big trouble and whether the other mechanisms proposed by others are adequate to the task has to be demonstrated.
The latest news you provided of a fully aquatic whale fossil find shows what? That a whale evolved into a whale? Not from a land mammal.

Taylor wrote: FYI:
I make myself nuts just trying to correct URL's

Is this the article you were trying to link to?

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/20 ... ts-dawkins

Flann 5 wrote: You can just ignore the objections. These things are presented as fact in museums of natural history even when discredited.
It's up to the proponents of the theory to show that the mechanisms they advocate are up to the task.

Like it or not neo-Darwinism is in big trouble and whether the other mechanisms proposed by others are adequate to the task has to be demonstrated.
The latest news you provided of a fully aquatic whale fossil find shows what? That a whale evolved into a whale? Not from a land mammal.

Flann, what exactly do you imagine is the problem with whale evolution? I'm curious.

Flann 5 wrote: Like it or not neo-Darwinism is in big trouble

That might be the impression if you read creationist websites, but it's really not. As Interbane has said, there are so many different strands of evidence for evolution, even if you had no fossils it wouldn't be enough for it to be in "big trouble."

Literally the only alternative is that God made it look like there is evolution but instead everything is just created that way.

You can just ignore the objections.

Yes. We've accrued so much evidence that any objections that come up are nothing more than areas of ignorance. Areas of ignorance that will not change the fact that life has evolved when they are illuminated. There is too much evidence in favor. Not just evidence, but convergent evidence.

The "amount of evidence" line isn't just a catchy phrase Flann. It's the truth.

Of course there is genetic similarity which you find more of in dogs,cats.and families among themselves . Why can a designer not use the same materials to make different creatures?

The same materials could be used, sure. ACTG, in various patterns. Why re-use the same patterns? Why organize all life in such a way that the only reasonable conclusion is that life evolved? That would be a disingenuous god, or a deceitful god. There are parallels all down the phylogenic tree that fit perfectly with the theory. Why would a god devote himself to tricking us?

Orphan genes suggest you cannot make a complete connection of relatedness between the major groups.

There must be differences to have different species. We should expect there to be unique genes in different taxonomic levels. Otherwise we'd have a planet with a single species of organism. It's not the differences that cement the theory, it's the similarities across the phylogenic tree.

It's up to the proponents of the theory to show that the mechanisms they advocate are up to the task.

Actually, think a bit deeper about this. Do we need to know the exact mechanism of different types of turbulence in a river that forcibly shift grains of sand? Sure, such models would help if our goals was to get a perfectly comprehensive model of the history of canyon formation. We don't have good enough understanding to know how all the sand of the grand canyon shifted. The particular mechanisms aren't needed for more general conclusions. Such as that erosion has caused the formation of canyons. This carries over perfectly to evolution. We don't know everything, but we're far beyond the point where we know enough for form a strong conclusion. It isn't just about the mechanisms. It's about the convergence of evidence.

geo wrote:Flann, what exactly do you imagine is the problem with whale evolution? I'm curious.

Hi Geo. You have to consider the number of morphological changes needed to get from a land based mammal (a deer like creature is one proposed possible) to a sea dwelling whale.

Then there's the time factor. Sternberg argues based on Schmiddt and Durrett's statistics and population genetics the amount of time needed to get two mutations fixed in a population.

When you put the numbers of mutations needed to get the very high numbers of changes required to get from land mammal to whale it doesn't add up.

Changes have to be coordinated. Denton talks about the problem of integrative complexity. The more complex an animal is the more constrained changes are,which accounts very well for stasis.

There are changes to systems,visual,auditory (sonar) lactation. They give birth under water not on land. Evolution has no foresight so it's dependent on fortuitous mutations providing the material for change yet in a coordinated way involving somehow gradually changing these interrelated systems.

What happens half way between two different respiratory systems? What do these intermediate systems even look like?
Berlinski sums it up fairly succinctly about 11 minutes into this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptxo2WHEyLc

Hi Geo. You have to consider the number of morphological changes needed to get from a land based mammal (a deer like creature is one proposed possible) to a sea dwelling whale.

Then there's the time factor. Sternberg argues based on Schmiddt and Durrett's statistics and population genetics the amount of time needed to get two mutations fixed in a population.

Morphological changes can happen fast, when the environment of the organism changes, or the organism relocates. There is no mystery here Flann.

I watched Berlinski's video. The entire thing is an argument from incredulity. He doesn't see how species could have evolved given a few basic assumed parameters. You don't prove erosion is adequate to creating the grand canyon by trying to model the mechanism of each granular movement. The human mind could never handle that. Even with computer modeling. Even with perfect understanding in creating a computer model; not missing a single parameter so the entire process can be reconstructed. That means we'd essentially be re-creating reality. We don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we know nothing. The argument from incredulity does nothing but show the limitations of the human mind. It's not an argument against the mechanisms of nature.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Interbane, I gave you three scenarios on page 5 about "scientific evolution" that are very problem some and I get ignored. pLease respond. You want to say that there is somehow all of biologist and scientific evidence that is ignored. I point out extreme problems to evolution and you give me crickets. Seems rather hypocritical on your part.

Interbane wrote:Morphological changes can happen fast, when the environment of the organism changes, or the organism relocates. There is no mystery here Flann.

I watched Berlinski's video. The entire thing is an argument from incredulity. He doesn't see how species could have evolved given a few basic assumed parameters. You don't prove erosion is adequate to creating the grand canyon by trying to model the mechanism of each granular movement. The human mind could never handle that. Even with computer modeling. Even with perfect understanding in creating a computer model; not missing a single parameter so the entire process can be reconstructed. That means we'd essentially be re-creating reality. We don't know everything, but that doesn't mean we know nothing. The argument from incredulity does nothing but show the limitations of the human mind. It's not an argument against the mechanisms of nature.

It seems to me that what is experimentally known is ignored here. Behe shows, looking at Lenski's experiments with bacteria that changes almost invariably involve losses of genetic information and function which may be beneficial for survival in a particular environment.
The same with the program to mutate crops and the same mutations keep recurring. The program was disastrous. Dawkin's extrapolation from varieties of dogs to macro-evolution is refuted by the same objection.
http://www.intelligentdesign.podomatic. ... 1_14-08_00

To get back to the thread topic.Many Christians accept the theory while others don't. Those who don't, rightly or wrongly don't think they are against science but have problems with the theory on what they think are reasonable grounds.

When I invoke Pasteur's law of biogenesis you just sidestep, hypothesizing some X factor in the past but you don't see yourself as anti-science in doing this.
In his debate with Charles Marshall, Stephen Meyer appealed to the scientific evidence that if early development of an organism from single cell to complete organism is perturbed (by mutations), the result is disastrous for the organism.

Marshall hypothesizes that in the earliest organisms there must have been more malleability in the organism to overcome this problem.
Again though current scientific knowledge is set aside with speculation and special pleading.