Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

CEH ^ | March 24, 2009

[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...

[BroJoeK]

"“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."

Let's see if I understand what you're trying to tell us... In 1927 a Russian (Communist?) bug scientist expressed his opinion that micro- and macro-evolution might involve two different mechanisms, and you CottShop, think that's the final scientific word on this subject?

Well I don't read old communist manifestos for scientific information, indeed, I've never seen the subject of "macro-evolution" even mentioned by scientists, except in response to anti-evolutionist arguments.

Every real scientific discussion I've seen says evolution is a process which, continued over millions & billions of years, has produced all the diversity we see today. Nothing about micro or macro. That's just ID-Creation anti-evolution talk, imho.

But you obviously know a lot more on this subject. So let me ask you the question that stumped poor GourmetDan: scientifically speaking, precisely when does acceptable "micro-evolution" cross over the line into the forbidden "macro-evolution" zone? Can you cite an example?

[BroJoeK]

"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. "

Dan, Dan, I said I thought you were a smart guy, and now you're determined to prove me wrong! What am I going to do with you?

Here you've completely twisted your argument around backwards, claiming now that I'm the one defending macro-evolution and you are the one denying it!

Such nonsense. Remember, remember, we were talking about evolution being a walk, step by step across the country. Each step you could call "micro-evolution," and the journey from one coast to the other you might call "macro-evolution."

But you insisted that's a false metaphor. You said the true analogy would be trying to jump up to the moon -- macro-evolution. The process of jumping can never get you to the moon, you said.

So I asked you to define precisely which step is it, in our walk across country, which you think constitutes "jumping for the moon." In other words, where is it that "micro-" becomes "macro-" evolution?

So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer.

[BroJoeK]

"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?"

I'd say you are either very confused yourself, or trying your best to confuse the issue.

No scientist I've read uses the terms "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution," except in responding to their use by anti-evolutionists. To real scientists, there is only one evolutionary process, continued over millions and billions of years. Exactly what all causes evolution is a matter for considerable study and debate, but differences between micro and macro only refer to short versus long term results.

[Jim Noble]

“I accept that you may be descended from a ape; I can even accept that I may be descended from a ape; but I defy the man to state that General Robert E. Lee is descended from a ape.”

[BroJoeK]

"Micro evolution takes place, therefore macro evolution takes place."

If you've followed this discussion, you've noted that our GourmetDan has refused to define what he thinks "macro-evolution" might be, if it existed, which it doesn't, he says.

But no real scientist uses the word "macro-evolution." It is strictly a weapon used by anti-evolutionists against science.

What science says is that if evolution makes small changes over a long enough period of time, the end result will be large changes. That makes good sense to me. How about you?

[Tramonto]

What science says is that if evolution makes small changes over a long enough period of time, the end result will be large changes. That makes good sense to me. How about you?

Its like the lawn analogy, if my lawn is flat it makes good sense to me that the whole world is flat.

I took an evolution class in school and picked up a copy of 'Icons of Evolution' for supplementary reading. It was interesting to read about how the Darwinists lie and distort the evidence to fit their preconceived notions and then see the distortions in my own evolution text. My favorite was the circular logic in the definition for homologies I quoted earlier. What self respecting author would have a circular argument in a science text? If there was such extraordinary evidence for macro evolution there would be no need to resort to the lies and distortions found in most text books on the subject.

The reason the skeptics use the terms micro and macro evolution is to clarify what they are talking about. A classic Darwinist ploy is to claim that evolution simply means change over time or genetic drift or some other form of micro evolution. They then go on to insult the 'creationist' for being stupid and thinking the world is flat. The irony is that it is the Darwinists who's obsurd extrapolation is like calling the world flat because their lawn is flat.

[CottShop]

[[”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.”]]

You silly Creation denier- don’t you know that it isn’t a scientific term because common descent isn’t a scientific reality and hterefore it could not possibly be connected to common descent? Yes- you read that right- Common descent is only a fairy tale you read about in science classes- not an established scientific fact-

You just defeated your own arument by hte way- let me point it out to you- Similiar structures shared by species BUT which arise from completely different means IS the very reason why homologies can NOT be argued for a defense for macroevolution- Many species ‘share’ common structures (Pssst- it’s called COMMON DESIGN btw), even species that evos tell us are commonly descended one from hte other- soooo, since they ‘share’ common structures, BUT these structures arise in completely different ways- then the whole ‘homology argument is bunk.

“Second, however, the evolutionists’ argument works only if certain portions of the data on homology are presented. If all the available data are allowed full exposure, then the evidence from homology fails. Many years ago, T.H. Morgan of Columbia University, himself a committed evolutionist, candidly admitted what many evolutionists do not want to become common knowledge: “If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins” (1923, p. 246). Or, as Wysong wrote: “If the law of similarity can be used to show evolutionary relationships, then dissimilarities can be used to show a lack of relationship” (1976, pp. 393-394).

Evolution is a complete cosmogony. It must explain both similarities and differences within its own framework. It is not the similarities that present the problem; it is the numerous differences. As Sir Alistair Hardy, former professor of zoology at Oxford University, wrote: “The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it all in terms of present-day biological theory” (1965, p. 211). What did Dr. Hardy mean when he said, more than thirty-five years ago, that “we cannot explain it all in terms of present-day biological theory”? He meant simply this: only when evolutionists are allowed to “pick and choose” similarities that fit their theory, can the argument from homology be made to work. When evolutionists are forced to use all the data—including those documenting dissimilarity—the argument from homology utterly fails.

His point is well taken—even today. It is a documented fact that evolutionists are guilty of filtering the data to make it appear as if homology supports evolutionary theory. Now, however, that “picking and choosing” method has been exposed, as Lester and Bohlin have observed.

Another problem is that from the raw data alone, not one single phylogeny emerges, but several. The one that agrees most closely with the traditional phylogeny is assumed to be the most “correct.” This hardly demonstrates the independent confirmation of evolutionary relationships. The combining of several phylogenies from different proteins combines not only strengths but also weaknesses (1984, p. 173, emp. in orig.).”

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

[CottShop]

[[Let’s see if I understand what you’re trying to tell us... In 1927 a Russian (Communist?) bug scientist expressed his opinion that micro- and macro-evolution might involve two different mechanisms, and you CottShop, think that’s the final scientific word on this subject?]]

Let’s see if I understand htis right- You apparently are content picking and choosing whatever suits your ‘argument’ to make it look as though you are winning, when the reality is that the REST of my post made it VERY clear that it was first- not onyl a NON Creationist that came up with hte term, BUT scientists AFTER him also agree with his assessment AND with hte biological FACTS that demonstrate a complete difference between between micro and macro-

Sorry fella- but I’m NOT goign to continue an argument with someone such as yourself who doesn’t have enough integrity to honestly respond to what I post- You’ve been doign htis right from the start, and it’s clear you have no intention of carrying on an intellectually honest conversation- so have a nice day

And by hte way- the quesiton didn’t ‘stump’ Dan- He’s smarter than I am and knows when to qit with someone such as yourself long before I do- one of my shortcomings I guess

[Tramonto]

You silly Creation denier...

Ok, I should have used a /sarc tag on my post.

It is amazing that homologies are still presented as evidence for macro evolution. The fact that evolution text books contain so many lies should cause any honest person to question the whole theory.

That definition of homology was copied right out of my college anthropology text.

[spetznaz]

i thought a hippo was a horse...

You are not far off ...the name 'hippopatamus'is greek for 'river horse.' However, it is not related to horses (this whole whale vs pig debate has been on for a while ....last I read on it whales had won, but now it seems the pendulum never stopped swinging).

Anyways, on Hippos ....most dangerous animal in Africa, easily. They kill more people than any other. Particularly for anyone stupid enough to walk about at night (when they come out to feed), or between the hours of dusk and dawn when they are getting out of the river/going back into the river. Suffice it to say, a Bull hippo charging you, with 4 foot long razor sharp 'tusks' (huge vicious looking teeth) and a mouth that can open over 120-140 degrees, is an African experience unlike any other.

[GourmetDan]

"Here you've completely twisted your argument around backwards, claiming now that I'm the one defending macro-evolution and you are the one denying it!"

That macro-evolution does not exist has been the point all along.

"Such nonsense. Remember, remember, we were talking about evolution being a walk, step by step across the country. Each step you could call "micro-evolution," and the journey from one coast to the other you might call "macro-evolution.""

No. You were misusing metaphor in an attempt to support something that does not exist.

"But you insisted that's a false metaphor. You said the true analogy would be trying to jump up to the moon -- macro-evolution. The process of jumping can never get you to the moon, you said."

Go ahead and work on jumping to the moon and get back to me when you succeed.

"So I asked you to define precisely which step is it, in our walk across country, which you think constitutes "jumping for the moon." In other words, where is it that "micro-" becomes "macro-" evolution?"

Again. You first assume that macro-evolution exists and then ask me to describe where something that does not exists begins to exist. It's irrational to insist that your belief be treated as reality after your error has been pointed out to you.

"So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer."

So I point out again, focus on your 'a priori' beliefs. See if you can understand the difference between reality and belief.

[BroJoeK]

"If there was such extraordinary evidence for macro evolution there would be no need to resort to the lies and distortions found in most text books on the subject."

I know nothing about the "lies and distortions" you claim, nor "extraordinary evidence for macro evolution."

What I do know is just what science says: small changes continued over long periods of time can add up to large changes. So according to science, the ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is the time period we chose to study.

But you anti-evolutionists take that word "macro-evolution" and twist it, bend it all out of shape to use as a weapon against science. Why? What's so hard for you about making small changes over long periods of time?

[BroJoeK]

"Sorry fella- but I’m NOT goign to continue an argument with someone such as yourself who doesn’t have enough integrity to honestly respond to what I post- You’ve been doign htis right from the start, and it’s clear you have no intention of carrying on an intellectually honest conversation- so have a nice day"

Indeed, it is a nice day here...

Neither you nor GourmetDan has been willing to answer my simple question. Instead you try your best to change the subject to something else.

And now you can say nothing except to blast away with insults.

How about if you practice "enough integrity to honestly respond" yourself, and answer my question:

At what precise point does "micro-evolution" turn into "macro-evolution"?

[mysterio]

I would have to go with the genomic analysis.

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK""So I ask again, focus on the question. See if you can give it a straightforward answer."

GourmetDad:"So I point out again, focus on your 'a priori' beliefs. See if you can understand the difference between reality and belief. "

Here's what I see: you refuse to answer the question. I'm not even sure you understand the question. And all this baloney about "a priori" beliefs is just that, baloney.

Remember, you anti-evolutionists are the ones who use the term "macro-evolution" as a weapon against science. Science cares not a whit for it -- evolution is evolution, short term = micro, long term = macro, and that's all.

But you anti-evolutionists have grabbed onto the word "macro-evolution" and twisted it into a flog against science, just as if you had found something important. You didn't.

But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a patient guy. Go ahead, try again:

You say "micro-evolution" is acceptable to anti-evolutionists, but "macro-evolution" is not. So, can you define for us precisely where is the line that separates acceptable micro- from unacceptable macro-evolution? Can you give us an example?

[BroJoeK]

"Let’s see if I understand htis right- You apparently are content picking and choosing whatever suits your ‘argument’ to make it look as though you are winning, when the reality is that the REST of my post made it VERY clear that it was first- not onyl a NON Creationist that came up with hte term, BUT scientists AFTER him also agree with his assessment AND with hte biological FACTS that demonstrate a complete difference between between micro and macro-"

By the way, I notice you quoted the Russian Communist Filipchenko in 1927 opining that there might be a difference between the processes of micro- and macro-evolution. But his pupil was a fellow named T.G. Dobzhansky who wrote the book "Genetics and the Origin of Species" in America, in 1937. Here was Dobzhansky's opinion:

"we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution"

And so far as I know, that "sign of equality" has never been removed by any serious scientist.

Do you disagree?

[GourmetDan]

"Here's what I see: you refuse to answer the question."

Here's what I see: you refuse to admit your 'a priori' beliefs.

"I'm not even sure you understand the question. And all this baloney about "a priori" beliefs is just that, baloney."

I'm not even sure you understand the issue. And calling your 'a priori' beliefs "baloney" proves that you don't understand the issue.

"Remember, you anti-evolutionists are the ones who use the term "macro-evolution" as a weapon against science. Science cares not a whit for it -- evolution is evolution, short term = micro, long term = macro, and that's all."

Remember, when you demonize people you move from argument to ad hominem. You use the term 'science', but refuse to admit that your understanding of the term is based on your 'a priori' beliefs.

"But you anti-evolutionists have grabbed onto the word "macro-evolution" and twisted it into a flog against science, just as if you had found something important. You didn't."

You use emotion and rhetoric to protect your beliefs by invoking non-existent conspiracies and claiming some kind of victim status.

"But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a patient guy. Go ahead, try again:"

But I'll give you another chance, because I'm a great guy too.

"You say "micro-evolution" is acceptable to anti-evolutionists, but "macro-evolution" is not."

Where did I say that?

"So, can you define for us precisely where is the line that separates acceptable micro- from unacceptable macro-evolution? Can you give us an example?"

Again, in asking this question you inherently assume that macro-evolution exists 'a priori' when it does not. As I pointed out to you in post 111, 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). Go ahead, try it. You won't be doing anything you haven't asked of me. It just puts me in control of defining reality as you are trying to be.

Jeez you guys are dense.

[CottShop]

[[Neither you nor GourmetDan has been willing to answer my simple question.]]

Wrong- I did answer it in full- you’ll find hte answer up a few posts

[[At what precise point does “micro-evolution” turn into “macro-evolution”?]]

As explained many itmes already- there is no ‘precise point’ because they are two wholly different biological processes- one that exists in reality, and one that is not a scientific reality in nature- Macroevo is a hypothesis that violates chemical, biological, natural and mathematical laws- Microevo is a process that has defiend species specific limitations due to species specific paramters- We know this through myriad tests and experiments- species reamin within their own kinds despite htrowing billions of years worth of mutaitons at them- Micro can not, and does not, nor has ever led to macroevo because hte two are exclusive biological processes which are NOT related one to hte other-

As mentioned, you’ll find the explanation in full some posts back

[CottShop]

[[And so far as I know, that “sign of equality” has never been removed by any serious scientist.]]

Sorry- but I’ll have to dissagree- the differences ARE recognized by soem itnellectualy honest scientsits who don’t venture outside of science by attempting to extrapolate micro to macro because they recognize the two processes are completely different biologically

[CottShop]

[[It is amazing that homologies are still presented as evidence for macro evolution.]]

They are? According to who? Those who venture outside of scientific reality and try to conflate microevolution and macro as being the same?

[[The fact that evolution text books contain so many lies should cause any honest person to question the whole theory.]]

Oh not to worry- it does!

[[That definition of homology was copied right out of my college anthropology text.]]

And per usual, was given by someone with an a priori BELIEF that macroevolution happend DESPITE the complete lack of evidneces for which he/she tried to close the gaping gaps by stating that homology MUST mean ‘shared’ structures between ‘common descent’ creatures for which he has NO proof other than similarities which quite frankly more strongly point ot common design when one examines hte evidences where they lead INSTEAD of where someone wishes them to go despite evidences to the contrary