Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

You have no evidence.

Actually, i’m certain that evolution is an impossibility. The human language, a trait, seen in only one species (Homo sapiens), is evidence enough that evolution is just a myth.

Picture this; Human language is words with specific pronunciation and meaning that is acquired from external knowledgeable sources through a process called learning. You learn how to pronounce a word and also learn the meaning of the word for you to use the word in a language.

Why is this trait intentionally left out and can you explain how a transition from innate mode of communication to externally acquired mode of communication looks like? Can you explain how something as complex as human language appeared at some point?

 

[rossum]

You are still sticking to the arrow pointing from less complexity to more? I think not. Your position has softened from a few years ago

Evolution may increase complexity, decrease complexity or leave complexity unchanged. There is no requirement that evolution only works in one direction. You are adding a spurious extra personal requirement to evolution.

The standard scientific terms? Why are we limited to sciences self defined terms. New ones come up all the time.

We use the standard scientific terms because we are discussing science. If you want to discuss science then you need to use standard scientific terms if you want to have any impact. Otherwise you are not discussion evolution, but buffalovolution, which will not get you very far in a scientific discussion.

Your two examples…

… are enough to show that macroevolution happens. Those two examples are sufficient to show that claims that macroevolution does not happen are false.

Macro does not happen.

You are wrong. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

 

[buffalo]

ou are wrong. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution .

TO updated in 2012;

Not yet aware the tree of life has fallen. Correctly points out the caveats with HGT.

Vestigial organs, whale legs, and human tails? h my. Updates are sorely needed

Junk DNA? nope. gone. Ring species? gone

Maybe you should have looked through this before posting.

 

[rossum]

TO updated in 2012;

Erm… When was the Bible last updated? Do you ignore that as well?

 

[buffalo]

Erm… When was the Bible last updated? Do you ignore that as well?

Revelation ended with the last Apostle. No need for any updates, it is a solid fixed reference point.

 

[o_mlly]

We use the standard scientific terms because we are discussing science.

Is this not the “standard” definition for “species”? From the 7th edition; Publication date:
05/01/2000:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21878/

species

A group of organisms that are biologically capable of exchanging genes with each other but are incapable of exchanging genes with other such groups.

Your definition comes from a very early 18th century naturalist.

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Buffon/buffon.html

His [George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon ] own experiments, however, caused him to think seriously about the idea of the species. Buffon discovered that animals of different species could be crossbred, but the offspring were infertile: he therefore defined a species as a group of animals that could produce fertile offspring.

Buffon (7 September 1707 – 16 April 1788) did believe in the idea of the mutation of species, and was the first to suggest the possibility that all animals might have descended or evolved ultimately from a single breeding pair. He rejected the notion of evolution, however, favoring instead a devolutionary theory: animals over time fell off by degrees from their originally perfect state.

 

[catholicray]

Hey, if that’s so then I ought to be pretty easy to embarrass here. The oldest known fossils I’ve heard of are 195,000 years old. Where can I read about human fossils that are older?

Not thoroughly involved in the debate but to answer your question:

Loading…

en.m.wikipedia.org

Not sure if that’s what your asking for what with all the jargon in this debate.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think I said I wasn’t interested in defining terms to tie you down …

Got that and that doesn’t work as Votaire and I agree. I am interested in you defining your terms to tie you down. Do I have it wrong or do you not claim macroevolution is a scientific theory? If so, define “scientific” so we can proceed.

I’m normally quite good at English. Use to do well in school, anyway. Had some stuff published once. But I do seem to have difficulty in getting a few things across to you.

I’m not interested in arguing definitions. I don’t want to discuss macroevevolution or ‘Darwinism’ or the age of the planet or any similar subject.

I just want you to nail your colours to the mast and tell us what processes you think are responsible for us being here. Plus the rest of the biosphere. Just a simple explanation. God can be involved if you like. You can define your own definitions. You can express yourself as you feel the need.

It can’t be that difficult, surely.

 

[Freddy]

Macro does not happen.

Didn’t you write this?: Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

 

[buffalo]

Didn’t you write this?: Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

Read my posts in context. Scroll back a few and read. I will help:

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. We can be certain of it, because, here it comes, we know it did. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Didn’t you write this?: Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.

Read my posts in context.

Ah, so you did say it. I honestly couldn’t remember. I had cut and pasted it to save it but didn’t note who said it.

So we can go with that, no problem. I agree with you. I’m certain I said that before as well. If you want to class the lack of an ability to interbreed with the ‘earlier’ species as a loss (and that almost always happens) and the split will almost always lead to an extinction event then, as you said, macroevolution ‘is an established fact’.

We’re making a lot of progress. You quoting that ‘macroevolution’ happens and Noose admitting that the world is 6,000 years old. Things are looking up.

 

[buffalo]

Ah, so you did say it. I honestly couldn’t remember. I had cut and pasted it to save it but didn’t note who said it.

Nope. Go back and look. Also, understand the context.

 

[Freddy]

The planet is 6000 years old, do you dispute this?

You need to start a thread on geology, Noose. The age of the planet is only relevant here because it confirms why you don’t recognise the evolutionary process. The discussion on planetary age ends there, I’m afraid. And any further discussion with you on the matter of evolution itself would seem to be something of a dead end.

Remember I said that I wouldn’t have to waste my time trying to put your scientific knowledge to rights and you wouldn’t have to read them? It’s a two way street, buddy.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Ah, so you did say it. I honestly couldn’t remember. I had cut and pasted it to save it but didn’t note who said it.

Nope. Go back and look. Also, understand the context.

No, I agree with everything you said. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Hume]

Hey ray,

Thanks for the link on Lucy.

She’s quite old, isn’t she?

As it pertains to the discussion, I don’t think she’s classified as a homosapien. The context was that some think that all species that ever lived were present in the beginning.

I was asking why we can’t find homo sapiens prior to 200k years ago. Moreover, why is the fossil record so segmented if this is the case?

I.e. tyrannosaurs are only found in a range, homo sapiens in another limited range, so on.

 

[buffalo]

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

Indeed we are making progress. @freddy now agrees with the following:

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

 

[Freddy]

The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness.

That’s your definition of macroevolution. You have been quoted saying exactly that. Your words. Not mine. No-one elses.

If we have ‘lineage splitting with loss of ability once had (it) is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness.’

That’s how you described macroveolution. Again, here is a direct quote:

“Macroevolution, the lineage splitting with loss, of a new species, has been observed. It is an established fact; no assumption required.”

So you state that ‘lineage splitting’ has been observed. Nobody has a problem with that.

The loss you refer to is the inability to interbreed with the ‘original’ species. Nobody denies that the new species cannot interbreed.

Almost every single example of speciation has eventually become extinct. That’s a given.

You say it’s an established fact. Nobody is going to argue.

You were questioned on your original statement and you corrected it to the one above. You fine tuned your answer. You were given the opportunity to clarify your position and you took it.

I’m not twisting your words. I’m not misquoting you. I am directly quoting you. You have made your claim and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

 

[buffalo]

my post @163

Speciation is lineage splitting with subsequent loss of function once had leading to extinction for most.

and a subsequent post

buffalo

7d

You have conceded that macroevolution occurs.

Yes, if we want to define it as being very limited to lineage splitting and by breaking genes which lead to less fitness and ultimate extinction . I am ok with it under this definition. It is very far from what was being pitched.

;

 

[buffalo]

@freddy to be clear, you now agree with this?

Indeed we are making progress. @freddy now agrees with the following:

Your two examples, and the only two you could muster up over a decade of me asking, are examples of adaptation. Calling them a man made description of a new species is a circular argument. The reclassification of a new species is decided upon when they can no longer reproduce with each other. This lineage splitting with loss of ability once had is change, but if it leads to extinction, it reduces survival fitness. You well know that most evo adherents claimed that macroevolution was a creative process leading to organisms of more complexity and ability, from a simple celled organism to a human being. (tree of life has fallen) All that is needed is lots of time. You well know the evo defense because there are no examples, is to extrapolate microevolution and make the unproven claim that it happens in small successive steps over long times result in greater and greater complexity until we get cells that feature extensive internal communications, complex machinery, complex language and codes, transport mechanisms, adaptability, storage, memory, all without any extraneous outside (name removed by moderator)ut, except sunlight (your open systems claim) all working against the second law and genetic entropy.

Macro does not happen.

 

[Freddy]

How weirder can this get. First you say this:

Macro does not happen.

And then you say this:

Yes, if we want to define it (macro) as being very limited to lineage splitting and by breaking genes which lead to less fitness and ultimate extinction . I am ok with it under this definition.

So almost in consecutive posts you say it doesn’t exist then you give conditions which you believe to be correct and which you are determined to convince everyone exists when you say it does.

Yet again…

Lineage splitting? Tick.
Less fitness? And you keep telling us this is an inability to interbreed. Tick.
Lead to extinction? Well, 99% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct, so…Tick.

We seem to have moved on to a different level of self defeating posts. It used to be astonishing that you would link to articles that were based on facts that you reject. That almost seems quite normal now.

Because now you are telling us that you are happy with a definition for ‘macroevolution’, a definition which you yourself have supplied and which you keep promoting, then tell us it doesn’t exist.

Your own definition is obviously correct as far as you are concerned because you have been pushing it for literally years.

Utterly, utterly bizarre.