Posted on 03/25/2009 9:29:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?
March 24, 2009 — Two teams of evolutionists are having a spat over whale evolution. Thewissen and team (Northeastern Ohio U) say the hippo is close to the pig, but Jessica Theodor (U of Calgary) and Jonathan Geisler (Georgia Southern U) say it’s in the whale family tree. Their arguments and counter-arguments were published in Nature last week...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I have no idea. God works in mysterious ways and I do not question Him.
Keep the faith!
If the people bagging Jim and his site had half as much class as he does...
God created the whales on Thursday. Land animals weren’t created until Friday.
You are absolutely correct, hippo is the Greek word for horse. Most scientific names are based on Latin, but some are based on Greek.
Actually not, since I don't know the answer to my question: "at what precise point does 'micro-evolution' become 'macro-evolution'?
If you ask a scientist, they will say, there is no difference except that "macro" here means "long-term" while "micro" means "short term."
But anti-evolutionists have picked up on these words, and insist that "micro-evolution" is A-OK, while "macro-evolution" is somehow forbidden.
I'm asking, precisely where do you draw the line between them?
[[in a few million generations such mutations in a simple structure like the scale can turn into a feather due to small errors in transcription. these changes need not mean a half bird half lizard gimp with teeny-weenie useless wings, but normal limbs with a skin condition.]]
Whiel that is mostly true- scales can not infact turn into feathers- the structural features of feathers is much different than those of degraded scales (which incidently look very much like feathers at first glance, but upon further examination are quite different structurally- these differences arenot minor eaither, and nature simply could not manufacture the feather structures)
As well, there are several key structures of birds that lizards lack, which again, we simply do not see evolving in the fossil records.
Even IF dinos did have true feathers, and not simpyl some form of degraded scales that we see in the fossil records, that still doesn’t establish a dino/bird link
[[that is an example of microevolution over a very long time. other small mutations lead to other big changes over time as well. the cumulative effects of these simple changes are what evolution is.]]
Yes I know what microevolution is and how it works, my previous points abotu non species specific info, species specific parameters, and metainformation designed species specific still stands, as does the fact that the only way to ‘evolve’ new non species specific systems is via lateral gene transference- but this STILL runs into the problem of species specific metainfo that would be missing to deal with these genetic intrusions (Which incidently are phased out over time thanks to several built in, species specific protection mechanisms, controlled by the metainfo, that keeps species fit and in their own KINDS-)
[[to think that we could possibly have found every form of life that has ever existed is rather silly.]]
I agree, it woudl be silly- furtunately though, Noone is askign for that BUT we ARE askign for much much more than ‘dinos ‘could have’ (apparently at some point in the past- long long ago) evolved a skin disease’, and we’re certainly looking for more evidence than degraded scales that ‘give hte appearance’ of feathers, but which are much different structurally.
[[Declaring evolution as debunked without providing sufficient evidence of an alternate theory is not science.]]
Oh really- Is that the new goalpost now? Because last I looked, forensic science quite often debunks theories without ever having to come up with any alternative theory- but fortunately for you ID does provide alternative theory- you just don’t accept it. When forensic science investigates a crime scene for instance, ALL they have to do is present enough evidence that the crime was committed by an intelligence, and wasn’t simply some naturally occuring event, and IF someone comes up with some theory that doesn’t fit, the forensic scientists ONLY have to debunk that particular theory with the evidences- that is what ID does- they are NOT bound to providing an alternative theory in order to be a ligit pursuit- sorry to burst your bubble.
lol i actualy had that pic on my computer for awhile- great pic- I’ve got one of a black lab with funky teeth too lol
[[Actually not, since I don’t know the answer to my question: “at what precise point does ‘micro-evolution’ become ‘macro-evolution’?]]
Glad you asked. All you ever wanted to know about Macroevolution and microevolution:
When new non species specific info is introduced which results in the creation of new, non species specific metainfo. Microevolution simply works on info already present- Macroevo invents or forces new non species specific info. Scientists have succeeded in introducing the gene that produces spider’s silk into goats believe it or not, and the result was silk in the goats milk- however, as I mentioned in previous post, this info would be gradually phased out due to species specific info, and protection levels, meant ot maintain species fitness
[[If you ask a scientist, they will say, there is no difference except that “macro” here means “long-term” while “micro” means “short term.”]]
And that frankly is a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts
“The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800’s, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?
In 1980 about 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled “Macroevolution.” Their task: “to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species” (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/
A better explanation:
“The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.”
http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Microevolution_is_distinct_from_macroevolution
(Note to others- Note how Talkorigins is caught lying about Tim Wallace in the link above- and lying abotu Creationists- They have shown a consistent deceptive manner, and because Tim Wallace exposes their myriad lies, deceptions, and misdirections, he is being targetted and attacked by TO- a ‘per usual tactic’ when TO is caugt red handed!)
Another itneresting link:
Biochemical Limits to Evolution: The Untold Story
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html
Macroevolution
“The development of new taxonomic groups requires new types of structures (morphology) and functions.[1]”
A dino devloping excess skin and degraded scales in no way invovles creating new structures- especially in light of hte fact that many other bird features necessary for flight are missing- while a dino might develope flaps of skin that manage to allow it to glide, it has NOT evolved new non species specific info and structures=- all that has happend is that hte dino takes advantage, to a limitted degree, of something has changed- all the info was already present, now new structures were created or evolved.
And for htose who try to insult Creationists for coining a term that they were not responsible for:
“The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a 1927 book titled Variabilitat und Variation. He asserted that micro- and macroevolution were processes involving different mechanisms and caliber. The terms were later introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko’s former student Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species.”
Extrapolation of microevolution
Main Article: Microevolution
Although paleontology has still not been able to demonstrate the transitional forms necessary to be vindicate Darwin’s theory, proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis accepted as one of its basic tenets the proposal that all evolution was best explained by a simple extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution.[6] Many modern evolutionary biologists now assert that macroevolution is the result of the compounded effects of microevolution. It is claimed there is no fundamental distinction made between micro and macroevolution, with the only difference between them as one of time and scale.[13]
The claim that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of microevolution causes the term to have two distinct meanings and to be used variably within literature. The following two definitions of macroevolution by the Talk.Origins Archive readily illustrate that evolutionists define the term differently and remain in debate particularly regarding whether speciation should be considered a part of macro of microevolution. Note that in one instance below macroevolution is defined as the process able to produce large scale functional and structural changes, and then subsequently as being virtually indistinguishable from microevolution (evolution at the species level).
Talk.Origins Archive Definitions:
Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes, etc.[14]
Evolution at or above the species level. The boundary between macro- and micro- is fuzzy, as some researchers prefer to include speciation in micro- and others reason that the only macro- process that gives distinctive events is speciation. Speciation events are thus, to many scientists, examples of macroevolution.[15]
Controversy among evolutionists
Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of the process of microevolution, many hold strong reservations, and assert that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be explained by processes observed at the level of populations.[16] Evolutionists continue to debate whether the Darwinian mechanisms of change, which rests on the tenets of gradualism and natural selection, can explain the discontinuous nature of evolution. Many eminent evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Ivan Schmalhausen, Steven M. Stanley, and C. H. Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution represent fundamentally different processes.[5]
“ New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth’s history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life.”[17]
I think the problem is that you assume that there is a precise point (or even a vague continuum) where micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution. Macro-evolution may not even exist because it cannot be observed. You have simply assumed that truth of the premise by unconsciously applying the fallacy of affirming the consequent and now seek evidence to support your faulty premise.
"If you ask a scientist, they will say, there is no difference except that "macro" here means "long-term" while "micro" means "short term.""
I am shocked, shocked that a scientist would give such a meaningless answer to your question.
"But anti-evolutionists have picked up on these words, and insist that "micro-evolution" is A-OK, while "macro-evolution" is somehow forbidden."
You think maybe they simply refuse to accept the premise that you assumed was true 'a priori'? Does that make them wrong by definition?
"I'm asking, precisely where do you draw the line between them?"
That's because you assume that macro-evolution actually exists and that a line can be drawn. Since I don't believe that macro-evolution exists, I wouldn't be able to draw a line now would I? Again, does that make me automatically wrong? It's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed (without committing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection, btw).
What evolutionists do is commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That is, they assume that macro-evolution is true because macro-evolution 'predicts' change and since you see 'micro-evolutionary change' you assume that means that macro-evolution is true.
It is a logical fallacy, however and no good foundation for what is supposed to be a 'scientific theory'.
Dan -- can I call you Dan? -- you sound like a smart guy. You have lots of facts & quotes at your finger-tips, and you handle these arguments just like you've been doing it for a long long time. You know the characters, you know the play, right?
So, if you Dan make a silly mistake, it can't be because you don't know what you're saying, or because you haven't really thought it through, can it? Indeed, if you make a silly mistake, doesn't it have to be only because there really isn't a better answer out there?
In other words, if Dan puts forward a ridiculous argument on some particular subject, it has to be because the anti-evolutionists just don't have a serious argument to make on it, right?
So let's look at what you just said. Now the great hew and cry of anti-evolutionists is: "micro-evolution" is A-OK, but "macro-evolution" is forbidden by the "scientific laws" of intelligent design creationism, right?
So exactly what is it that's forbidden? Well, Dan, you just told us: since it doesn't exist, it can't be defined. So some evolutionary process, named "macro-evolution," which can't be defined because it doesn't exist, therefore doesn't exist because it can't be defined, right?
And this is a "scientific law" of ID-Creationism, according to GourmetDan, is that about right?
And yet, if real scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evoloution" over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can't define what "macro-evoloution," is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it's not that, right?
Right.
Actually, I didn't say it can't be defined. That's your misrepresentation. What I said was that it may not exist because it isn't observed; but I understand why you need to start moving those goalposts around.
Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn't observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It's completely a mental construct. That's what you refuse to admit.
"And this is a "scientific law" of ID-Creationism, according to GourmetDan, is that about right?"
There are no scientific laws specifically for creationism and another set for naturalism. There are only scientific laws. One of the requirements for a scientific law is that it be *observable*. Macro-evolution is not observable and is therefore not a scientific law.
"And yet, if real scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evoloution" over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can't define what "macro-evoloution," is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it's not that, right?"
What 'real scientists' are telling you is that 'macro-evolution' is not observed but is assumed to exist because it is assumed to be 'micro-evolution' over unobserved time-frames. That doesn't mean that they don't believe it, they do. We just don't observe it, therefore it fails the test of being observable. You are confusing science and belief.
"Right."
Keep trying. You may attain that firm grasp of the obvious that you seek before we're done.
[[And yet, if real scientists tell us that “macro-evolution” is nothing more than “micro-evoloution” over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can’t define what “macro-evoloution,” is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it’s not that, right?]]
I see you ig ored my post- so I’ll repost it for you since you seem to be continuing on with your argument despite have had the info you requested handed to you:
-—And for htose who try to insult Creationists for coining a term that they were not responsible for:
“The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a 1927 book titled Variabilitat und Variation. He asserted that micro- and macroevolution were processes involving different mechanisms and caliber. The terms were later introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko’s former student Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species.”-—
Woops- Macroevolution is NOT a ‘creationist term’ after all Woopsie- It seems that “Real scientists’ dissagree with BoJoek- It seems that it’s only hte apologists for Macroevolution, the ‘psuedoscientists’ if you will, that try to conflate microevolution to mean macroevolution- Can’t make that arguemnt anymore (although I’m sure the accusation will still be htrown at Creationists despite htisfact)
[[Now the great hew and cry of anti-evolutionists is: “micro-evolution” is A-OK, but “macro-evolution” is forbidden by the “scientific laws” of intelligent design creationism, right?]]
Nope- Bzzzzt! Wrong! (once again, but don’t let that stop ya) Macroevolution is forbidden by science- not ID- you know, the very science you hold dear thinking it supports Macroevolution but in actuality doesn’t?
Let’s review and see if BroJoek’s assertions that microevolution leads to macroevolution ‘over time’
[[Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of the process of microevolution, many hold strong reservations, and assert that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be explained by processes observed at the level of populations.]]
Nope- once again, we see that it’s only hte apologists for macroevolution that assert there is no biological difference- when clearly there is- as outlined in my previous post to BroJoek and repeated here:
[[“The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.”]]
Different biological process? You betcha- changing info isn’t hte same hting as creating new non species specific info out of htin air or aquiring the needed non species specific info from a foreign source- without either- macroevolution can not happen and indeed does not exist because it’s not a process which occures in nature- it can ONLY briefly occure htrough intelligent manipulation in the lab, but presents it’s own problems which prevent it from workign as planned, and keeping hte species fit. Breeding experiments have proven time and time again, that the ONLY thing we witness in nature is microevolution- Cats reamin cats, fruit flies remain fruit flies despite billions of years worth of mutations artifically thrown at them which supposedly represented billions of years worth of ‘evolution’- Macroevolution doesn’t occure in the lab, doesn’t occure in nature- but we’re to beleive it occured on a regular basis millions of years ago in billions of species trillions of times? All in nice neat little consessions? Without producing myriad transitionals despite our having discovered myriad fossils which show no such macroevolution happening?
Who is appealing to the supernatural again? Tell me- I love that little story
[[Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn’t observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It’s completely a mental construct. That’s what you refuse to admit.]]
Precisely- that about sums this whole issue up- Yet what I find funny (well, not funny really) is that those folks accuse creationists and ID’ists of ‘appealing to the supernatural’ yet the whole mythical process of macroevolution is a process of supernatural biological origins- a process which violates key scientific principles such as biological, mathematical, chemical and natural laws, and we’re not talking just simple minor, moot examples of violations which ‘might beat hte incredible overwhelming odds against it’ we’re talking about major violations trillions of times- Either nature is supernatural, or it’s the luckiest entity around- and I do mean entity IF it somehow was able to overcome these staggering odds against it- for ONLY an intelligence is capable of defeating hte very laws that govern life, and to which ALL life is subject- without exception!
Dan- have you read the thread called ‘life’s irreducible structures’? It talks about hte metainformaiton that I’ve mentioned several times in this thread, and it explains how there is a system of metainformation that MUST exist BEFORE any lower information can be changed- this metainfo is species specific, and simply throwing noise at it (ie: inserting non species specific info which falls outside the species specific parameters which maintain species fitness into the mix- for which the species specific metainfo isn’t equipted to handle,) would destroy the intricate balance and function of the species- not lead to new organs and systems as claiemd by macroevolutionists.
Anyway- it’s a very interesting thread, and probably the most important ID concept to come out in a long while- more important than Behe’s few examples of singular IC systems- it also shows why dirty chemicals found in nature can NOT for chemically pure systems as foudn in life- but we’re to beleive I guess that nature- once again- ignored scientific realities, and somehow, by gosh by golly, purified the chemicals found in nature, and created not only pure biological life, but also the higher metainfo REQUIRED to conduct life’s irredubile structures BEFORE it created these amazing chemically pure cells with it’s magic, scientific law ignoring, wand of ‘creation’
You silly creationist. Don't you know what the definition of a homology is? Let me enlighten you with my superior scientific knowledge.
"Structures that are shared by species on the basis of decent from a common ancestor are called homologies. Homologies alone are reliable indicators of evolutionary relationship."
Yes you read that right, a homology is only a homology if it is due to common ancestry which then becomes proof of common ancestry. You probably can't even understand this superior scientific logic because you are a creationist.
I didn't follow the thread, but I did get pinged on the article and read that. It is truly amazing how vast the information requirements are for life. Anyone who believes that such complexity generated itself has incredible faith in absolutely nothing.
Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that the cell controls the DNA database and acts as a database-administrator, if you will. The evidence to support the chicken in that chicken-egg scenario just continues to mount at an incredible pace.
I think the threads are much more better and more informative now that a lot of the Christian-haters are gone.
That would be 'much more better' as opposed to 'a little more better' for those who are wondering. ;-)
Much more betterer. Just below most bestest.
My lawn is flat, therefore the earth is flat.
Micro evolution takes place, therefore macro evolution takes place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.