A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[This_person]

The only thing we can do is hope that you understand what you oppose. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented in the field and in the lab, so it isn't even really an issue.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The point of what I'm saying is that there has yet to be observed a daughter species that is of higher genetic material than the parent species. And, certainly, to fit the scientific model that ID is being asked to meet, there has never been a testable, repeatable experiment to demonstrate this, either. Making evolution on the species level non-science, but hope, faith, belief. We may observe changes within a species, and tests may prove that a small gene pool and incest destroy the basics of that species, but we can't demonstrate anything repeatable about it.

For example, I suggested an experiment to demonstrate the evolutionary process. Take a species and divide a representative sample into four groups. Treat groups 1A and 2A to one set of circumstances, and groups 1B and 2B to a different set of circumstances. Groups A and B should eventually evolve into different species, but the differences between the 1's and 2's of A (and B) should be effectively insignificant. The new species each of the subgroups become should be the same. If not, perhaps evolution as a means of species change is as an explanation.

Similarly, unless we can first establish a provable method of determining the exact moment where lifeless material became life, and recreate those conditions repeatedly, we certainly cannot establish a viable test for abiogenesis on earth.

These "sciences" don't meet the critera of science that is demanded of ID to be considered a science.

 

[wxtornado]

The point of what I'm saying is that there has yet to be observed a daughter species that is of higher genetic material than the parent species.

I'll stop here because I don't even know what you're trying to say. "Higher genetic material"?

 

[This_person]

I'll stop here because I don't even know what you're trying to say. "Higher genetic material"?

Say, a provable, testable, repeatable line of species from sponge to penguin. Something where the daughter is higher evolved, more complex, contains more information than the parent species.

Because, if evolution is correct then there has to be a way to get from the super-fantastical single celled organism to a human. And, a tree. And, viral menengitis. All from the one and only one cell that began all life.

Without proof of such a lineage, evolution falls down on the macro level, the speciation level. Yes, people grow taller and live longer (certainly medical advances and nutrition have nothing to do with that ), but that down't mean that down the road there will be a daughter species of humans that is significantly more advanced than we are. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it's certainly a reach of the imagination only - no science to justify the claim.

 

[wxtornado]

Without proof of such a lineage, evolution falls down on the macro level, the speciation level.

You don't seem to understand - it has already been observed in the lab and in the field. It's not an issue among scholars and scientists.

 

[This_person]

You don't seem to understand - it has already been observed in the lab and in the field. It's not an issue among scholars and scientists.

Not an issue, meaning not a question that's been researched, answered, and my complaint negated? I agree. Not an issue, meaning the answer has been found? I disagree. Please point me to the research, for I know of none, and have asked on here repeatedly. Xa points to a moth that people think changed color over time, with no proof as to how, or why that happened (or, really, even if it did - it was speculation even that it did). And, that moth changing color still was not a new species that was more complex.

 

[wxtornado]

Please point me to the research, for I know of none, and have asked on here repeatedly.

I'll let you go and use Google, but one that comes to mind is in the plant genus Tragopogon. Two new species have evolved within the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

 

[wxtornado]

I'll let you go and use Google, but one that comes to mind is in the plant genus Tragopogon. Two new species have evolved within the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.

Here's something about it in the wiki: Salsify - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[This_person]

Here's something about it in the wiki: Salsify - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a different species from the parent, but what makes it significantly more "evolved", more complex, a higher order (like monkey from a sponge) than it's parent? It's genetically mutated to not be combinable with the parent species, but I don't see how it answers the question.

 

[wxtornado]

It's a different species from the parent, but what makes it significantly more "evolved", more complex, a higher order (like monkey from a sponge) than it's parent? It's genetically mutated to not be combinable with the parent species, but I don't see how it answers the question.

I won't even entertain the "monkey from a sponge" comment - I see this theistic idiocy all the time, and it does nothing but expose the poverty of the person's true knowledge of what evolution means. I can totally see a church elder pushing this nonsense into a young person's mind.

What I linked you to was one example of speciation - a *new species*; one that Noah didn't have on his ark.

 

[Xaquin44]

I won't even entertain the "monkey from a sponge" comment - I see this theistic idiocy all the time, and it does nothing but expose the poverty of the person's true knowledge of what evolution means. I can totally see a church elder pushing this nonsense into a young person's mind.

What I linked you to was one example of speciation - a *new species*; one that Noah didn't have on his ark.

LOLZ

THEN WHY DON'T WE HAVE UNICORNS THAT EVOLVED FROM WHALES!!!1

 

[wxtornado]

LOLZ

THEN WHY DON'T WE HAVE UNICORNS THAT EVOLVED FROM WHALES!!!1

I know, right? Humans from slime, penguins from dust, dogs from ants, and on and on and on. It really shows that some people who are resitant to evolution don't really understand what they are opposing.

 

[Toxick]

LOLZ

THEN WHY DON'T WE HAVE UNICORNS THAT EVOLVED FROM WHALES!!!1

Currently in progress...

 

[wxtornado]

Currently in progress...

Zing!

 

[Xaquin44]

Currently in progress...

hahaha

damn Narwhales!

ok ok ok

let me ammend this

hmmmmm

LOLZ!

WHY DON'T WE HAVE PUPPIES THAT EVOLVED FROM HORSESHOE CRABS!!!111

 

[PsyOps]

WHY DON'T WE HAVE PUPPIES THAT EVOLVED FROM HORSESHOE CRABS!!!111

What kind of puppy?

It matters.

 

[Xaquin44]

What kind of puppy?

It matters.

Yellow Lab.

 

[This_person]

I won't even entertain the "monkey from a sponge" comment - I see this theistic idiocy all the time, and it does nothing but expose the poverty of the person's true knowledge of what evolution means. I can totally see a church elder pushing this nonsense into a young person's mind.

What I linked you to was one example of speciation - a *new species*; one that Noah didn't have on his ark.

How is it idiocy? If you take a monkey back up the "evolutionary tree", wouldn't it eventually hit sponge? I realize it's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I'm not trying to imply a single generation change (I presumed you understood that). I'm trying to say that first was no life, then was single celled life, then a few generations later a sponge, then a lot of stuff in between, then a monkey. And, a tree. And, the cold virus. And, a mosquito. All from the ancestry of the sponge.

So, it that's the correct answer, there should be a test that demonstrates a daughter species that is higher evolved, significantly more complex than the parent species.

As I showed before, the "new" species was not more complex than the parent species, and therefore does not address the question at hand.

 

[Tonio]

The arbitrary terminology comes from not having an established way something happened, therefore there's no standard by which to judge probabilities other than through assumptions.

If we had an established way, then there would be no point in further scientific investigation into the matter. With investigation into abiogenesis, the probabilities came from existing knowledge about organic molecules, and laboratory research increased the probabilities.

There are equally required assumptions for the origins of life associated with abiogenesis. Thus, the "arbitrary" probability.

What assumptions do you mean? Scientific hypotheses are not automatically assumed to be true, and these hypotheses are devised from current knowledge and accumulated observation, so they do not qualify as assumptions.

I do not understand why creationists reject deism's god-as-watchmaker concept, since there's nothing about abiogenesis and evolution that would rule out a god as setting these into motion. While the deist belief is still unscientific, it doesn't postulate numerous miracles to answer unexplained questions. Creationism suggests a god that is somewhat less than godlike, since the god apparently cannot create physical laws sufficient to allow the universe to develop.

I give you the human body as evidence that an intelligent designer exists.

That's circular reasoning, because that assumes that life form with human qualities could only have been designed. Or to put it more generally, it assumes that the answer to any unexplained event is a divine miracle.

Your point about the "how" versus the "why" has no basis since any "why" questions are contrived or invented ones. They are fiction and thus cannot have genuine answers.

 

[This_person]

If we had an established way, then there would be no point in further scientific investigation into the matter. With investigation into abiogenesis, the probabilities came from existing knowledge about organic molecules, and laboratory research increased the probabilities.
What assumptions do you mean? Scientific hypotheses are not automatically assumed to be true, and these hypotheses are devised from current knowledge and accumulated observation, so they do not qualify as assumptions.

When figuring probabilities, one must know how stuff works to figure the odds. Without that knowledge, it's nothing but assumptions. As you say, we don't have the knowledge, therefore, all we have are assumptions.

I do not understand why creationists reject deism's god-as-watchmaker concept, since there's nothing about abiogenesis and evolution that would rule out a god as setting these into motion. While the deist belief is still unscientific, it doesn't postulate numerous miracles to answer unexplained questions. Creationism suggests a god that is somewhat less than godlike, since the god apparently cannot create physical laws sufficient to allow the universe to develop.

Who says that's not a possibility? It certainly is, as far as I'm concerned. We have no more knowledge that this is true than that it is untrue. It's a viable, workable solution, with as much proof as anything else.

That's circular reasoning, because that assumes that life form with human qualities could only have been designed. Or to put it more generally, it assumes that the answer to any unexplained event is a divine miracle.

No, it's as accurate proof as any other. "Sh!t happens" is, to me, far less likely to form a human than a designer, that's all I'm saying.

Your point about the "how" versus the "why" has no basis since any "why" questions are contrived or invented ones.

Again, an assumption

They are fiction and thus cannot have genuine answers.

An opinion.

 

[This_person]

How is it idiocy? If you take a monkey back up the "evolutionary tree", wouldn't it eventually hit sponge? I realize it's a simplistic way of looking at it, but I'm not trying to imply a single generation change (I presumed you understood that). I'm trying to say that first was no life, then was single celled life, then a few generations later a sponge, then a lot of stuff in between, then a monkey. And, a tree. And, the cold virus. And, a mosquito. All from the ancestry of the sponge.

So, it that's the correct answer, there should be a test that demonstrates a daughter species that is higher evolved, significantly more complex than the parent species.

As I showed before, the "new" species was not more complex than the parent species, and therefore does not address the question at hand.

Well? How was it idiocy?