DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).
<font color="white"> . </font>
So let me pose this question. If you have:
<font color="white"> . </font>
a) Self-replicator[ing] organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
d) The differential reproductive success of individual replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then
<font color="white"> . </font>
Evolution is inevitable.
<font color="white"> . </font>
So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only difference between microevolution (which all accept, creationists and normal people alike) and macroevolution is the Sorites paradox. I figured it would just be easier to explain the Sorites paradox to you, rather than go through gobs and gobs of scientific evidence only to have you reject them on faulty logical premises.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

I see a lot of illustrations and not a lot of actual bones.

However, the bones that I DO see start with a modern day chimpanzee, and has 12 "intermediate" skulls that lead up to modern day humans.

Am I seriously the only one who can find fault with the fact that the two skulls on each end are still alive today, and all the supposed "upgrades" to the original have died off?!?


Surely I can't be the only one who finds this a little ridiculous. Stop trying to 15th level yourself here, and just use common sense. Why, if the 12 skulls in the middle were better than the chimp, do we only find the chimps and the [censored] sapiens still alive!?

These are the simple questions that all evolutionists cannot answer, which is why you need to stop trying to pawn this theory off as fact!

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

I see a lot of illustrations and not a lot of actual bones.

However, the bones that I DO see start with a modern day chimpanzee, and has 12 "intermediate" skulls that lead up to modern day humans.

Am I seriously the only one who can find fault with the fact that the two skulls on each end are still alive today, and all the supposed "upgrades" to the original have died off?!?


Surely I can't be the only one who finds this a little ridiculous. Stop trying to 15th level yourself here, and just use common sense. Why, if the 12 skulls in the middle were better than the chimp, do we only find the chimps and the [censored] sapiens still alive!?

These are the simple questions that all evolutionists cannot answer, which is why you need to stop trying to pawn this theory off as fact!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a link to reptile-bird transitions, and from there a fossil record of reptiles to birds. Not sure what more you really want...if you wanted to see the fossils yourself you could probably arrange it, might cost you some time and money though.