The Majority Of People Who Deny The Validity Of The Evolutionary Theory...

» Home » Science

The Majority Of People Who Deny The Validity Of The Evolutionary Theory Are Often Extremely Uneducated On The Subject.

Yeah, I know it’s a really obvious fact to point out. But I think it’s time to give them a chance to become knowledgeable on the topic. So come on all you naysayers. You guys always want to play the “Evidence Game” when debating about the theory of evolution. Well now’s your chance to get the lessons in you so desperately need. Name whatever scientific evidence in support of biological evolution, or the theory of it, you’d like to see and I’ll lay it out in front of you.

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 02:51

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Yes I am (currently). However, the majority of people who buy the notion of macroevolution are also often extremely uneducated on the subject. They trust in the scientific community almost as a Catholic trusts in the Church, and the "it makes sense"ness of the idea and the widespread acceptance of it by many helps to lead them to accept it.

Stranger

20 Nov 2009 21:14

10 Comments

I can see truth to that statement. But I can also honestly say that's not why I believe the concept.

Hizashi

20 Nov 2009 21:24

Comment

In all honesty, understanding the proper information concerning evolution would actually be the best way to go about debating it (the SC does it all the time). But you haven’t got that far yet. You prevent yourself from getting that far if you want my opinion. It’s not about convincing anyone of anything. It’s about understanding what a particular scientific theory really says, as opposed to what scientifically illiterate people think it says. I’m not trying to sway your vote. I just don’t like that you misrepresent what you discredit (whether purposely or unintentionally). What bothers me even more perhaps is that, the way it seems, you sometimes misrepresent evolution BECAUSE your intention is to discredit it, by which misrepresentation is the best way to go about doing so. I honestly wouldn’t care if you went around FAA and said you disliked aspects of evolution if you were actually representing them correctly. But the notion of pretending the theory of evolution says something it doesn’t just to make it look bad is pretty low in my book. And sadly, deceit is the only weapon the majority of anti-evolutionists have in their favor. They would have a far more difficult time discrediting evolution were they to represent is accurately. That is precisely why most of them who really do understand evolution don’t do so. You may not want to hear this, but the deeper you dig into the real science of evolution Stranger, the harder it's going to be to refute. I'm not advocating you stay uneducated on the matter simply so it's easier to find problems with its propositions. But I don't want you to think that the more you learn about evolutionary biology the simpler it's going to be to prove it wrong. For there’s a massive amount of information and data on the topic that’s been gathered by so many minds over the years, and to enter into the game as a newbie thinking that rebutting all that is going to be anything but extremely problematic is a joke.

Also, concerning the second half of your post, I'm slightly confused as to what exactly you believe is just an assertion. In the debate “Evolution Possesses A Wide Variety Of Evidence In Its Support That Apparently Not Many People Are Aware Of” I listed forty documented accounts of speciation (the evolutionary process of species formation). I gave the date of the experiment, the name of the scientist(s) involved, the name of the article itself, as well as what scientific journal it can be found in and where in said journal it is. I really don’t know how to be any more specific than that. I mean, what else could you possibly want me to do when listing information about scientific experiments? That's about as clear as I know to make it. I gave everything one would need in order to find data on said experiment. And what interpretations are you talking about? I realize that any observation requires interpretation (of different degrees depending on the circumstances), but it’s extremely difficult for me to interpret much about those documented accounts of speciation. The results are quite conclusive. Try as I might, if the experimentations covered in all those articles are true, then there is very little room for my personal interpretations. Speciation happens (regardless of what you name as the cause). That is, unless every scientist involved in each of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of experimentations, as well as every scientist worldwide who peer-reviewed the data, is lying. But Voov’s the only one I've noticed who's far enough out there to assert such a thing.

Comment

"And sadly, deceit is the only weapon the majority of anti-evolutionists have in their favor."
If you refer to when I said that macroevolution justifies any crime, then know that I was confusing it with atheism, because when I argue against macroevolutionists who are atheists, I argue against their atheistic macroevolutionary paradigm, not theistic macroevolution which would mean that a God could make crimes objectively wrong.
It was a mistake. I said it was. So I was not trying to deceive. I was just confused. But you don't have to trust me.

I also said that macroevolution is racist. 
I guess it isn't in and of itself. But macroevolution does provide hope for a few racist goals, such as that a race can become intellectually superiour to other races by evolving to a different species. I don't think I ever said that macroevolution is wrong because it gives such hope. Likewise, I never said that atheism is wrong because it justifies any crime.

"...understanding the proper information concerning evolution would actually be the best way to go about debating it..."
What exactly do I NEED to know that I don't know to argue about macroevolution?

"You may not want to hear this, but the deeper you dig into the real science of evolution Stranger, the harder it's going to be to refute."
Au contraire.
It is getting easier to refute the more I know.
I began to seriously attack macroevolution a few years ago in "biology" class. I think it was 10th grade. I would be real stupid and say "Where is the evidence for evolution? It doesn't exist."
I used to think that evidence was synonymous with proof. Now, I know that "evidence" can also mean "facts, or alleged facts, which are used to support or contradict a hypothesis or conclusion." As you know, I kept at that misunderstanding of what evidence means when I came here. I think it was innomen who pointed out to me the difference between evidence and proof. 
Now I know better than to use the word "evolution" in my arguments against what I'm really against: macro-E. Back then, I used that misleading word, because nearly everyone does. To say I am against evolution is to be against the truth in part. I used to think that archaeopteryx was hard to refute as proof for macroevolution. Now, I know better. It's a friggin' unique creature, from what we know of it. It is only assumed that it is a transitional species between certain dinos and birds. There needs to be an undisputable series of links between the three to prove that it is transitional. To think I was unsettled by it before! hahaha.
That's where my faith went into full effect. The shield of faith which keeps the fiery arrows of the evil one from striking me.

"...there’s a massive amount of information and data on the topic that’s been gathered by so many minds over the years, and to enter into the game as a newbie thinking that rebutting all that is going to be anything but extremely problematic is a joke. "
Do you know what that massive amount of data and information is called? Evidence.
Evidence which both sides interpret. The fact that there's a huge load of evidence available for interpretation does not mean that the establishment is any more right than a nobody like me.

You gave a list referencing documented accounts of supposed (i.e. asserted) speciation. Now, it IS speciation if you use the establishment's flawed definition of species. But there are alternatives to that definition which are similarly subjective, but some of which don't allow for speciation merely based on the observations of what I consider to be microevolution mentioned in what you are referencing.

I wanted you to explain any of those experiments because when I searched for a few of the "documented accounts of speciation" in your list some months ago, I couldn't find an understandable explanation of the experiment/observations that I could be sure of was the same one you were referencing.
So I left it for later, especially considering that I had told you I was going to read the many things you told me to read before I continued arguing with you, so I thought that when I got to reading the articles on the subjects you wanted me to know (more of), that I would continue my search then.
And I think I told you that I am waiting for a time in my life when I have a lot of free time and unfettered access to the internet to read what you told me to read and argue with you on this issue. So far, I only have one of the conditions I want (some free time). And I'm not going to read that homework now, since by the time I have free access and free time simultaneously, I'd have forgotten most of what I read by then.

Nevertheless, trying again this time, I think I found one explanation for the first assertion of speciation in your list, which is: "Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral
reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of
Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64."

This time, I copied and pasted the whole thing in Google.
I found this abstract from nature.com.
The whole address is:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v48/n1/abs/hdy19822a.html
Is it the same thing you referenced?
Basically, at least?

Comment

I wasn’t referring to any statements specifically. I was just attempting to cover a general area when talking about the deceit thing. If its any consolation, you don’t really do it that often (or on purpose) from what I can tell.

“What exactly do I NEED to know that I don't know to argue about macroevolution?”

Lol. Strange question. You don’t NEED to know anything to argue against macroevolution. This reminds me of that new debate Daniel made recently about how no one can deny Pantheism. Anyone can deny anything. Hence, anyone can argue against anything. The better question to ask is what do you need to know to successfully dispute macroevolution. First and foremost, you need to know exactly what macroevolution is, by definition. Not your definition of it. I mean the real scientific definition. The one used when the scientific community debates on the subject. After that you would probably need to know how it fits with the modern theory of evolution. And lastly, you’d likely need to not only know of the evidence that supports the concept, but understand why it does (or at the very least why it is presumed to). Once you’ve done all that then you stand a worthwhile chance at disproving it. All that’s left then is to actually do it. But, as I’ve said before, your one mind is going up against thousands of others who’ve been in the game a lot longer than you. You’re at a HUGE disadvantage. So I hope you like playing the underdog and have a LOT of time on your hands.

“It's a friggin' unique creature, from what we know of it. It is only assumed that it is a transitional species between certain dinos and birds."

Where’d the unique creature come from then if not from another creature? They just have an abundance of similarities (both physical and genetic) for no reason? You don't dispute microevolution do you? I'm glad. I don't think I could handle debating with someone who took it that far. But riddle me this. Microevolution is basically small-scale changes in the alleles of a population of organisms over relatively short periods of time (or below the species level so to speak). So, what happens when you accumulate a whole bunch of small-scale changes like that over a longer period time?

"There needs to be an undisputable series of links between the three to prove that it is transitional. To think I was unsettled by it before! Hahaha.”

What would you consider to be an “undisputable series of links”? The only possible way I see for there to be such a series would be if we were to discover the fossilized remains of every living organism that’s ever lived on Earth. That seems to be the only way to fill all the gaps. But considering the fact that not all life fossilizes, I don’t see that happening anytime soon (or ever really). So, I can’t offer you an “undisputable series” (whatever you mean by that), but I can offer you the precise reasons why such fossils are considered transitional forms. Just follow the link:  http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

It would help if you read the entire thing and didn’t just skim through it. So, whenever you have time, just check that out.

“Evidence which both sides interpret. The fact that there's a huge load of evidence available for interpretation does not mean that the establishment is any more right than a nobody like me.”

Here’s the thing Stranger. All opinions aren’t equal. You’ve told me that yourself before. And it’s actually true (at least in this scenario). The thing that makes a paleontologist’s opinion on a fossil more valid than yours is the sole fact that they know more about the subject than you do. The same is true for any other science. I certainly don’t try to place my thoughts above a surgeon’s just because there’s “evidence which both sides interpret”. He knows more than I do about anatomy. Hence, his opinion on the topic matters more.

But all this talk about interpretation has got my curiosity going. If the way science interprets the evidence is invalid, how would you suggest it be interpreted?

“You gave a list referencing documented accounts of supposed (i.e. asserted) speciation. Now, it IS speciation if you use the establishment's flawed definition of species. But there are alternatives to that definition which are similarly subjective, but some of which don't allow for speciation merely based on the observations of what I consider to be microevolution mentioned in what you are referencing.”

There are no scientific alternatives to the definition of the word "species" that prevent macroevolution from being possible. So whatever alternative you're using must be remarkably different from any I've heard of before. Please share.

On a more important note concerning the same topic, you’re never going to validly dispute macroevolution if you’re unwilling to use the established definitions that accompany it. Anyone can rebut something by changing the definition of it. That’s easy. But it’s not practical. If you want to disprove something scientific, you’ve got to play on scientific ground. The definition of “speciation” I gave is the one the scientific community has decided upon. If you don’t intend to go by it, then you still haven’t got past the first step of what you’d have to do in order to disprove macroevolution.

Concerning the article you mentioned, no. That’s not the one I listed (though it does use references from it). Here’s the link to the scientific journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences: http://www.springerlink.com/content/jj52772jx635/?sortorder=asc&p_o=30

It contains the article you’re looking for.

I strongly believe that even if we were to educate people on evolution they would still stick to their "god guns" and deny that it has any plausibility.

bdeuchler

28 Oct 2009 20:01

1 Comment

Maybe. But if they're educated on the theory of evolution, it's possible that they just might come up with some better arguments against it at the very least. I get tired of debating against irrelevant ones over and over again.

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 21:53

Comment

Ignorant of that subject - just as they are in many others.

verum

28 Oct 2009 05:11

2 Comments

Most people are ignorant on many subjects. Some people have more of a field of knowledge than others, but some are very focused and know much about something they are passionate about. Someone who is ignorant about evolution may not, in fact, be ignorant in many others...maybe they just lack the interest in it or they do not care one way or another. Just wanted to point that out because, there are some people who may not know much about evolution or have a strong opinion either way...Creation/Evolution...that does not make those people ignorant in general. Just my opinion and not personally motivated. Just wanted to make sure that those who lack knowledge of science in this regard do not feel they are ignorant or stupid about other things. : )

my2cents2u

29 Oct 2009 13:25

Comment

The majority of people who support the theory are also ignorant of the facts. They're just lucky.

Homestar

28 Oct 2009 03:39

1 Comment

The word "majority" is probably an overstatement, but I agree with your main point.

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 03:43

Comment

Anyone who’d like to join in and help educate those who oppose the concepts proposed by the theory of evolution are welcome to do so. I do recommend that you not simply try to describe something to them yourself though, as they often dismiss explanations given by other debaters (regardless of if the notions are accurate or not). Instead, I suggest you give them scientific references such as books, articles, and journals, along with everything else in your arsenal. I plan to do the same. It’s time to demonstrate to them just how much they have to refute before they can genuinely argue against evolutionary concepts.

Let science class begin.

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 02:52

27 Comments

Isn't that cute, calling your evolution cult a class.

dlmiller82

28 Oct 2009 04:57

Comment

Notice how, in my debate description, I worded the last sentence in such a way so that it mentioned biological evolution while speaking about the theory of it separately. I did that for a reason. That reason being that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Biological evolution is a scientific fact. It's every bit as factual as gravity. The theory of evolution is what explains that fact. That’s how all scientific methods work in case you didn’t know. Science takes a fact and explains it with a theory. In this case, they took the fact of evolution and made a theory that explains the occurrence of that phenomenon. I’d further explain it to you if I wasn’t so sure you would ignore me completely and continue on with your usual irrelevant whining.

You’re paranoid Miller. You always seem to believe everyone’s out to get you or do away with your freedoms in some way. Again, grow up. As if I actually find your beliefs to be so important that I'd waste time trying to change them. Your childish little outbursts aren’t amusing. I don’t care what you think of me. I don’t care if you think I’m intelligent or stupid. I don’t care if you think I’m lying about everything I say concerning evolution. I’m only interested in a progressive debate with someone who’s desires the same thing. So, once more, are you here to debate or just complain? Because the latter of the two is all you've done so far.

Comment

This is a simple debate any one not agreeing with hizashi is extremely uneducated

v00v

23 Feb 2010 07:38

1 Comment

Actually, you're pretty much the only scientifically uneducated person on the "Against" side Voov. Bummer.

Hizashi

23 Feb 2010 07:44

Comment

I'll bite.....never too old to learn something....so, first please define what you mean by evolution and we can start from there.

charlee

28 Oct 2009 14:02

24 Comments

As defined by its scientific theory, biological evolution is basically “the change in genetic properties of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.”

If you need even more specifics on the meaning of biological evolution, you can find the details at the following link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 21:35

Comment

The changes can result in virtually anything. There are no known limits. More specifically, there aren’t any experiments that have demonstrated limits for evolutionary changes. The changes would have been  selected if the end result of the change benefited the organism’s ability to survive and reproduce, ultimately assisting in the survival of its species as a whole. Likewise, changes where the end result would likely not assist in those goals would be selected against as the generations pass. And evolutionary changes occur only through reproduction of a specific individual (even though such changes will eventually end up affecting that organism's population as a whole in some way). So the evolutionary changes that occur within the offspring of one organism might not occur with the offspring of another. This is where the phrase "Survival of the fittest" comes from. Every individual within a particular species will not be exactly the same in terms of genetics if that species utilizes sexual reproduction. Why? Because each organism in that species might not have had the exact same alleles to select from, though the genetic composition would be similar if the organisms under question were apart of the same population. So, while inter-breeding organisms in a population will be alike overall (since they are considered apart of the same species), there will always be slight differences from one individual to the next (the same kind of differences that one would find between my genes and yours, even though we’re both apart of the human species).

Comment

So, so far:  The genes in the organism determine adaptive characteristics that enhance the organism's ability to survive and reproduce.  And, of course, secondarily, the aggregate amount of a specific gene in same-species populations would result if that gene were helping a bunch of individual organisms survive and reproduce--OK.  
I might have concerns about "the changes can result in virtually anything" , but let's come back to that later.
Where does new genetic material come from?  Have certain alleles always been in the genetic make-up of a species but perhaps "asleep" so to speak?  How does evolutionary theory account for the fact that species only "breed" within a species (assuming all the appropriate parts would fit); It seems that there would be more and more enhancement potential for survival and reproduction if sexual species were to gain vasts amount of genetic raw material by mating with other, species groups?   A related question would be,  why are there different species, rather than the best, "super-specie" that is best fit for survival and reproduction, based on evolutionary thinking?

Comment

“Where does new genetic material come from? Have certain alleles always been in the genetic make-up of a species but perhaps "asleep" so to speak?”

The genes you have are random samples from both of your parents. Every organism that reproduces sexually possesses two copies of each gene (called alleles). The frequency of those alleles can change due to chance alone. It’s called genetic drift. Basically put, it’s a sampling error of the gene pool. The next generation receives samples of the previous generation’s genes, not exact duplicates. Therefore, the frequency of each allele will always differ slightly from one generation to the next. It’s a random process. The samples an organism obtains from its predecessors then goes through the process of natural selection when the next generation is begun, with the more useful traits becoming more common throughout the gene pool while the less useful traits become rarer.

“How does evolutionary theory account for the fact that species only "breed" within a species (assuming all the appropriate parts would fit);”

Species only breed within their own species because their genes won’t combine with the genes of an organism outside their species to form a zygote. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that breeding outside a species isn’t allowed considering that organisms which have branched off from the same species likely wouldn’t be able to make use of their cousin’s genes in the same way. Think about it. If a single species suddenly becomes two separate ones, that event occurred for an evolutionary reason (of which the environment often plays a major role in). Maybe one species evolved to be faster than the other to escape prey and genes from the slower species would affect the survival of its own. And since survival is key when concerning evolution, such a mix of genes would be obsolete in terms of success.

“It seems that there would be more and more enhancement potential for survival and reproduction if sexual species were to gain vasts amount of genetic raw material by mating with other, closely related, species groups? In other words, why are there different species, rather than the best, "super-specie" that is best fit for survival and reproduction, based on evolutionary thinking?”

If two organisms are genetically different enough to the point where they can’t interbreed (like humans and chimpanzees), then the mixing of genes from each one would likely end in disaster. After all, offspring receive only samples of genes from both their parents due to genetic drift. So there would be no way to guarantee, through reproduction alone, that the next generation would gain only the traits necessary to make it a “super species”. It’d be far more likely that the randomized mixing of traits from a person and a chimpanzee would create some sort of abomination that has little to no chance of survival on its own. Of course, with technology, genetic engineering might be able to do what it is you mention about combing just the right genes to make a “super species”. But biological evolution isn’t like genetic engineering. It doesn't have hundreds of experienced scientists guiding it's every action.

Comment

OK, from answer #1--where does new genetic material come from?; your answer implies that no "new" genetic material is ever produced.  If this is so, how can we have common ancestry with, say a bacteria?  Since by your definition and description of how new adaptive traits occur there is no "room" for broad changes, such as from species to species, if as your answer says, the gene pool is the gene pool and the only thing that changes is the through genetic drift.  So, is common ancestry and transitional origins of species no longer applicable?

I think the theory of evolution would embrace interspecies breeding, since this would allow the gene pool to expand.  Granted many "abominations" might occur, but think of the treemendous "new" adaptability there would be .  It seems like the theory would predict this type of thing, yet we don't see this in reality. It seems like evolution falls short in failing to "take advantage" of accessing potentially greater adaptability by interspecies breeding.  It seems what you are saying is that evolution doesn't work this way, because we don't see interspecies breeding; yet I would still maintain the logic of the evolutionary theory would predict that it should happen, certainly one would think that it would given sufficient time.

In asexual reproduction, how do adaptive traits occur?   Is there any "new" genetic material ever created?

Do new adaptive traits occur very rapidly or very slowly according to Evolutionary principles?

Comment

“your answer implies that no "new" genetic material is ever produced. If this is so, how can we have common ancestry with, say a bacteria? Since by your definition and description of how new adaptive traits occur there is no "room" for broad changes, such as from species to species,”

Perhaps I didn’t explain it specifically enough. I try not to overdo the explanations. But I guess I need to give more detail. I kind of misjudged your question and thought you were referring to where new sampled combinations of genes come from during reproduction. But it seems you were really asking where an entirely new gene never seen before would come from. So allow me to emphasize on that. When genes copy themselves, there is always a chance for error so to speak. Some genes might make too many copies. Some genes might not make enough. Some genes might even combine with others to create something entirely different. The last example happened when humans and chimpanzees branched off from hominids, as chimpanzees have twenty-four sets of chromosomes while humans have only twenty-three. They’re called mutations. Mutations can create new alleles, which would be the new genetic material you’re speaking of.

“if as your answer says, the gene pool is the gene pool and the only thing that changes is the through genetic drift. So, is common ancestry and transitional origins of species no longer applicable?”

No, genetic drift is only one of the processes that can change the outcome of an organism’s evolution.

“I think the theory of evolution would embrace interspecies breeding, since this would allow the gene pool to expand. Granted many "abominations" might occur, but think of the treemendous "new" adaptability there would be . It seems like the theory would predict this type of thing, yet we don't see this in reality.”

The theory of evolution certainly doesn’t rule out a “super species” (whatever you define that as) to my knowledge. But, as you said, it’s not something we see occur.

“It seems like evolution falls short in failing to "take advantage" of accessing potentially greater adaptability by interspecies breeding. It seems what you are saying is that evolution doesn't work this way, because we don't see interspecies breeding;”

A fair assessment. But evolution’s just a biological process. It’s not a conscious being that can rationally or morally make choices based on what it knows about the situation and what it can predict to occur in the future from the actions it takes now. It’s not some type of force. It’s just how biology works. The fact that near ninety-nine percent of all species to ever live on this planet are now believed to be extinct is testament to the notion that evolution, while useful, isn’t anywhere close to being perfect. The theory of evolution only describes how biological organisms operate. Nothing more. Sure, like you, I see plenty of ways the process of evolution could do better. For example, I think it’s dumb the way the human esophagus is set up. Because we eat, drink, and breath from the same place, the odds of choking are increased. Whereas if we consumed food and breathed from a separate place (like dolphins), we couldn never choke while eating. If I were the guiding force behind evolution I’d definitely do things differently. But it doesn’t make sense for me to deny the validity of evolution’s occurrence due to the fact that things don’t happen the way I want them to.

“yet I would still maintain the logic of the evolutionary theory would predict that it should happen, certainly one would think that it would given sufficient time.”

Either way, the result would still be considered a form of evolution. Since macroevolution is basically defined as a genetic change above the species level, your “super species” idea would be considered a type of macroevolution if it occurred.

“In asexual reproduction, how do adaptive traits occur? Is there any "new" genetic material ever created?”

They occur through the same processes as seen in sexual reproduction. However, mutation is much rarer in asexual organisms since they do not have to mix genes in order to have offspring. Thus, new genetic material arises more slowly in asexual organisms than their sexual counterparts. Although, asexual organisms can reproduce much faster than species that have two genders, as asexual reproduction requires less energy and every offspring is capable of multiplying by itself alone. So there are both advantages and disadvantages.

“Do new adaptive traits occur very rapidly or very slowly according to Evolutionary principles?”

That question doesn’t have a simple answer. It depends on what organism we’re talking about.

Comment

Good, thanks for more detail.  Let me refine, a bit what I mean by a superspeices.  I don't mean just one specie on the planet, but a much more adaptable organism resulting from the pairing of two different species.  Since evolution always relies on "sufficient" amount of time, I think evolution fails because it would predict that by now, we should see interpsecies mating all the time.  I think a theory to be viable must accurately predict what happens.  I think in the aspect, if so called macro evolution is true, then what one would expect would be to see a wide variety of interspecie breeding.  Since this doesn't occur, it seems Evolution fails in this aspect of things.

New genetic material comes from mutation...is this the only way new genetic material is created?   Is this a slow or fast process?  Does it result in incremental or all at once major changes in a species?  At what point is a species enough different from his parents to be unable to further breed with its siblings, so to speak?  What does the theory say about these things?

Comment

“I don't mean just one specie on the planet, but a much more adaptable organism resulting from the pairing of two different species.”

Strangely enough, when I first pictured a “super species” after you began talking about it I thought you meant some type of science-fiction animal possessing traits from hundreds of different species to the point where it could jump over buildings and crush boulders. But by your description of what you judge the word to mean (an organism resulting from the pairing of two separate species), there are “super species” that already exist. A mule is one of them. It’s the offspring of a horse and donkey, which are two different species from the Equidae family. And there are a wide variety of those types of hybrids, so to speak.

“Since evolution always relies on "sufficient" amount of time,…”

A “sufficient” amount of time isn’t always necessary for evolution to occur. Microevolutionary changes usually happen within short periods (in the case of viruses and such). The rate of evolutionary change depends more on the amount of offspring a species has, and is capable of having, than on time itself.

“I think evolution fails because it would predict that by now, we should see interpsecies mating all the time. I think a theory to be viable must accurately predict what happens. I think in the aspect, if so called macro evolution is true, then what one would expect would be to see a wide variety of interspecie breeding.”

We do see interspecies breeding. Now, I’m not sure if it’s to the degree that you might like, but it happens nonetheless. Again, I thought you meant some type of science-fiction X-men type of creature when you said “super species” before.

“is this the only way new genetic material is created?”

I feel the need to clarify that an organism doesn’t require never-before-seen genetic material to be drastically different from another. Also, we keep using the phrase “genetic material". Specifically, evolution deals with the change in alleles over the generations of a particular population. So I recommend we use that terminology instead. It’s much more unambiguous that way, since “genetic material” can mean a number of different things. Mutations can create new alleles. Genetic drift alters the frequencies of said alleles. And natural selection affects the occurrence of the beneficial ones.

“Is this a slow or fast process?”

It depends on what type of mutation we’re talking about. Mutations can occur when cells copy themselves or during reproduction. They can be induced by viruses or other pathogens. They can even be caused by certain chemicals. So, that particular question, like that other one you asked before, doesn’t have a simple answer that applies in every situation.

“Does it result in incremental or all at once major changes in a species?”

Again, it depends on what type of mutation we’re talking about. If you want my answers to be more specific you’ll have to narrow down your questions a bit. They’re a little too broad to have simple answers.

“At what point is a species enough different from his parents to be unable to further breed with its siblings, so to speak?”

Good question. To be honest, I’m not certain exactly when a species becomes unable to breed with another due to genetic diversity. I’d have to research that.

“What does the theory say about these things?”

A lot. But I really don’t feel like typing anything myself to fulfill that request. So, instead, I’ll just give you a couple of links that go into much more detail than I have. The first link specifically deals with mutations while the second covers evolution in general (with descriptions of natural selection, genetic drift, mutations, gene flow, recombination, and more).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#append_1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Comment

“I find that macroevolution (let's focus on that for now, since I heartily agree with so-called microevolution occurring all the time within a species for adaptation) falls short in that it would seem to predict virtually no barriers to sexual unions between all types of sexual species since survival and reproduction are the main driving forces according to your descriptions of the process. Since this does not seem to happen, macroevolution fails in that what it logically would predict doesn't occur.”

What you logically believe macroevolution should predict to occur doesn’t seem that logical to me at all. There are mechanisms of evolution which increase genetic diversity (mutations and such) and those which decrease it (natural selection and genetic drift). Without a balance of both, evolution wouldn’t work the way it does now and would likely fail all together. The type of concept you’re proposing is an extreme spike in genetic diversity. That’s likely to be an evolutionary disaster, with consequences dire to any species involved in your process of “super species” formation. Primarily, not only is any offspring created by two distantly unrelated organisms going to possess numerous deficiencies due to the pairing of alleles from the parents being useless, but the young are very likely to be sterile and unable to reproduce at all. Your idea of nothing but increases in genetic variability happening hit’s a brick wall. Similarities in genetics are required in order to produce offspring. A cow can’t mate with a cat. Their genetics aren’t similar enough. Even if by some chance they could, the results would be impractical as far as evolution goes. Likewise, two organisms that are too similar as far as genetics are concerned will also produce offspring who are more susceptible to deficiencies (something to avoid if an organism's goal is survival). Evolution requires a balance of genetic variation, with processes that increase and decrease it. Your concept takes advantage of only increases in variation, with nothing to keep the survival of the species stable should those increases get out of hand (which is extremely likely to transpire in the situations you mention). On another note, it seems to me that your dismissal of macroevolution lies strongly with your opinion of how you think it should work. Again, the fact that evolution doesn’t occur the way you want it to isn’t a refutation of it. It’s kind of like dismissing General Relativity because, although gravity pulls things together, the solar bodies in the universe aren’t as close as you’d like them to be.

“I, also, don't think there is adequate information to say exactly how "new" genetic material is ever created within the theory, as presented thus far.”

Mutation is how new alleles are created. I asked that we used that terminology since it is more accurate when concerning the concepts of evolution. The links I gave you describe the processes in more depth than I did. I’d suggest you view those if you haven’t already.

“When macroevolution occurs--that is one species giving rise to another species (let's say for now another specie means the offspring can no longer mate with the likes of its parents----how does the fossil record support this type of evolution?”

With transitional forms. I’m confident that we’ve already had this discussion before though. Since I don’t recall you believing that the transitional forms I gave last time were legit, I’m reluctant to waste time posting more just for you to say it’s not enough in the end. So, at the sake of having to use up my time typing more on this topic, I’ll leave you with a link which describes macroevolution, and around thirty evidences for it, in excruciating detail. Numerous topics about the fossil record and transitional forms are also discussed. References can be found all over the article.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Comment

Summary to this point:
1.  Evolution occurs all the time--i.e. so-called microevolution--the adaptation abilities of living organism due to the genetic coding within the individual.  The purpose of adaptation is to survive to reproduce.  Natural selection occurs from the species' "gene pool"  and favors those individuals whose genetic make-up are most likely to survive and reproduce.  I have no problem with this part of the theory.

2.  I know there is difficulty in defining what a particular specie is--but we seem to agree that what separates one specie from another is an inability to mate.  So, in a way we are limiting our discussion to sexual living organisms here.  I still find the following issue disturbing from the definition you produced about what evolution is all about.  It seems to follow that evolution would have created the ability to reproduce between species by now, if natural selection were a serious mechanism to assure survival and reproduction.  Your arguments are circular in that you are saying this is the way species are i.e. they can't interbreed; so therefore, evolution had to work that way.  But, I would maintain, evolution's prediction would be just the opposite.  We should expect species to interbreed all over the place, yet we don't see that.   I believe Evolution fails this predictability test.

3.  Macroevolution implies evolutionary causation of transition from species to species i.e molecules to man.  The fossil record is very limited and unsupportive in this supposedly "proven" fact.  Granted, the fossil record shows significant similar homology in the bony structures of various organisms...that is a given.  So what,  it is like saying my fireplace gave rise to the empire state building because they are both made out of bricks.  The fossil record, of course,  gives virtually no record  of any soft tissue transitions--this seems a big GAP.  The fossil record shows supposed gradual transitions in skeletal structures, but there are also massive fossil collections that appeared without any prior apparent predecessors in the fossil record.  This has given rise to the evolutionists' punctated equilibrium theory, which is unexplained by the standard natural selection, incremental change over infinite amount of time, jargon.  There is inadequate explanation for this phenomenon in the fossil record.

4.  If transitions occur in very small increments over vast amounts of time, what would be the predicted fossil record demonstrate? According to the theory, we should see vast numbers of transition species, not just a few here and there, and certainly not "complete, whole structures" that are now offered as transitions.  So, what should a transition species look like according to the theory.  Well, if there are a myriad of little changes over vast amounts of time, such a transition might be where we would see fish with partial, rudimentary legs, as well as some fins.  We wouldn't expect to see all completely functional legs in the place of all the fins, all at once.  And this very fragmented, partial evolved type of transition should occur in all types of structures in all types of ways in all species in huge numbers compared to the "complete" whole organism.  These small incremental changes would be in far greater number than "complete" intact  whole organisms.  Yet, we see none of these in the fossil record.  More importantly, we see none of these creatures walking around today.  Why not?  This would be the logical prediction of the theory.  So the theory fails the prediction test a second time.

5.  Finally (you will do your automatic recoil on this one) but the general theory begs for the origin of life explanation i.e. abiogenesis.  You will say, "oh, this is not part of the theory.""  As if that is an adequate answer--it is avoidance and convenient escape from the fact that macoroevolution demands an explanation of how it all began, from nonlife to life, because according to the designless, nonintelligent, natural mechanism believers this had to happen before evolution could even get started.  I know you feel no obligation to try to give an explanation, but it is certainly a weakness to simply dismiss it.

So, as much as the references you gave are worthy and salient, they are not 100% convincing to me.  However, I am open that it could be all as you say, when better evidence is presented.

Comment

“I still find the following issue disturbing from the definition you produced about what evolution is all about. It seems to follow that evolution would have created the ability to reproduce between species by now, if natural selection were a serious mechanism to assure survival and reproduction. Your arguments are circular in that you are saying this is the way species are i.e. they can't interbreed; so therefore, evolution had to work that way. But, I would maintain, evolution's prediction would be just the opposite. We should expect species to interbreed all over the place, yet we don't see that. I believe Evolution fails this predictability test.”

Why does that make sense to you? From an evolutionary standpoint, it seems entirely illogical to me. Mixing alleles from different organisms that have virtually nothing in common in terms of survival mechanisms could only end in catastrophe for the offspring and possibly even extinction for the species. The inability for a thing to mate with any organism on the planet is a failsafe procedure so to speak. It’s there to prevent huge spikes in genetic diversity. As I’ve already explained, a balance of increases and decreases in genetic diversity are necessary for evolution to work. I’m not sure why you believe that every organism being able to mate with every other organism possible would have a good outcome. Knowing how evolution operates, something like that is exactly what you shouldn’t expect to see. The combining of genes from an organism of the same species is far more likely to produce a fit and sterile offspring than the blending of genes from two species that are unable to breed naturally. Two organisms can mate if their chromosomes are able to pair up during reproduction. Obviously the chromosomes of a cat aren’t going to pair up with those of a dog. This is a result of genetic diversity. We’ve already established that to be an inevitable consequence of evolution. So, if something becomes genetically different enough from its previous generation to become an entirely different species, by evolutionary logic, it’s a safe bet that it would be unable to survive with that generation’s genes.

Just for a moment though, let’s suppose what you’re talking about did occur. Let’s say that there were no barriers to reproduction between any species. Let’s also assume that all the offspring created from any organisms that mate survive (even though the vast majority of them probably wouldn’t). Eventually the gene pool would become so minute due to the lack of genetic diversity that every organism alive would be similar enough to be susceptible to extinction by the same cause. A single threatening virus to one organism would likely be threatening to the entire race of “super species”, as their genetics, though possibly useful, would be too much alike for them to be capable of surviving the same pathogen. The virus probably wouldn’t even have to evolve to do get rid of them all either. Your argument isn’t a bad one. It’s better than most I normally get against evolution. But it undeniably ignores that genetic diversity occurs as a result of evolution. And it occurs for a reason. Evolution explains the genetic diversity we see on Earth. It gives a reason for it. Your argument implies that evolution strives towards similarity, when, in actuality, it strives for variety quite often.

“Macroevolution implies evolutionary causation of transition from species to species i.e molecules to man. The fossil record is very limited and unsupportive in this supposedly "proven" fact.”

It’s not a fact. It’s a theory. It’s the best explanation science has found so far. The fossil record doesn’t show the transition of a molecule to a man. That’s a stupid expectation to have. But it does show the transitions of numerous other organisms, both plant and animal. I challenge you to scientifically explain such transitions without the use of macroevolution (or evolution in general since it’s basically the same thing).

“Granted, the fossil record shows significant similar homology in the bony structures of various organisms...that is a given. So what, it is like saying my fireplace gave rise to the empire state building because they are both made out of bricks.”

No. It’s like theorizing that your fireplace gave rise to the empire state building because we have transitions of it giving rise to a house over a certain period of time.

“The fossil record, of course, gives virtually no record of any soft tissue transitions--this seems a big GAP.”

Soft-tissue transitions? Are you serious? Charlee, tissue rots after death. It’s extremely rare for paleontologists to find the fossilized remains of an organism with some of its tissue still intact. There’s  virtually no record of any soft-tissue transitions because tissue virtually never fossilizes.

Comment

“The fossil record shows supposed gradual transitions in skeletal structures, but there are also massive fossil collections that appeared without any prior apparent predecessors in the fossil record.”

How about some examples. I don’t particular like it when I’m just given a claim with no verification.

“This has given rise to the evolutionists' punctated equilibrium theory, which is unexplained by the standard natural selection, incremental change over infinite amount of time, jargon.”

Welcome to one of the many things scientists are still debating about as far as evolution goes. Dawkins believes that some gaps were brought about by migration rather than evolution and that punctuated equilibrium is over exaggerated in many instances. I’m actually inclined to agree with Dawkins on this one considering what I’ve researched before on this subject.

“There is inadequate explanation for this phenomenon in the fossil record.”

The scientific community doesn’t assert that there are no gaps in the fossil record. In fact, gaps are something that should be expected. If there were no gaps, then that would mean we’ve discovered every living organism to ever live on this planet. I think we’re far from doing that. But the presence of gaps in the fossil record doesn’t invalidate macroevolution. Only the nonexistence of transitional forms would be able to do such a thing.

“If transitions occur in very small increments over vast amounts of time, what would be the predicted fossil record demonstrate? According to the theory, we should see vast numbers of transition species, not just a few here and there, and certainly not "complete, whole structures" that are now offered as transitions.”

No. According to paleontology, we shouldn’t expect to see vast numbers of any fossilized species, as fossilization is actually a rare occurrence.

“So, what should a transition species look like according to the theory. Well, if there are a myriad of little changes over vast amounts of time, such a transition might be where we would see fish with partial, rudimentary legs, as well as some fins. We wouldn't expect to see all completely functional legs in the place of all the fins, all at once.”

Exactly. Kenichthys and Acanthostega are two examples of transitional species like what you just described. They’re both transitions between fish and tetrapods. Here’s a link that not only better explains gaps in the fossil record, but gives examples of even more transitional forms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

“And this very fragmented, partial evolved type of transition should occur in all types of structures in all types of ways in all species in huge numbers compared to the "complete" whole organism. These small incremental changes would be in far greater number than "complete" intact whole organisms. Yet, we see none of these in the fossil record.”

I can only conclude from that quote that you don’t look at the fossil record very often. Check again.

“More importantly, we see none of these creatures walking around today. Why not? This would be the logical prediction of the theory. So the theory fails the prediction test a second time.”

The majority of said organisms are extinct. We’ve had multiple mass extinctions throughout the history of this planet, one where more than ninety percent of all marine life and over seventy percent of all land-based life were estimated to have died. The theory doesn’t predict the survival or termination of any species. It only predicts a change in their alleles over time. Even after everything I’ve explained you still don’t understand what the theory says or how evolution works do you?

“Finally (you will do your automatic recoil on this one) but the general theory begs for the origin of life explanation i.e. abiogenesis. You will say, "oh, this is not part of the theory."" As if that is an adequate answer--it is avoidance and convenient escape from the fact that macoroevolution demands an explanation of how it all began, from nonlife to life, because according to the designless, nonintelligent, natural mechanism believers this had to happen before evolution could even get started. I know you feel no obligation to try to give an explanation, but it is certainly a weakness to simply dismiss it.”

It’s okay. I already predicted prior to this point that you’d recoil back to that argument anyway. I shouldn’t have to explain it all again, as I’m sure you already know what I’m going to say. But how life evolves isn’t relevant to how it came to be. For no matter what origin you name for life itself, evolution occurs regardless. That’s why I say it’s irrelevant. I can’t assist you on this one, because a definite scientific theory on the origin of life doesn’t exist yet. There are numerous hypotheses is you care to research them. But, like I already mentioned, it doesn’t matter which one, if any, eventually becomes the scientifically accepted theory of abiogenesis, as evolution, of both types, happens anyway.

Comment

I still think you are missing the point regarding what a transitional specie should look like if macroevolution actually occurs.  The predicted result would be vast numbers of very incomplete oraganisms.  There would be an array of transitioning organ systems, rather that complete, intact fully evolved organisms.  Another example might go something like this:  a whale transitioning to a land mammal.  There would be millions of transition species in the fossil record of whale-like organisms with a huge variety of appendages that were once fins or soon to become legs.  It would not appear all at once as a four legged creature which is what the paleontologists claim to be a transition example.  We would see the same thing going on in front of our eyes because these transition species would be predicted to outnumber complete structures millions to one.  We don't see such transitions nor the predicted number of transitions in the fossil record or in real life; therefore macroevolution fails the prediction test, as mentioned before.  To answer your question, large adaptive changes can occur over time, as we discussed before.  I don't have a problem with that and we DO see it all the time in the fossil record and in front of our eyes.

""I’m just here to give you the proper understanding of how it all works"".   I do respect your views and tenacity with the subject and the references you have sited.  It's good to hear an expert with great confidence in the subject matter.

Comment

There are multiple transitions exactly like what you just described. But every time I give you examples you just say it’s not enough (if you even look at them at all). Understanding how fossilization works, your expectations are far too high. You seem to believe that every organism that dies is automatically fossilized and that such fossils should be easy to find. That’s not true in the least. Not only does fossilization rarely occur, but even if it does the fossils themselves can be moved or destroyed by the weather and other things. No paleontologist would expect there to be millions of transitional fossils of any kind due to those facts. It’s just not as cut and dry as you make it sound. We discover new fossils everyday. Likewise, we discover new transitional fossils all the time as well. We’ll both likely be dead and gone before the number of transitional fossils reaches into the millions as you desire. Like you, I wouldn’t mind seeing more transitional forms too. But the prediction of there being millions of transitions that should be found within the fossil record isn’t one of evolution’s, but yours.  So the theory doesn’t fail any of its own predictions. It just doesn’t live up to your high expectations, which isn’t a refutation of anything concerning the theory itself. It’s just a complaint you have. Albeit, it’s not a completely unreasonable one. But at times it does seem like you attempt to paint it up like a refutation of something.

So, overall, we’ve established that evolution, of all types mentioned by the theory, does indeed occur. But, despite not dismissing macroevolutionary changes as factual, you believe they are not as well documented as they should be. I find it quite reasonable to conclude that since we’ve determined that large scale changes can occur as a result of evolution, it remains the best explanation presented thus far for the genetic diversity of life on Earth, regardless of how well documented such events may or may not be. Do you not agree?

Comment

I only disagree with the word "majority" here. Personally I agree with evolutionary theory and I'm tired of creationists trying to push their countertheory into public schools, BUT I think it's too simplistic and bold to claim the "majority" on the creationist side are uneducated. There are plenty of professionals and decent ordinary citizens who cling to their religious origins beliefs despite being taught about evolution. My own brother, who is a family practioner (doctor) and for the most part a better man than I in almost every way believes in creationism and not in evolution. Of course I think he's wrong, but he's not wrong because he's uneducated.

Finally I want to say you'll never persuade people on the creationist side to come over to evolution by insulting them and calling them uneducated.

Grenache

28 Oct 2009 10:07

5 Comments

I didn’t mean they are uneducated in general. I said I believed they are uneducated on the subject of evolution. From my experiences, poor knowledge of the theory appears to be the number one cause of people denying it’s concepts. You can be the smartest person in the world when it comes to engineering or medicine and still be uneducated on evolutionary biology. It seems that, by comparison, you rarely come across someone who dismisses evolution while possessing accurate information on it (which was my reasoning for using the word "majority").

Hizashi

28 Oct 2009 11:35

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

58 minutes ago

If you have a general idea of the plot and or the history of the "artist" who is creating the song, movie, or book you will... read more...

2 hours ago

No one has to pick up a dagger or flip a car for the scenes to be heart wrenching. One of the best. read more...

2 hours ago

If we get still get upset over 58,000 killed in just one Vietnam, shouldn't we get more upset over 1,000 Vietnams? The deaths... read more...

2 hours ago

I agree, it is a bad idea, and I am afraid as I type this it is a reality. My greatest sadness is the fact that it will... read more...

2 hours ago

If one believes in aliens, there are no brains involved in the first place. :) read more...

Related Debates

	If Time Travel Was Possible, It Would Be Beneficial To Mankind.
	Cloning Is Crossing An Ethical Line And If So, Can We Never Turn Back.
	Skill And Knowledge Overcome Luck And Superstition.
	Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Is Still Relative Today
	Intelligence Is Not A Positive Reproductive Factor.
	Rationalism Is As Valid As Empiricism In Establishing Truth
	Science Is Fun To Learn About
	Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.
	It Is IMPOSSIBLE To Prove Or Disprove The Existence Of God, Or Any Other Supernatural Being
	It Is Right To Choose The Sex Of Your Child Using IVF

New Debates

	People Who Haven't Watched The Movie, Read The Book, Or Heard The Song Shouldn't Criticize The Movie,...
	Government Healthcare Good Or Bad
	Is Hydrogen Poroxide A Good Ingredien For Experiments Like Elephant Toothpaste.
	MacDonalds Should Be Banned
	Porche 911 Turbo Is A Noticable Car On The Streets.
	If You Meet An Alien It Will Suck Out Your Brains.
	Chicken Is Nice
	That My Brother Doesn't Have A Dick
	That Modern Technology Is A Plague On Human Relationships
	Technology Is Tearing Us A Criminal