Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
It’s speciation
Click to expand...
And speciation is a loss of function once had. Very circular, made to fit.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. It still breeds among the local population, just like it’s ancestor did. The local population themselves have diverged.

There’s no “loss”. Just change.
 
buffalo said:
Because there is no evidence macro happens.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Here are two examples of macro-evolution which I know you have seen before:
If you want a third example, have a look at de Vries (1905) for the speciation of Oenothera gigas from O. lamarckiana.

There are many more examples.

Your claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution is incorrect. New species have formed and have been observed to have formed, for example many Cichlid fish species found in lakes.

rossum
 
Last edited:
And they’re still vertebrates a well. They can be two things at once! It’s a miracle!! 😃

rossum
 
rossum said:
Your claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution is incorrect. New species have formed and have been observed to have formed, for example many Cichlid fish species found in lakes.
Click to expand...
It is how you are defining macro-evolution.
 
Sure they can. Just with their local population. Like like always.

It’s just that the populations themselves have evolved.
 
buffalo said:
Because there is no evidence macro happens.
Click to expand...
Again, you said you had links but haven’t produced them. The above is simply a smokescreen, especially since you have been provided with links that say the opposite.
 
buffalo said:
It is how you are defining macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
I am not defining it, science is defining it. Macro-evolution is evolution above the level of a single species. Micro-evolution is evolution within a single species. When one species splits into two different species then that is macro-evolution.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
And then they no longer can reproduce.
Click to expand...
Not quite. They can reproduce within the new species, they cannot reproduce, or reproduce at reduced efficiency, with the old species. Horses and donkeys can reproduce to produce mules, but that reproduction is not efficient as mules are sterile.

If a group could no longer reproduce then they will be, or will soon be, extinct.

rossum
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect. Here are two examples of macro-evolution which I know you have seen before:
Click to expand...
The Lyko study did not observe but speculates speciation as the marbled crayfish ancestors are unknown. Best guess – in an aquarium in Germany from crayfish bought in Texas.

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/p(name removed by moderator)ointing-the-origin-of-marbled-crayfish-clones-64272
We interpret the genome to reflect the situation that [the original] father and mother were both from the same species but distantly related populations,” Lyko says. In addition, he adds, because genetically distinct groups of the same species rarely share the same habitat—genetic exchange through sexual reproduction would result in a relatively homogeneous population—it’s likely that such a situation would have occurred in an aquarium, rather than out in the wild.

This hypothesis is “reasonable, but very speculative,” says Scholtz, who did not take part in this work.
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
The Lyko study did not observe but speculates speciation as the marbled crayfish ancestors are unknown. Best guess – in an aquarium in Germany from crayfish bought in Texas.
Click to expand...
The ancestors are not unknown, they are a different species of crayfish. Probably Procambarus fallax.

Do not read too much into the language used in science papers. Every scientist knows that all scientific hypotheses and theories are provisional, and the language they use shows this.

What evidence do you have to show a different non-macro-evolutionary origin of the Marbled Crayfish? Evidence counts in science; personal opinions count for a lot less.

rossum
 
Not only are you wrong, but you know (or you should know if you are in this debate) that Syvanen showed that a very big proportion of eukariotic genes HAVE NO HOMLOGOUS GENES AMONG ALL THE BACTERIA. This destroys the theory of evolution
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Not only are you wrong, but you know (or you should know if you are in this debate) that Syvanen showed that a very big proportion of eukariotic genes HAVE NO HOMLOGOUS GENES AMONG ALL THE BACTERIA. This destroys the theory of evolution
Click to expand...
  1. You are saying that there are some homologous genes; “big proportion” is not “all”. That is evidence for evolution. We already know that evolution can produce new genes. Humans cannot produce snake venom, yet snakes can.
  2. Do you have the reference to the original paper please.
rossum
 
Yes I do, and as you purport to be an expert so should you
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Do not read too much into the language used in science papers. Every scientist knows that all scientific hypotheses and theories are provisional, and the language they use shows this.
Click to expand...
Yes! and they hold onto old paradigms far too long.
 
buffalo said:
Only because that is how you define a new species. Circular.
Click to expand...
You give me too much respect. That is how biologists define a species: they can reproduce within the species and not (or not well) outside it.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Yes! and they hold onto old paradigms far too long.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientific.

Holding on to the familiar is a human trait. Christianity held on to slavery until about 1830 in England and 1865 in the US.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top