DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

Thanks for addressing my style of writing rather than the actual points, that says a lot.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
What agenda would that be? Teaching people Biblical truths is your idea of "an agenda to push"? And while we're on the topic of agenda, what's yours? To get my account at this website banned?

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
Referring to my postings as spam is your opinion. If you think I am going to confine myself to the same group of people at the same forum day in and day out, think again. If that works for you, fine. Give me variety anytime. At any given time, I am active at no more than four or five forums.

Most of the forums that you see me registered at are abandoned accounts or else I was banned for some reason or the other. I suspect you're making this announcement about me discussing the same topics elsewhere so the moderators here can ban my account. You won't be the first atheist who has used that tact. I've been banned from several websites after atheists started hollering for moderators to get rid of me because I'd started the same discussions elsewhere and--get this--because they could not overcome my arguments. What it boils down to is you're spiteful.

FYI: I start up threads on the same topics at other forums (most of which I no longer participate at) because those topics are important to me. If you had bothered to read a few of my posts, you would have seen that I respond one-on-one with people and that my responses vary, according to what each individual is telling me. If someone happens to bring up an argument that I've previously covered at another website, then of course I will cut and paste the same response. Or are you suggesting that I post a different answer to the exact same question and end up contradicting myself?

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
Be sure and let the forum known when you've tracked down the correct volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Don't expect any help from me, because I already see where this is going. You are going to milk this for all you can get from it. You are determined to get your five minutes of fame.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
There are different types of evolution now that the word "evolution" is applied to everything, including evolution of computers, evolution of cell phones, evolution of cars, etc. "Organic" or "biological" evolution, as you found out, is with reference to living organisms aka Darwin's macroevolution.

All you had to do was look up the words "organic" and "biological" and you would have seen it's with reference to living organisms. It's not my problem that you made all this build-up (or so you claim) about me presenting a new type of evolution.

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
I am genuinely amused at your insincerity. I kid you not.

 

Are you suggesting there is an anti-evolution scientific community? Or is that just what others call creationists?

 

No, no, I don't want to see anyone banned. We all have an agenda I guess, I suppose I'm here simply to indulge my desire for debate. I mean, almost nothing said on this forum changes anyone's mind really does it.

Spam is unsolicited bulk messages. You say 4 or 5 but I counted 16 sites where you seem to be posting this (admittedly I didn't check all 16 to make sure they were all you, maybe it's slightly less). It's certainly unsolicited, and OK, maybe it's only my opinion that 16 forums counts as 'bulk', but I stand by it. I don't want you to be banned for spam, I just want to make people aware of your methods. If you're not ashamed of it, then we can just leave it at that, surely?

So, just to be clear: you want to APPEAR to be providing a citation for your definition, but you refuse to give enough detail to actually track down that citation to verify it.

Also: lol, "fame".

As you say, the word 'evolution' is very often used in other contexts, including metaphors. That's why I thought maybe this was referring to something other just regular plain old evolution. But it turned out to be just a longer name for evolution - however much you don't believe it, I really was slightly disappointed, although obviously I was overstating it for effect.

That's nice. I like to think I'm a fun guy, I'm honestly glad I brought you some amusement - I enjoyed writing it, too. It was exaggerated, of course, any idiot can see that, but is exaggeration the same as insincerity?

Now, perhaps you can address the actual points? Just to remind you, NOTHING you replied to me with actually addresses the following:

1. evolution is linked to, but DOES NOT INCLUDE, theories about how the first life began.
2. All of the evidence is consistent with the view that humans evolved from some other species, and nothing contradicts it.
- for example, unless I'm mistaken, there are no mammal fossils worth mentioning, that are older than 300 mya
3. Transitional fossils of the type I believe you expect (see below) would be vanishingly unlikely to be found, given the tiny number of fossils we actually own, compared to the vast number of organisms that have ever lived on the planet.
- the question of what is a transitional fossils is in itself interesting, because under currently prevalent ideas of evolution, every species can be thought of as transitionary, or at least potentially transitionary, in a very real sense.

 

So you believe that each species initially experienced a Spontaneous Generation in its beginning.

Then those species reproduced from there forward.
You oppose what Evolutionists say was a short period of Abiogenesis that created all the initial cells that thereafter diversified into all the many different life form we see today????

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CUPID DAVE:
Where did you get the idea that I believe in spontaneous generation? Are you kidding? I'm debunking spontaneous generation in this thread and you're asking me if I believe in it!

I most certainly don't believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis aka life coming to life by itself. I am strictly a creationist. I believe only in the Genesis creation account found in the Judeo-Christian Bible at Genesis 1:1-31 where Jehovah God did the creating.

Below is info on the fallacy of spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis as defined by two different dictionaries.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spontaneous+generation

 

Well, evolution is not really linked to theories of life emerging from non-life but the other way around: For all practical purposes, life emerging from non-life seems to be an evolutionary process.
Some will probably say it's semantics but I'll beg to differ

Indeed, very precisely put.

 

PART 1 of 2​

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

No fossils have ever been found showing ANY species or type of animal evolving into an entirely different species or type of animal.

When pro-evolution scientists claim they have evidence evolution occurred, they're referring to "microevolution," which isn't evolution at all. It's simply adaptation of the animal to its environment. In other words, the animal didn't evolve into something else. It's simply a variation of the exact same animal. Therefore the change is considered "below the species level." Anything below the species level is just a variation of its parents and can therefore produce offspring (can interbreed) with other variations of itself.

DEFINITION OF "MICROEVOLUTION":
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF "SPECIES":
"Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species




We see examples of "microevolution" in different breeds of dog, in variations of horse, in variations of domestic house cat, etc. Since dogs are variations of wolf, all breeds of dog can produce offspring with all other breeds of dogs, including with wolves. Similarly, since horse and zebra belong to the family Equidae, they can interbreed. The slight differences in the physical appearance of creatures that are within the same species is irrelevant because the differences are "below the species level." Therefore the creature can interbreed with other breeds within the same species. Dog breeders can breed different variations of dog from now until kingdom come and they will always wind up with dogs. The same can be said of other species of creatures.

The point is that the term "microevolution" is a trick-phrase used by pro-evolution scientists to mislead the gullible: to have people thinking it is possible for creatures to evolve into something other than what they started off as. The argument I hear often by those who don't have a clue is that: "microevolution indicates the creature can keep evolving until it changes into something entirely different" (macroevolution). In reality, there is no such thing as microevolution. The creature didn't evolve from the get-go. It simply adapted to its environment or produced variations of its own kind.

I will address the "macroevolution" fallacy in my very next post.

 

PART 2 of 2​

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
God created animals to produce variations of themselves. The result is that animals of a certain species will adjust to their environment by, for example, producing more fur in colder climates. The creature didn't "evolve." It simply adapted to its environment by means of it's inborn genetic makeup, which has a set limit. Once the creature reaches its limit and cannot adapt to environmental changes, it dies rather than change into an entirely different creature.


The term "macroevolution" refers to any species or type of animal evolving into an entirely different species or type of animal. The resulting creature can no longer interbreed (produce offspring) with the creatures it started off as. Examples of this is a squirrel evolving into a bat or a whale evolving into a bear, which are actual Charles Darwin claims that have since been debunked.

There is no evidence in the fossils--the bones of long-dead animals--showing macroevolution ever occurred. It's simply a theory that has now reached the level of myth. So to mislead the gullible, pro-evolution scientists look at similarities in bones and claim the similarities are of animals at different stages of evolving into something else. Ask them to find bones that connect one set of fossils to another (the missing link) and they will start lamenting about gaps in the fossils record.

"Gaps in the fossils" equates to "there are no bones connecting one creature to another, regardless of the fact that animals appear to be similar."


Anything ABOVE the species level belongs to a different species and cannot interbreed with anything besides creatures of its own species.

DEFINITION OF "MACROEVOLUTION":
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


Notice how slick the pro-evolution scientists are. In the above definition of "macroevolution," they claim that this occurs over "very long time periods" or "over geologic time" aka millions of years. In other words, they have no way of proving macroevolution since no human has lived "over geologic time."

Where macroevolution is concerned, what it boils down to is blind faith: believing something occurred while having no means of proving it. These are the same people who laugh at Christians for believing in God because they claim there is no proof of the existence of God (a fallacy, as there is ample proof for the existence of God).

 

the thread is just a troll


Darwin never used the word EVOLUTION in the first edition, once.


The thread author has done nothing but introduce arguments that 'it' has accepted.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below are two sources confirming Charles Darwin's false claim that bears evolved from whales or vice versa.

At Evidence #1, Charles Darwin's claim that whales descended from bears is bolded in red. The quotation in Evidence #1 also mentions other pro-evolutionists and their wild claims about whales evolving from various creatures (I bolded theirs in black)


EVIDENCE #1:

http://www.squidoo.com/whale-evolution



EVIDENCE #2:

(SOURCE: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; Chapter 6, p. 184)

 

Darwin got some stuff wrong. Humans are only human, they get stuff wrong. Sometimes, they get some of the details wrong, but the general idea is right. That's what happened with Darwin.

 

*sigh*

Why do you try to argue against something you clearly do not even understand?

 

She's a creationist. There's your mistake. They have interesting things to say... well, just about never.

Wrooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnngggg

Spontaneous generation was the long-debunked theory that fully-formed macroorganisms just spontaneously popped into existence. It has about as much to do with the modern theory of abiogenesis as pixie dust has to do with shark attacks - nothing.

...Because that's not evolution. In fact, were such evidence found, it would throw the entire discipline on its head, because an animal giving birth to a creature of another species, that isn't genetically compatible with its parents is not evolution.

...Which is caused via natural selection of allele frequencies. You know, the actual definition of evolution that the scientific community espouses - a change in allele frequency within a population. Or would you care to propose some other mechanism via which animals "adapt" to their environments? Keeping in mind that such adaptation occurs in the span of generations, not within individuals?

*sigh*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YhE3a5dqw

Watch this video, and you'll see your mistake. Macroevolution and microevolution are not two different processes. They are one process over different spans of time. And, for what it's worth, this idea is completely destroyed by the several known ring species. Look it up.

...Which is interesting, because we've observed numerous cases of speciation. Huh. Go figure.

Care to substantiate your claim of that "set limit"? Because it certainly isn't built into DNA. Oh, and, once again, we have observed speciation. Are you claiming we haven't?

...How long do you imagine it takes for, say, a lineage to go from one genus to another?

You will be a missing link when you die.

See, here's how this creationist chestnut works. Here is what it used to look like:

Man - Homo Erectus - Ape

Creationist looked at that and said, "okay, so where are the two missing links?" So scientists went out and found them.

Man - Homo Habilus - Homo Erectus - Java Man - Ape

Then creationsts looked at that and said, "Well, now we have four missing links!"

...You see how this works?

Yes. Because such transitions are incredibly gradual. In order to map a smooth connection of one creature to its ancestor, you'd need a fossil of every single link in that chain. Because they are all transitional forms.

Actually, the more common definition is "Evolution at or above the species level". And we have mountains of evidence for it - from straight-up lab observation of speciation to genetic information to the fossil record to endogenous retroviruses. Are you ignorant of all of this?

Prove to me that Jesus lived.

Oh, wait, you weren't there. Guess you can't. Oh well!

See how stupid this argument is? You've fallen into the classic creationst trap of ignoring literally every means of evidence that isn't immediate and stationary. That's dumb. Reeeeeeealllly dumb. It essentially means that nothing beyond 100 years ago could possibly be known. And before you start going on about history books, guess what: that is how fossil and genetic evidence works!

 

Speaking of speciation, I wonder what the official creationist position is on lions and tigers? They can produce more or less non-viable offspring, but offspring nonetheless, which is a great indicator (without digging into more meaty & meaningful data such as their genetics) that they are distantly related to one another.

The question is: are they separately specially created or two branches from the same created big cat? And what about all the other cats around the world? Where do you draw the line between "microevolution" and separate special creation?

Maybe Alter 2 Ego can help me out here.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Pro-evolution scientists have been known to stoop to outright dishonesty in order to validate the macroevolution myth. A case in point is the now debunked claim regarding a so-called australopithecus humanoid dubbed "Lucy," which was later exposed as a hoax, false.

Below is all that was found of the so-called "Lucy" which pro-evolution scientists insisted was the remains of the first human. Now, explain to me how anyone—except those with vivid imaginations—could decide something like that resembles a human?

​

Below is another view of "Lucy."

​

Notice what one of the fraud reports said about "lucy."

Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud


ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
To translate, more complete skeletons were found of apes that match up with the partial skeleton of "lucy". But the pro-evolution scientists refused to face reality. So they dreamed up an image of what "lucy" must have looked like from just the few bones I posted above. Below is the depiction of "lucy" that these dishonest scientists dreamed up from the partial skeleton—which started off with no feet.

as an adult, only 3.5 feet tall​

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
In your post above, you presented me with a bunch of speculations aka personal opinions from various sources, including your personal opinion that the earth, the sea, and everything else created themselves. Then you came right out and admitted there is no proof of any of this and that there will likely never be proof. But you refer to all of what you just said as "fact base" science! Facts are not speculations. Facts are things that have already been proven.


DEFINITION OF "SCIENTIFIC FACT":
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact


DEFINITION OF "SPECULATION":
Speculation is the act of formulating an opinion or theory without fully researching or investigating.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/speculation?



For now, I will leave you to your "fact-based" scientific speculations.

 

Yes, just as snowflakes "form themselves," so too did the Earth and the life upon it, because these things happen according to the natural properties of their constituent materials in a given environment.

Can you demonstrate where and how in the formation of the Earth and its life a magic moment involving something you call God was needed?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- DURANDAL:
At this point, there's no need for this conversation to go any further. The minute someone tells me the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere, while they have no problem acknowledging that it required an intelligent person to create a stick of chalk, that's when I figure it's time for me to move on.

"For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:20)

I'm moving on.

 

It's time to move on just because of a difference of opinion? No wonder debating with you is such an uphill struggle.

 

Is there a forum where "Alter2Ego" does not post these exact same things?

 

No it doesn’t… All it means is they have the same chromosomes… This argument for evolution is very far from the truth dealing with species of life on this Earth. Tigers and Lions are not very similar but share the same about of chromosomes, but there is life that are exactly alike – like the beaver (two separate species) who cannot have offspring because their chromosome count is separated significantly. . Everything in both species is exactly the same – there is no difference that we can see except in chromosome count… Therefore, since we see this in nature, we can conclude that the Lion/Tiger or Horse/Donkey phenomenon is exactly that – a phenomenon that is based on Chromosomes…

 

No it doesn’t… All it means is they have the same chromosomes… This argument for evolution is very far from the truth dealing with species of life on this Earth. Tigers and Lions are not very similar but share the same about of chromosomes, but there is life that are exactly alike – like the beaver (two separate species) who cannot have offspring because their chromosome count is separated significantly. . Everything in both species is exactly the same – there is no difference that we can see except in chromosome count… Therefore, since we see this in nature, we can conclude that the Lion/Tiger or Horse/Donkey phenomenon is exactly that – a phenomenon that is based on Chromosomes…

 

I'd probably be a creationist, too, if scientists actually said "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere." Since no scientists say that, what's your actual excuse for moving on?