Has science falsified macroevolution?

[avflf]

Here’s someone who does not accept the slow changes postulated by Darwin so he has got another evolutionary theory going

macroevolution.net/index.html

 

[Orogeny]

With adaptation speciation (the inability to breed) happens within the species level.

Hmm. Speciation can only happen at the species level. What does speciation within the species level mean?

Don’t back off of you original post. You were right.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

There is an astronomical lack of evidence to show explicitly that bacteria can even evolve into mammals, etc. You are basing your claims upon wishful thinking. (Which btw, as a believer you have no real reason to do so.)

Well, actually there is plenty of evidence to come to the conclusion that all life has a common ancestor. Your lack of acceptance of the evidence doesn’t invalidate it.

The fact that I am a believer is not a real reason to ignore the evidence.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I claimed that part of it was falsified. Here the author was defending the ability for macroevolution to be falsified. I did not say anywhere that it has been completely falsified.

So what part of macroevolution has been falsified? You keep posting text that indicates that the initial conception was incorrect, but nothing about the fact of macroevolution.

I know you are willing to wait to see where this goes, but you will be waiting a very long time (how long is eternity?).

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

Well, actually there is plenty of evidence to come to the conclusion that all life has a common ancestor. Your lack of acceptance of the evidence doesn’t invalidate it.

Again, that evidence is based purely on speculation. Jaw bones on reptiles is just that, jawbones on a reptile; it says nothing of mammals. Your evidence has to go beyond this speculation.

 

[buffalo]

Hmm. Speciation can only happen at the species level. What does speciation within the species level mean?

Don’t back off of you original post. You were right.

Peace

Tim

The inability to breed has happened where isolation and adaptation have occurred. These animals are still of the same “kind” .

 

[M0nkey]

So what part of macroevolution has been falsified?

I don’t know why you are being so pertinent save to be annoying over the wire. I think his point on falsification is well taken.

 

[buffalo]

So what part of macroevolution has been falsified? You keep posting text that indicates that the initial conception was incorrect, but nothing about the fact of macroevolution.

I know you are willing to wait to see where this goes, but you will be waiting a very long time (how long is eternity?).

Peace

Tim

Hopefully I will know on judgement day.

I did not write the article. The article states it: Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution.

As time goes on and more laterals are found it would eliminate common descent in those areas. Yes or No?

 

[Orogeny]

Here’s someone who does not accept the slow changes postulated by Darwin so he has got another evolutionary theory going

macroevolution.net/index.html

Gould and Elderidge did not accept the slow, continuous pace of evolution commonly accepted by biologists. That is where punctuated equilibrium came from. I don’t know how McCarthy’s hypothesis differs from PE. Perhaps you can explain the difference since I really have no desire to read an e-book.

Speaking of his e-book, if he wants to get anywhere with his hypothesis, an e-book won’t do it in the world of science. He will need to publish articles and present his ideas at conferences.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste.

 

[Orogeny]

I did not write the article.

I understand that.

The article states it: Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution.

Buffalo, please read that again and tell me where he claims ANY part of MACROEVOLUTION has been falsified.

As time goes on and more laterals are found it would eliminate common descent in those areas. Yes or No?

No. If enough were found, then yes, but that is an assumption on your part that they exist. There is no reason to believe that they do.

What you are given in that article is a means for falsifying macroevolution, not a prediction that it will be falsified.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste.

If he is right, the tree concept could become biology’s equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. “The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it’s time to move on.”

(bolding mine) Doesn’t sound to me that Bapteste feels that evolution has been falsified.

Peace

Tim

 

[Michaelo]

M0nkey

I’ll repeat the question, does ID offer an explanation that is more substantiated by the available evidence? If so, please provide it.

 

[Michaelo]

The inability to breed has happened where isolation and adaptation have occurred. These animals are still of the same “kind” .

You’re moving the goal posts by introducing this creationist terminology. Out of curiosity, please specifically define “kind.”

 

[buffalo]

I understand that.Buffalo, please read that again and tell me where he claims ANY part of MACROEVOLUTION has been falsified.No. If enough were found, then yes, but that is an assumption on your part that they exist. There is no reason to believe that they do.

What you are given in that article is a means for falsifying macroevolution, not a prediction that it will be falsified.

Peace

Tim

Darwinisn failed to predict horizontal gene transfer, , junk DNA not being junk, gene expression is controlled by sophisticated regualtory circuits and that bacteria do not solely evolve in random fashion.

The tree of life has fallen. Darwinism is being relegated to the back corner of the room.

 

[buffalo]

You’re moving the goal posts by introducing this creationist terminology. Out of curiosity, please specifically define “kind.”

On the evolution of cells

 

[koranist]

M0nkey

I’ll repeat the question, does ID offer an explanation that is more substantiated by the available evidence? If so, please provide it.

No, but it did capitalize on Darwinist lies. They lie a lot. They rely on ignorance and say things in public they don’t say to each other. Everybody knows this. ID is just trying to expose that and come up with a religious theory. Its not what IDers say is not true but they are not providing scientific explanations just stating facts. Darwinist should stop lying. Now they are talking about aliens and multiple universes. Its all always more theories and more theories to create a naturalistic explanation when they should be, as Michael Behe said, follow the evidence wherever it leads them.

Plus ID proponents always call for debates and open discussions its people like Charles Dawkins who refuse saying it will give them credibility and give the impression that there is support for them in science.

Darwinist suck!

 

[Orogeny]

Darwinisn failed to predict horizontal gene transfer, , junk DNA not being junk, gene expression is controlled by sophisticated regualtory circuits and that bacteria do not solely evolve in random fashion.

Yep, that ignorant Darwin. Didn’t predict a thing about DNA. BAN HIS NAME FROM ALL SCIENCE BOOKS!!!

Seriously, buffalo, is there a point to this? Are you really surprised that discoveries have been made since Darwin first put forth his ideas? Is relativity to be discarded because it does not work at the sub-atomic level? Really?

The tree of life has fallen. Darwinism is being relegated to the back corner of the room.

Ok, Ed Chick, when did you take over buffalo’s post?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The focus is moving from ancestry to functional properties. I think this is where the “kinds” will ultimately be found.

The answer is that you can’t define the term, so you should quit using it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

No, but it did capitalize on Darwinist lies. They lie a lot. They rely on ignorance and say things in public they don’t say to each other. Everybody knows this.

Yep, us liars have really pulled the wool over the eyes of the ignorant! Great argument!

ID is just trying to expose that and come up with a religious theory.

Finally at least one person on these forums is honest enough to admit that ID is based on religion!! Good job!!

Its not what IDers say is not true but they are not providing scientific explanations just stating facts.

Wait. I thought ID was a “theory”. Theories are explanations of facts, not facts themselves. So, not only have you admitted that ID is religious, you also admit that it isn’t even a theory! I’m starting to like you!!!

Darwinist should stop lying. Now they are talking about aliens and multiple universes. Its all always more theories and more theories to create a naturalistic explanation when they should be, as Michael Behe said, follow the evidence wherever it leads them.

You mean to astology? You do know, right, that Behe said, under oath, that the definition of science that he uses to make ID science would also make astology a science?

Plus ID proponents always call for debates and open discussions its people like Charles Dawkins who refuse saying it will give them credibility and give the impression that there is support for them in science.

Who is Charles Dawkins? Seriously.

Debates without evidence are how philosophy works but not how science works. Bring on the evidence!!!

Darwinist suck!

Be careful with that type of language.

Peace

Tim