No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 09:50 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 10:16 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
There really was a crocoduck, though.

Anatosuchus

[Image: Anatosuchus.jpg]

[Image: latest?cb=20130916003350]

[Image: duckcroc-clair-15dd76a.jpg]

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
04-09-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ution#1982

Micro evolution and speciation is a fact. Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, wings, eyes, lungs, gills, sexual gender, transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the arise of photosynthesis and nitrogenase in cyanobacteria; something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 08:47 AM)Godexists Wrote:  John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.

[Image: 1390269212824.png]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 04:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis.

Even granting everything else, it's still a hypothesis.

Learn what words mean before you try to use them.

(04-09-2015 04:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts

The entire fossil record, to start.

Oh, but you don't count that, for... reasons, apparently. What those reasons are is anyone's guess.

(04-09-2015 04:34 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

It's a good thing that we aren't limited to Darwin's theory, then.

You don't seem to grasp the whole concept of scientific progress.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
04-09-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 04:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The entire fossil record, to start.

I dont think the fossil record helps your case .

[Image: asddsa11.jpg]

and non permineralized soft tissue does not help as well in dating the fossils with millions of years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 05:22 PM)Godexists Wrote:  I dont think the fossil record helps your case .

This would be because you don't know very much about it and fail to understand what you do know.

(04-09-2015 05:22 PM)Godexists Wrote:  and non permineralized soft tissue does not help as well in dating the fossils with millions of years.

Fortunately, we have other methods.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
04-09-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
At work.

W.T.F. did I just see in the above post?

Picture painted over with photo-shop and no context.

Followed by something that's a misrepresentation (And has had all the corrections/links posted to before )............

Seriously GE, lift your game. Either engage in/with the questions posted to you or provide something new. (Preferably original).

Stop with this copy-paste crayon stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 05:40 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

W.T.F. did I just see in the above post?

Picture painted over with photo-shop and no context.

Followed by something that's a misrepresentation (And has had all the corrections/links posted to before )............

Seriously GE, lift your game. Either engage in/with the questions posted to you or provide something new. (Preferably original).

Stop with this copy-paste crayon stuff.

no misrepresentation, but facts.

Does fossil record support the evolution model of gradual and small changes?

From a peer reviewed paper by Gene Hunt in 2007:

"Directional evolution is rarely observed within lineages traced through the fossil record. Only ≈5% of cases (13 of 251) are best fit by the directional evolution model (...)
Some previous paleontological studies have used a model of directional change in which evolutionary changes proceed at an absolutely constant rate in the same direction indefinitely (11). Although of heuristic value, most would agree that this model is not realistic over paleontological time scales. (...)
I have used these methods to analyze many fossil sequences, but even the most promising examples (e.g., refs. 21 and 22) do not support models of sustained directional change, although single interval punctuations are sometimes implied (unpublished data). Thus, even relaxing the assumption that evolutionary mode is uniform within lineages, we are still led to the conclusion that directional change is rarely observed over paleontologically significant time scales. (...)
Despite the commonness of stasis, there is little consensus about its cause or causes."

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18404.full
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 09:09 AM)Iñigo Wrote:  Appeal to authority that uses an argument from ignorance. Brilliant!




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 05:57 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 06:04 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(03-09-2015 09:50 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  There really was a crocoduck, though.

Tell me oh weirdly obsessed Christian paleontologist (you should start a club with TheBeardedClam and GhostExorcist, and throw in Metazoa Zeke just to stop him from killing baby seals) from which godforsaken pit of evolutionary hell or alien planet comes the platypus?




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: