Evolution

[bighauns]

sorry, i just thought that you were skipping over them, as you addressed the last ones first. I was just reminding. I dont want this to turn into a big fight, i would rather a more professional conversation. Not sure if i will have a chance to read PBS, but let me know what you find out

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Read the PBS page.

[bighauns]

I can go anywhere and read about how evolution is right or not. I have been force fed it in school, I know what is going on. You let me know what you find and why you think it is right. I am letting you know what I know and what I believe. If there is something out of the ordinary on the PBS page, let me know. But I have to run, I will be back on sometime tomorrow. Have a good night

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yeah, I'm reading it right now. Its a lot of info but I'm getting the feeling its not biased. I actually began at the end of series where it discusses religion and evolution. Its a good read, so when you do get a minute I suggest you start there first.

[Jay!]

Links to sources, please?

[2Slow4U_Noob]

Ooooh I want in on this. Ok so I've heard both sides of the argument now and actually learned alot, but I'm still sticking with my theory that God uses science to do his miracles. I believe God created man by evolving apes. I think that since God created our universe and our physics that he uses them to do his work in a scientific way. I don't think theres any magic going on. i don't take the bible literarily so I don't think man just appeared and Eve was created out of his rib, it seems like a metaphor for one being created from another or man evolving from apes. Haha maybe this is a cop-out saying that both theories are true, but I'm sticking to it.

[bighauns]

I apologize in advance for what I know is going to be a long post...

Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils.




So, since we do not have an transistional periods of evolution, where did we come from??

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

lol We dunno where we came from. Only time will give that answer but back to evolution. Bighauns, I've yet to counter those arguements but I'll get to it. For now I'll post a very simple example of rapid evolution. The Mosquito.

"In the first of many cases to come, a powerful insecticide spurs the evolution of insects resistant to its onslaught. DDT is widely used in the early 1940s, primarily to battle the mosquito that spreads malaria. Just as the Darwinian theory would predict, those insects with traits that allow them to survive increase in numbers. Soon, DDT-resistance in insects is widespread. The same type of phenomenon soon will be seen with antibiotic-resistant bacteria."

Evolution Revolution (DDT): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/re...ion/index.html

[bighauns]

I am not debating microevolution at all. That is what that is. It is the same as humans deveolping resistance to the flu virus every year, that is why there is a new shot every year. Microevolution is different than that of Macroevolution, which is what the evolutionists speak of in regards to "evolution".

[Jay!]

Originally Posted by bighauns

I am not debating microevolution at all. That is what that is. It is the same as humans deveolping resistance to the flu virus every year, that is why there is a new shot every year. Microevolution is different than that of Macroevolution, which is what the evolutionists speak of in regards to "evolution".

*ahem*

source: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ..._evo_micro.htm

Microevolution & Macroevolution
Is there any substantial difference between the two?

There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called "microevolution" and "macroevolution", two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population - changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species' coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution - one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don't use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don't pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons - this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error - creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter - and listen to the silence.

[bighauns]

We see microevolution around us all the time. But why do we not see the different stages "ape>human" evolution. Microevolution is variation in the shapes, sizes, colours or something like that. For example, we see rabbits change colour in the winter, that is not a sign that they are advancing to a future type of life form. Microevolution is not the evolution that we talk about when evolutionists speak of evolution.

[Jay!]

...there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

...

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.

What biological or logical barriers prevent the former (micro) from becoming the latter (macro)?

[bighauns]

they are entirely different!! The things that make the macro the big differentiating factor are different than the microevolution.

Example: Macro-> Different characteristics between humans and lizards

Micro-> Difference between two colours of hair, like a rabbit changing colors from season to season.

I fail to see how one can lead to another.

[bighauns]

Please let me know if i am misunderstanding your point.

[thrasher]

We don't actually see macroevolution because it occurs over very long periods of time. Pick up any primatology/anthropology book and you will see enormous amounts of evidence for a common ancestor between chimps and humans dating back to about 6 million years ago. I could fill this entire page with evidence for macroevolution. It isn't that far of a stretch to say that micvoevolutionary forces, when extended over a very long period of time, cause cladogenesis and anagenesis.