I guess you missed the point, I am pointing out the amount of information contained in the DNA. Some estimates, using your scenario is on order of a magnitude in difference between an Amoeba and a human in terms of DNA information content.
DNA of amoeba: 5 x 10^8 bits of information
Human: 6x10^9 bits of information
Information is a generalized term related to the specified complexity of the DNA. Mutations of the DNA in the lab have shown a loss of information most of the time and never an increase in information. And information isn't just duplication of the same DNA, that is similar to make a copy of the same letter on the copy machine - no new information, just the same information twice. Tests have never been able to show where information is added - which leads to dramatically different species/kinds.
Not sure what you mean by the mechanism that the designer used, but you raise an important other point that evolution cannot explain. We all agree DNA exists and contains the blueprint for how any living organism grows and is fashioned into what it becomes. DNA by itself does nothing, it is the blueprint, you still need the "computer" if you will that interprets that information and causes certain chemical interactions to occur to produce the expected result. Where DID that computer come from? Kind of like a chicken and the egg problem for evolution, but not a problem for ID. God created the computer and the DNA.
Hey Copid,
Objective evidence and you have numbers? Not sure what you mean by the numbers thing, but the concept is simple. When you look at the DNA for a single-celled organism compared to that of a fish, you will find a fish has a lot more DNA information not present in the single-celled organism. So if the only letters you have to write a book with are A through D, you can only have that much variation to work with. A fish by analogy, has the letters A through M and there are no observable methods or transistional forms to indicate where the extra letters could come from - in fact observable microevolutionary changes to DNA have always show a deletion of letters or duplication at best and never the addition of more letters. I don't know how to make it any simpler. What numbers are you referring to? This article may help address what you are asking: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp
As to the remarkable coincidence, this article covers this quite nicely and thoroughly. A very short summary would be that having similar DNA simply means a designer uses the same building blocks for similar things, but does not definitely indicate that one species evolved from another. In fact, it is not consistent in that other primates do not have the same coincidence so evolution seemed to have burped really badly...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp
The article you referred to simply makes an assumption based on 20-20 hindsight. Kind of like making a prediction based on previously known information - well I guess I could do that to. The real test is the one Darwin himself indicated - transitional fossils should abound for macroevolution and if not he would be wrong - guess what, he was wrong.
Hey Yawn,
I certainly understand your position. Science is king, but be careful what you call science. The scientific method requires that you observe something, come up with theories, and then collect facts that support the theory. So far macroevolution is stuck at the "come up with theories" phase and desperately trying to collect facts. So far the facts are for a different theory which is microevolution which is small changes within the same species which generally degrade the DNA (loss of information) and has NEVER shown that DNA information is added. So after a hundred years of intense study, macroevolution has actually had more evidence to indicate it is not viable. In fact because the original falsifiable statements by Darwin where proven to be false, which is lack of transistional fossils, the evolutionary proponents change their ground rules and came up with the Cambrian explosion of kinds and that actually has a very "insert miracle" aspect to it that no one is able to explain.
Neither of us will convert the other, but I hope you can step outside your box of questionable logic and take a true scientific method approach to macroevolution and see where it takes you, you might be surprised. I have...
Thank you for the classic evolutionary response - "Oh, you don't like my long shot logic that ties together the origins of man? Well, tough, go find your own hard evidence."
Just because you are comfortable with the long shot odds and logic doesn't mean I should be. I have taken lots of study and thought on this subject and I just need good hard evidence - which is a part of the scientific method - and none has been found. I don't have hard evidence that God exists either, but I can more easily explain things using ID than you can with evolution.
Please respond with more canned evolutionary thought about why us ID folks are off our rocker and continue to not provide proof. Just more proof that you are wrong.
While on the subject, just thought a real funny story.
An evolutionist is walking around his backyard and finds a coin on the ground. Upon careful thought and logical introspection quickly rents a backhoe and digs up his whole backyard. His neighbor asks, "Hey Evo, what's up? You have a big hole in your backyard!"
Evo responds "I found this coin on the ground, one of many that I have found in my life on the ground and it suddenly dawned on me that coins come from the ground, so I am going to get rich and find all the coins further down in the ground!".
What a bozo - takes more faith to believe the insane logic of small accumulated random changes of dirt over billions of years than to believe ID. Both are religions - except one makes a lot more sense than the other. If you choose not to want to believe in a higher power - so be it, just be upfront and make that presupposition plain - you can't hide behind facts since you don't have any.
"...and embrace empirical proof and verifiable knowledge." If you mean in regards to evolution between various kinds (aka macroevolution), there is none. Maybe you should step out of your imaginary world of conjecture or stop drinking whatever you are doing to believe that you descended from a fish.
Here's the challenge, post right and here and now (the challenge I have given more than once on this slanted forum (pun intended)) one empirical fact or verifiable fact that shows evolution between kinds has been proven. If you want to refer to the horse evolution chart - disproven, if you want to refer to the little moth that changes color - disproven, the flying dinosour fossil - was a fake; please just post something credible that hasn't been forged that shows what you call empirical proof for macroevolution. Once you bang your head on the wall for a while or wear your fingers out surfing the net looking for stuff you can go back to drinking the koolaid.
Thanks and have a nice day in your imaginary world.
My simple overview of evolution was essentially correct, time + matter + chance and poof you have "the next best thing" in a long line of other things which get increasing more complex.
Here's the flaw in evolution - the great anti-designer theory - you quote exactly what other evolutionists state, the whole concept of *usefulness*. Tell me, how does dirt make a decision? How did the first few molecules of stuff decide that one feature was more desirable than another. If a cell splits and produces some kind of variant DNA (not new genes of information mind you, no one has been able to explain how that could happen yet), how does "it" decide that the new DNA is better than the previous DNA? What is "it"? How did "it" decide? In a purely random manner, "its" decision making process should be completely random. If I flip a coin 10,000 or 1 billion times, I will invariably end up with about 50% heads and 50% tails, therefore not making any progress in any direction - try it, you CAN reproduce this fact.
Of course we can stray into irreducible complexity, but you evolutionists don't like to discuss that since you just state that if you work backwards just enough in the smallest of increments over billions of years you might be able to work around this sticky problem. Not! You still end up with some kind of inherent designer doing some kind of decision making about what is the next best *useful* iteration - dirt doesn't have brains!
There is also the problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and as well the scientific principle that all things tend to degrade over time - completely opposite of the evolutionary logic. Funny though that the first two things mentioned are observable and reproducible, the latter is not.
Your explaination on the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution was just not complete and contains the same old statements evolutionsts make when they can't get their evolutionary facts in order -- just give us a few more billions of years.
I do like AIG because they are thinking people. They challenge anything that claims to be true science and isn't. The gaps in evolution are more than just little gaps - it is whole sections of logic missing and in sane logic at that.
As stated, you aren't ready to debate the issue, you haven't even read the articles I referred you to which have great facts as well. Too bad you are stuck on your opinion being right, verses trying to discovering real facts. You don't have to agree with the whole philosophical premise of AIG, but you can certainly appreciate their research and challenges to evolutionary junk science.
Just to be clear, not too many on/. will be willing to discuss this topic soberly, openly and with facts. Talking about narrow mindedness and inflexibility! Everytime we ask for facts, the response so far has been "RTFM", meaning, they can't recall any particular fact or reasonable train of thought by which they can support macro-level evolutionary processes but they can certainly quote the names of all the other smart guys who can write a bunch of stuff.
I at least I read your article you suggested, you clearly didn't read the one I sent. So why proceed with this discussion if you aren't going to read alternatives and try to debate the facts? Are you interested in facts and truth or just defending your position at all costs?
Scientists not ethical? Don't get me started. Ernst Haeckel is one of the more infamous scientists who admitted to creating evidence with his embryo charts trying to show the evolutionary relationships between species. He forged his evidence!
Let's see the most recent being the Korean scientist last year who fabricated his own results for genetic research -- hmm, sounds like scientists can lie and cheat with the best. The pressure to "publish or perish" is intense and evolutionary dudes today have no less temptation to try and win the battle. Today they don't have to fabricate evidence, they just call everyone else stupid and then wave their hands about how complex it is even though it has huge gaps of logic and evidence.
Macro-Evolutionary predictions for future species. Really? I haven't heard of any, just give me one. Micro-evolution is NOT macro-evolution and in fact essentially would be counter-productive to suggest they are related or based on one another.
Agreed that the origins of life and how we are designed is very complex and any theory will have gaps. However, one must also step back on any theory and give it a bit of a sanity check to see if it is worthwhile. The so-called theory of macro-evolution requires that I have enough faith to believe that if I put all the parts of a watch in a bag and shake it long enough it will assemble itself through ever accumulating random patterns into a completely functional unit that keeps times accurately. This is just insane and time to move on to other theories that have a bit more facts and a lot less wishful thinking.
You cannot find a single example of a lower order species DNA evolving to a higher order species DNA. You can only find small variations of DNA within the same species. Micro-evolution is observable, but you cannot extrapolate micro-evolutionary processes out to say it becomes macro-evolution. If you take any micro-evolutionary process that is documented, you will almost always find that DNA information is lost. One good example article to read is http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343Critics_ Plantcolour.asp . You can't evolve to a higher state without adding information and no scientist has yet been able to figure out how that can happen in nature.
I have read several articles and books on evolution. It is still a simple conjecture that all animals and humans evolved over billions of years from a single primative original species and something that should be easily proven and hasn't! Just because several people have been very verbose in their explaination of how evolution could work doesn't make it true. Just give me the facts - it should be easy.
I truly hope you read the article posted above and that website in general, it will at least give you good food for thought. Don't stop learning and challenging your ideas - evolution has a lot of gaps, at least be open to other ideas.
Hey Tom, what's your point? $toms_comments =~ s/bs//; results in 'change how you say evolution and it becomes credible'? Funny. Macro-evolution is lacking on facts alone. The fossil record should be clear, it isn't - the DNA traces should be clear - it isn't.
How about we change the theory of evolution and make it credible? Oh, that has already been done... about a few hundred times. Real science requires open debate about facts - this just doesn't happen today with maco-evolution - it isn't allowed. Why?
Organized science should be banned. Just because a bunch of so-called scientists say we should trust them and just accept their conjecture is not a good thing. If you don't "go with the crowd" in science, you are black-balled. This is primarily because it is a "publish or perish" culture and not a true open environment for debate. Ban organized science!
If you can't produce a single observable, reproducable fact for macro-evolution without a lot of explaination then shut up.
At the end of the day, even if one were to ignore all the flaws in this horse evolution (there are many), you still have a horse! I need to see that next step down where the horse evolved from a different species altogether like a fish. There should easily be a fossil record showing the process - doesn't exist.
This horse evolution "fact" and many others are not vetted properly, if they were, they would never be allowed in print. Instead many unethical scientists have "created" their own facts and/or not fully explained how they derived their information - such as the case with the horse evolution - a lot of information was left out about how the fossils were gathered and how they are (not) related.
As to PE, it is still an insane idea, even if Gould tries to lend it credibility by limiting its scope to within a taxa. All he has to do is string enough of these "poofs" together to skip over a lot of unexplained gaps.
And if the other 52% have evolved in the same fashion as micro-evolution, then you should find you are just a little less smarter than the other 48% since micro-evolution always results in loss of DNA or features (a mutation). Don't despair, I'll loan you a couple genes.:-)
Just because a few guys say something is not up for debate doesn't make it so. They desperately WANT it to be finalized and accepted since they are trying to have the last word on the subject. Problem is, they just can't seem to tie up the loose ends on their idea of macro-evolution.
Used to be that the discussion was finalized on all the "junk" DNA. Guess what, someone decided it wasn't, pursued it and found out that a bunch of that "junk" DNA was very important. How many times will atheistic scientists try to shout down others who don't salute their brilliance? I guess the answer is, as often as they have to until we all just check our brains at the door.
I agree that believing or not believing evolution is not a measure of intelligence. In reality it really is a measure of faith. I do believe it is important that one know WHY you believe or do not believe in evolution. The reason I believe this is an important debate is that the scienific community as a whole wants to disprove the need for belief in a God. Proving that God could not exist then means you don't have to have faith in anything and therefore I really don't need to have any morals or be accountable for my actions.
I don't have enough faith to believe in macro-evolution. The Borel number has been vastly exceeded on the probability of macro-evolution occuring (even just the simple aspects of macro-evolution) and therefore also logically not reasonable to embrace or pursue.
as well as 52% of those who can't give you a good reason why they believe in evolution other than "because other so called smart people told me I should".
Based on the wiki's definition of theory, macro-evolution doesn't come close to qualifying for such. It is certainly a conjecture and a popular one at that.
Macro-evolution is NOT a verified hypothesis, it is NOT a logical explaination, it is NOT a proven model, it has NOT predicted future occurrences of evolution that have been observed (since macro-evolution has not been observed or reproduced in the lab) and is clearly NOT tested through experimentation.
I am glad you posted this to clarify the exact status of evolution - it is a conjecture - an opinion.
Gravity is a testable and observable - nothing with macro-evolution has come close to be either. I will also point out that most evolutionists base macro-evolution on micro-evolution. That because something happens in small increments within a given species it should be extended to assume that this same process creates new species; it has never been shown to be true. This would be somewhat analagous to assuming that because I can jump into the air and achieve a small amount of zero gravity that one day, if I just try hard enough and let time take its course, I will be able to float in the air for as long as I want - get real.
The problem with basing macro-evolution on micro-evolution is that micro-evolution, such as viruses mutating to resist, certain species losing a tail, etc, is all about information loss - the DNA and the "features" are lost, not added. Macro-evolution to a higher order species requires the addition of information to DNA and that just hasn't been proven/reproduced/observed in the slightest - at least I can't find it on Google:-)
Ditto on your recommendation - unfortunately virtually no one on this thread who is an "evolutionist" will even visit the site and attempt to discuss even one point. They have already decided that Christians aren't smart and could not possibly have a competing idea or the ability to debate evolution in a credible way - now who is the narrowed minded ones?:-)
I really agree with your observation about having a calm, intelligent discussion about evolution. I personally don't have enough faith to believe in in the so-called theory of macro-evolution. But rarely does one get to debat why before it is side tracked into subjective opinions about why you do or don't believe in evolution.
There is a big difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution - no debate there. But you will not find a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution - a species evolving into another species. I have asked multiple times and the answer I get is "it is just too complex to simply prove in a a few "facts" - you just have to imagine".
As I have stated on other sub-threads - the crux of macro-evolution is a coherent fossil record - it doesn't exist and it doesn't exist even close. Logic screams that if evolution is true, then after billions of years and trillions upon trillions of reproducing animals - we could easily track down a reaonsable fossil record. Even better, if macro-evolution is so dominate, it should easily be reproduced in the lab where information is naturally added to DNA to produce a completely different species - has never happened - not even close. Even the evolutionsts have given up on this and created Punctuated equilibrium to fill in the gaps in the theory.
I haven't even touched on a lot of the other very esoteric, almost crazy sub-theories being attached to evolution that I really can't imagine anyone believing if they just followed the logic.
If evolution is so dominant, we should easily find a fossil record that clearly shows the process of evolution. This simply does not exist, not even close. So, you would think that with billions of years and trillions upon trillions of reproduced species, we could find one simple case of a species evolving into another - you won't find it anywhere - this is the true test of evolution, the fossil record or a lab experiment which observes information being added to DNA naturally to produce a higher order species or another species - again, has never happend. I consider this the true test of evolution and evolutionsts have given up on this aspect - they created Punctuated equilibrium to fill in the gaps - wiki that .
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you missed the point, I am pointing out the amount of information contained in the DNA. Some estimates, using your scenario is on order of a magnitude in difference between an Amoeba and a human in terms of DNA information content. DNA of amoeba: 5 x 10^8 bits of information Human: 6x10^9 bits of information Information is a generalized term related to the specified complexity of the DNA. Mutations of the DNA in the lab have shown a loss of information most of the time and never an increase in information. And information isn't just duplication of the same DNA, that is similar to make a copy of the same letter on the copy machine - no new information, just the same information twice. Tests have never been able to show where information is added - which leads to dramatically different species/kinds. Not sure what you mean by the mechanism that the designer used, but you raise an important other point that evolution cannot explain. We all agree DNA exists and contains the blueprint for how any living organism grows and is fashioned into what it becomes. DNA by itself does nothing, it is the blueprint, you still need the "computer" if you will that interprets that information and causes certain chemical interactions to occur to produce the expected result. Where DID that computer come from? Kind of like a chicken and the egg problem for evolution, but not a problem for ID. God created the computer and the DNA.
Hey Copid, Objective evidence and you have numbers? Not sure what you mean by the numbers thing, but the concept is simple. When you look at the DNA for a single-celled organism compared to that of a fish, you will find a fish has a lot more DNA information not present in the single-celled organism. So if the only letters you have to write a book with are A through D, you can only have that much variation to work with. A fish by analogy, has the letters A through M and there are no observable methods or transistional forms to indicate where the extra letters could come from - in fact observable microevolutionary changes to DNA have always show a deletion of letters or duplication at best and never the addition of more letters. I don't know how to make it any simpler. What numbers are you referring to? This article may help address what you are asking: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp As to the remarkable coincidence, this article covers this quite nicely and thoroughly. A very short summary would be that having similar DNA simply means a designer uses the same building blocks for similar things, but does not definitely indicate that one species evolved from another. In fact, it is not consistent in that other primates do not have the same coincidence so evolution seemed to have burped really badly ...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp
The article you referred to simply makes an assumption based on 20-20 hindsight. Kind of like making a prediction based on previously known information - well I guess I could do that to. The real test is the one Darwin himself indicated - transitional fossils should abound for macroevolution and if not he would be wrong - guess what, he was wrong.
Hey Yawn, I certainly understand your position. Science is king, but be careful what you call science. The scientific method requires that you observe something, come up with theories, and then collect facts that support the theory. So far macroevolution is stuck at the "come up with theories" phase and desperately trying to collect facts. So far the facts are for a different theory which is microevolution which is small changes within the same species which generally degrade the DNA (loss of information) and has NEVER shown that DNA information is added. So after a hundred years of intense study, macroevolution has actually had more evidence to indicate it is not viable. In fact because the original falsifiable statements by Darwin where proven to be false, which is lack of transistional fossils, the evolutionary proponents change their ground rules and came up with the Cambrian explosion of kinds and that actually has a very "insert miracle" aspect to it that no one is able to explain. Neither of us will convert the other, but I hope you can step outside your box of questionable logic and take a true scientific method approach to macroevolution and see where it takes you, you might be surprised. I have ...
Thank you for the classic evolutionary response - "Oh, you don't like my long shot logic that ties together the origins of man? Well, tough, go find your own hard evidence." Just because you are comfortable with the long shot odds and logic doesn't mean I should be. I have taken lots of study and thought on this subject and I just need good hard evidence - which is a part of the scientific method - and none has been found. I don't have hard evidence that God exists either, but I can more easily explain things using ID than you can with evolution. Please respond with more canned evolutionary thought about why us ID folks are off our rocker and continue to not provide proof. Just more proof that you are wrong.
While on the subject, just thought a real funny story. An evolutionist is walking around his backyard and finds a coin on the ground. Upon careful thought and logical introspection quickly rents a backhoe and digs up his whole backyard. His neighbor asks, "Hey Evo, what's up? You have a big hole in your backyard!" Evo responds "I found this coin on the ground, one of many that I have found in my life on the ground and it suddenly dawned on me that coins come from the ground, so I am going to get rich and find all the coins further down in the ground!". What a bozo - takes more faith to believe the insane logic of small accumulated random changes of dirt over billions of years than to believe ID. Both are religions - except one makes a lot more sense than the other. If you choose not to want to believe in a higher power - so be it, just be upfront and make that presupposition plain - you can't hide behind facts since you don't have any.
"...and embrace empirical proof and verifiable knowledge." If you mean in regards to evolution between various kinds (aka macroevolution), there is none. Maybe you should step out of your imaginary world of conjecture or stop drinking whatever you are doing to believe that you descended from a fish. Here's the challenge, post right and here and now (the challenge I have given more than once on this slanted forum (pun intended)) one empirical fact or verifiable fact that shows evolution between kinds has been proven. If you want to refer to the horse evolution chart - disproven, if you want to refer to the little moth that changes color - disproven, the flying dinosour fossil - was a fake; please just post something credible that hasn't been forged that shows what you call empirical proof for macroevolution. Once you bang your head on the wall for a while or wear your fingers out surfing the net looking for stuff you can go back to drinking the koolaid. Thanks and have a nice day in your imaginary world.
Here's the flaw in evolution - the great anti-designer theory - you quote exactly what other evolutionists state, the whole concept of *usefulness*. Tell me, how does dirt make a decision? How did the first few molecules of stuff decide that one feature was more desirable than another. If a cell splits and produces some kind of variant DNA (not new genes of information mind you, no one has been able to explain how that could happen yet), how does "it" decide that the new DNA is better than the previous DNA? What is "it"? How did "it" decide? In a purely random manner, "its" decision making process should be completely random. If I flip a coin 10,000 or 1 billion times, I will invariably end up with about 50% heads and 50% tails, therefore not making any progress in any direction - try it, you CAN reproduce this fact.
Of course we can stray into irreducible complexity, but you evolutionists don't like to discuss that since you just state that if you work backwards just enough in the smallest of increments over billions of years you might be able to work around this sticky problem. Not! You still end up with some kind of inherent designer doing some kind of decision making about what is the next best *useful* iteration - dirt doesn't have brains!
There is also the problem of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and as well the scientific principle that all things tend to degrade over time - completely opposite of the evolutionary logic. Funny though that the first two things mentioned are observable and reproducible, the latter is not.
I do like AIG because they are thinking people. They challenge anything that claims to be true science and isn't. The gaps in evolution are more than just little gaps - it is whole sections of logic missing and in sane logic at that.
As stated, you aren't ready to debate the issue, you haven't even read the articles I referred you to which have great facts as well. Too bad you are stuck on your opinion being right, verses trying to discovering real facts. You don't have to agree with the whole philosophical premise of AIG, but you can certainly appreciate their research and challenges to evolutionary junk science.
Just to be clear, not too many on /. will be willing to discuss this topic soberly, openly and with facts. Talking about narrow mindedness and inflexibility! Everytime we ask for facts, the response so far has been "RTFM", meaning, they can't recall any particular fact or reasonable train of thought by which they can support macro-level evolutionary processes but they can certainly quote the names of all the other smart guys who can write a bunch of stuff.
Loved your post.
I at least I read your article you suggested, you clearly didn't read the one I sent. So why proceed with this discussion if you aren't going to read alternatives and try to debate the facts? Are you interested in facts and truth or just defending your position at all costs?
Scientists not ethical? Don't get me started. Ernst Haeckel is one of the more infamous scientists who admitted to creating evidence with his embryo charts trying to show the evolutionary relationships between species. He forged his evidence!
Let's see the most recent being the Korean scientist last year who fabricated his own results for genetic research -- hmm, sounds like scientists can lie and cheat with the best. The pressure to "publish or perish" is intense and evolutionary dudes today have no less temptation to try and win the battle. Today they don't have to fabricate evidence, they just call everyone else stupid and then wave their hands about how complex it is even though it has huge gaps of logic and evidence.
Macro-Evolutionary predictions for future species. Really? I haven't heard of any, just give me one. Micro-evolution is NOT macro-evolution and in fact essentially would be counter-productive to suggest they are related or based on one another.
I have read several articles and books on evolution. It is still a simple conjecture that all animals and humans evolved over billions of years from a single primative original species and something that should be easily proven and hasn't! Just because several people have been very verbose in their explaination of how evolution could work doesn't make it true. Just give me the facts - it should be easy.
I truly hope you read the article posted above and that website in general, it will at least give you good food for thought. Don't stop learning and challenging your ideas - evolution has a lot of gaps, at least be open to other ideas.
How about we change the theory of evolution and make it credible? Oh, that has already been done ... about a few hundred times. Real science requires open debate about facts - this just doesn't happen today with maco-evolution - it isn't allowed. Why?
If you can't produce a single observable, reproducable fact for macro-evolution without a lot of explaination then shut up.
At the end of the day, even if one were to ignore all the flaws in this horse evolution (there are many), you still have a horse! I need to see that next step down where the horse evolved from a different species altogether like a fish. There should easily be a fossil record showing the process - doesn't exist.
This horse evolution "fact" and many others are not vetted properly, if they were, they would never be allowed in print. Instead many unethical scientists have "created" their own facts and/or not fully explained how they derived their information - such as the case with the horse evolution - a lot of information was left out about how the fossils were gathered and how they are (not) related.
As to PE, it is still an insane idea, even if Gould tries to lend it credibility by limiting its scope to within a taxa. All he has to do is string enough of these "poofs" together to skip over a lot of unexplained gaps.
And if the other 52% have evolved in the same fashion as micro-evolution, then you should find you are just a little less smarter than the other 48% since micro-evolution always results in loss of DNA or features (a mutation). Don't despair, I'll loan you a couple genes. :-)
You give yourself too much credit.
Used to be that the discussion was finalized on all the "junk" DNA. Guess what, someone decided it wasn't, pursued it and found out that a bunch of that "junk" DNA was very important. How many times will atheistic scientists try to shout down others who don't salute their brilliance? I guess the answer is, as often as they have to until we all just check our brains at the door.
I don't have enough faith to believe in macro-evolution. The Borel number has been vastly exceeded on the probability of macro-evolution occuring (even just the simple aspects of macro-evolution) and therefore also logically not reasonable to embrace or pursue.
Post facts not a bunch of BS.
Operators are standing by to take your facts and post them to this thread .... oops, evolutionists don't have any, I guess this will be a short thread.
Macro-evolution is NOT a verified hypothesis, it is NOT a logical explaination, it is NOT a proven model, it has NOT predicted future occurrences of evolution that have been observed (since macro-evolution has not been observed or reproduced in the lab) and is clearly NOT tested through experimentation.
I am glad you posted this to clarify the exact status of evolution - it is a conjecture - an opinion.
Gravity is a testable and observable - nothing with macro-evolution has come close to be either. I will also point out that most evolutionists base macro-evolution on micro-evolution. That because something happens in small increments within a given species it should be extended to assume that this same process creates new species; it has never been shown to be true. This would be somewhat analagous to assuming that because I can jump into the air and achieve a small amount of zero gravity that one day, if I just try hard enough and let time take its course, I will be able to float in the air for as long as I want - get real.
The problem with basing macro-evolution on micro-evolution is that micro-evolution, such as viruses mutating to resist, certain species losing a tail, etc, is all about information loss - the DNA and the "features" are lost, not added. Macro-evolution to a higher order species requires the addition of information to DNA and that just hasn't been proven/reproduced/observed in the slightest - at least I can't find it on Google :-)
Ditto on your recommendation - unfortunately virtually no one on this thread who is an "evolutionist" will even visit the site and attempt to discuss even one point. They have already decided that Christians aren't smart and could not possibly have a competing idea or the ability to debate evolution in a credible way - now who is the narrowed minded ones? :-)
I really agree with your observation about having a calm, intelligent discussion about evolution. I personally don't have enough faith to believe in in the so-called theory of macro-evolution. But rarely does one get to debat why before it is side tracked into subjective opinions about why you do or don't believe in evolution. There is a big difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution - no debate there. But you will not find a single piece of evidence for macro-evolution - a species evolving into another species. I have asked multiple times and the answer I get is "it is just too complex to simply prove in a a few "facts" - you just have to imagine". As I have stated on other sub-threads - the crux of macro-evolution is a coherent fossil record - it doesn't exist and it doesn't exist even close. Logic screams that if evolution is true, then after billions of years and trillions upon trillions of reproducing animals - we could easily track down a reaonsable fossil record. Even better, if macro-evolution is so dominate, it should easily be reproduced in the lab where information is naturally added to DNA to produce a completely different species - has never happened - not even close. Even the evolutionsts have given up on this and created Punctuated equilibrium to fill in the gaps in the theory. I haven't even touched on a lot of the other very esoteric, almost crazy sub-theories being attached to evolution that I really can't imagine anyone believing if they just followed the logic.
If evolution is so dominant, we should easily find a fossil record that clearly shows the process of evolution. This simply does not exist, not even close. So, you would think that with billions of years and trillions upon trillions of reproduced species, we could find one simple case of a species evolving into another - you won't find it anywhere - this is the true test of evolution, the fossil record or a lab experiment which observes information being added to DNA naturally to produce a higher order species or another species - again, has never happend. I consider this the true test of evolution and evolutionsts have given up on this aspect - they created Punctuated equilibrium to fill in the gaps - wiki that .