Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

Ok so im bored and decide to watch some documentary called 100 reasons why Evolution is stupid as opposed to 100 reasons why creationism s stupid because i felt like watching something positive.

Anyway im watching and i do see the usual dumbass religious Bs im used to seeing but they also provide GOOD points that ive never thought of before and i was shocked.

Though they still cannot add to the evidence for God etc it has actually opened my mind.

Macro Evolution seems unplausible.

He states that Micro evolution does and is proven to exist but man evolving from a rock is just ridiculous.

I wish i could remember his points (1 of which was that the chemicals in the time of the earths creation werent able to support evolving life) but all i can really think of now is that there is no missing link. WAIT!

I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

This argument is flawed and incomplete but u can see my point, why do the 'inferior' apes still live if we in some form evolved off them.


Edit: Lol i spelt the title wrong.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

I have no idea if this post is serious, i hope not though. A few things anyway.

We didnt directly evolve from Neanderthals.

Evolution isnt nearly as clear cut as " humans evolved from chimps who evovled from gorillas. At some point there was a common ancestor of chimps and humans who probably wasnt one or the other.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

Cliff:


The evolutionary process over billions of years of change through environmental pressures is stupid and the invisible sky-ghost just snapped his fingers and BAM everything came out of NOTHING. ldo

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
but man evolving from a rock is just ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that all those scientists out there that claimed we evolved from rocks are wrong?!?! Good. Personally I think we evolved from lamps anyway. Especially those tall ones from Ikea because they are shaped more like us.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes species die out. Sometimes they don't. We have fossils that prove many of those species "in between apes and man" existed. There's Lucy the Australopithecus afarensis and plenty of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals.

If every species around killed the species before it, life could not possibly exist for many reasons. If you want an obvious one think food chain, but there are reasons a lot more complex than that as well.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

I wish i could remember all of his points.

Do the scientific world as a whole support macro evolution?
I think there are splits on certain issues of it.

Popeye my ie wasnt a thorough descrip of evolution.

Try and find that documentary anyway it is hopefully more persuasive than me.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have an urge to kill your grandmother?
If not, if you don't, who's going to do it?
You seem to have a vision of a ape giving birth to a mormon.

Why don't we kill gorilla's now? ( not that they are our ancestors).

At each stage of evolution ( which means each generation) our ancestor had siblings and cousins that were not going to be ancestors of humans ... why would our ancestor kill his brother or cousin?

luckyme

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.


[/ QUOTE ]


We didn't evolve from chimpanzees and gorlillas, they evolved along a different path, the common ancestor we did evolve from is likely extinct.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
He states that Micro evolution does and is proven to exist but man evolving from a rock is just ridiculous.


[/ QUOTE ]

if only there was a barrier that stopped micro-evolution from adding up to what we call macro-evolution.

if anyone would like to propose one...I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to hear about it.

[ QUOTE ]
but all i can really think of now is that there is no missing link. WAIT!

[/ QUOTE ]

if we found the "missing link"...there would be 2 more to find [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]..and if we found those...you see where I'm going?

[ QUOTE ]
I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

errr...evolution is a branching...your "original apes" are NOT modern apes...they are the common ancestor of both humans and modern apes.

some modern apes may closely resemble that ancestor and give insight into that common ancestor...but they have had just as much time to evolve as humans have....the reason that they still resemble that modern ancestor is that they fill a particular niche...and they are evolved to exploit that niche to the best of their ability (actually, only to a better ability than their competitors)

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do the scientific world as a whole support macro evolution?
I think there are splits on certain issues of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

certainly..but whether it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

Are there any scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution on any non religious wholly scientific grounds?

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

from the OP -
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway im watching and i do see the usual dumbass religious Bs im used to seeing but they also provide GOOD points that ive never thought of before and i was shocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prodigy - be patient. He didn't say he's provided us with the GOOD points yet. Obviously the ones he raised in the OP do not even rise to being wrong.

luckyme

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

apes? what type of apes? All modern primates are modern animals. We aren't descended from modern chimpanzees. Rather, chimpanzees and ourselves share a common ancestor. This is like using the existence of your sister to disprove that your grandfather was ever alive. Do creationists have any line they will not cross?

IMO, creationist "intellectuals" are like russian generals during world war one. They were unashamed to send men to the front line unarmed and untrained. Similarly, creationists have no shame in sending their followers around with bad info/arguements. I guess they are hoping that they never encounter any real resistance.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do the scientific world as a whole support macro evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. From Wikipedia: [ QUOTE ]
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[8].

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but man evolving from a rock is just ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that all those scientists out there that claimed we evolved from rocks are wrong?!?! Good. Personally I think we evolved from lamps anyway. Especially those tall ones from Ikea because they are shaped more like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hair is like a lampshade, our feet are like a base, we all have electrical cords that supply our power....only a fool would think this was a coincidence.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

The apes we evolved from are all dead, btw.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol creationists are stupid. Those are some of the worst arguments I've ever read.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol creationists are stupid. Those are some of the worst arguments I've ever read.

[/ QUOTE ]
They really are. Kind of life-tilts me a little that my family uses some of them, but whatever.

Speaking of life tilt, my evangelical friend who is trying to convert me sent me this book. We should do a SMP book club for this beauty. The "arguments" in it are so ridiculous that I don't understand how someone as smart as my friend falls for them. Critical thinking ftl [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Edit: the customer image for that book is from "Home Schooler." lol. o rly?

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

once you accept microevolution, macroevolution follows without any added phenomena. nothing is missing. if you can see how some features of a population will change over time (longer legs, more fur, longer teeth etc..) then you can see that over vast periods of time (hundreds of millions of years) that macro evolution will occur.

FYI nobody is saying that live evolved from rocks. Life evolved from self-replicating organic macromomolecules. The self replicating macromolecules DNA and RNA are the basis of life today, and they are more sophisticated versions of the ones that arrived in the chemical/organic soup of the earths oceans 3.5 billion yrs ago. they came to be through random, naturally occurring chemical/energy cycles and required no design from an outside source.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

I think we evolved from rocks.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

I'm pretty sure rocks is a common ancestor we share with bananas.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

vhawk,

I'm sorry we couldn't continue our discussion in politics. I'm exiled from there.

If you want some food for thought about what we talked about (and this stuff is pretty out there compared to most people), check this:
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/fo...=19&t=7200

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure rocks is a common ancestor we share with bananas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm not sure if you are being facetious, I'm not.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure rocks is a common ancestor we share with bananas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I'm not sure if you are being facetious, I'm not.

[/ QUOTE ]


I realized that some would view my post as a joke/level, but really, it's really not! (and this is also not a double level)

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

The whole macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution thing is a red herring. "Macro-evolution" is nothing more or less than the accumulation of "micro-evolution" over a very long period of time.

I have yet to see any creationist site prove anything except their complete lack of understanding of how evolution actually works.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The whole macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution thing is a red herring. "Macro-evolution" is nothing more or less than the accumulation of "micro-evolution" over a very long period of time.

I have yet to see any creationist site prove anything except their complete lack of understanding of how evolution actually works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, to be honest, the evolution that most creationists are arguing against really IS ridiculous and unlikely and hard to believe in. They come to the right conclusion, at least.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

There's Lucy the Australopithecus afarensis and plenty of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Aus.'s are no mostly longer considered in man's family tree. Cro-Magnon IS man. Neanderthal was not an ancestor of man.

See if you can find anything on the next latest direct ancestor of man. Or the next before that.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see any creationist site prove anything except their complete lack of understanding of how evolution actually works.


[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't looked at reasons.org.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

certainly..but whether it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Evidence doesn't matter on this issue.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

certainly..but whether it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Evidence doesn't matter on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If scientists disagree on something like...to what extent populations must be isolated (not exactly the easiest thing to measure) in order to speciate rather than converge genetically through "inter"breeding (inter is in quotes because it refers to populations that may become separate species), does this mean that there is insufficient evidence that sufficiently isolated populations can speciate at all?

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If scientists disagree on something like ... etc


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking theory, I was talking evidence, like fossils for instance.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If scientists disagree on something like ... etc


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking theory, I was talking evidence, like fossils for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

then I suppose my initial response should read..

[ QUOTE ]
certainly..but whether the evidence is sufficient to show that it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

there may be a number of scientists that disagree...but it is not even close to a "split" (or at least what I imply "split" to mean...close to 50/50)

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
See if you can find anything on the next latest direct ancestor of man. Or the next before that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep saying things that demonstrate your cluelessness about the theory you think you're debunking.

As with most things related to evolution, we are talking about a slow and gradual process. There is not a binary distinction, going back in time, where we say, "This species ends precisely here, and this one begins here.

I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical.

Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. The wikipedia page on Human Evolution is pretty good. Have a look.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See if you can find anything on the next latest direct ancestor of man. Or the next before that.

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep saying things that demonstrate your cluelessness about the theory you think you're debunking.

As with most things related to evolution, we are talking about a slow and gradual process. There is not a binary distinction, going back in time, where we say, "This species ends precisely here, and this one begins here.

I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical.

Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. The wikipedia page on Human Evolution is pretty good. Have a look.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where it originally comes from, but this example was used in The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we evolved from rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lithogenesis FTW.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a beautiful theory. Too bad the facts get in the way so badly. If it happened like you say there should be many, many fossils that are mostly similar but with notable differences. What we actually have is a relatively few "species" into which all of the fossils fit with little difference between individuals. And we have individuals of distinct "species" (for instance, erectus), spanning 1 million years or more with little or no changes. In other words, what the fossil record actually shows, and I believe this is mostly true for all macro evolution, not just humans, is long periods of stasis with inexplicable radiations interspersed, appearing suddenly, almost as if, oh, I don't know, somebody had magically caused them to appear, like a Creator, for instance.

[ QUOTE ]

Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's mostly accepted now that erectus did not evolve from habilis, which means habilis isn't our ancestor if erectus is.


"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis," says Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Says a Leakey

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a beautiful theory. Too bad the facts get in the way so badly. If it happened like you say there should be many, many fossils that are mostly similar but with notable differences. What we actually have is a relatively few "species" into which all of the fossils fit with little difference between individuals. And we have individuals of distinct "species" (for instance, erectus), spanning 1 million years or more with little or no changes. In other words, what the fossil record actually shows, and I believe this is mostly true for all macro evolution, not just humans, is long periods of stasis with inexplicable radiations interspersed, appearing suddenly, almost as if, oh, I don't know, somebody had magically caused them to appear, like a Creator, for instance.

[ QUOTE ]

Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's mostly accepted now that erectus did not evolve from habilis, which means habilis isn't our ancestor if erectus is.


"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis," says Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Says a Leakey

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand how rare fossils are. It's not like we get fossils for every decade of Earth's existence or anything. And I also think you should familiarize yourself with the term "punctuated equilibrium". It deals with your objection about periods of stasis followed by sudden speciation.

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand how rare fossils are.


[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that position. It means there is little or no evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

And I also think you should familiarize yourself with the term "punctuated equilibrium".


[/ QUOTE ]

I know this theory. It's not exactly the gradualism touted by qwnu. So which is it? Darwin or Gould?

Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
 

You're thinking in binary again.