Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

[iceaura]

Are they not all still fruit flies?

Depends on your definition.
They have undergone macroevolution, at any rate - there are hundreds of different species, with radically different diets, head shapes, sizes, etc.

Those native “root species” fruit flies could also be just the reverse, a Genetic Corruption.

Then you would have proposed a wildly improbable macroevolutionary sequence for just a couple of species, and still have the hundreds of other related species to account for. You would need a hell of an argument, and a ton of evidence that contradicts the current body of evidence on dozens of points.
And of course you would be dealing with macroevolution, for all of them.

The theory forces only one interpretation on the data.

Theories do that, yep - especially the good theories, the valuable ones. Providing an "interpretation" of the data is the major goal of the theorist - it's not easy to do, especially in biology where the data pile is so dauntingly huge and varied.
Of course if you don't like what some theory provides, you can always try to come up with a better theory. In the case of Darwinian theory there have been thousands of such attempts, and by some very bright and informed and knowledgable people - but you might be the first to succeed. Go for it.

If anyone interpreted the data in any way that could go against the Theory of Evolution they would loose their Careers.

1) As noted many times now, there are several theories of evolution. I posted the names of two that have proved useful (Lamarckian and Darwinian), you may have found others - which Theory of Evolution are you talking about?
2) If anyone found a reasonable and equivalently supported interpretation of the relevant data that managed to "go against" Darwinian theory they would win Nobel Prizes and get tenure and become famous.

Please provide a few examples of transitional fossils.

Most fossils belonging to extant and common lineages are transitional fossils, if the math guys haven't completely screwed up the probabilities involved. (the only fossils that wouldn't be transitional are the dead ends, which in a densely extant lineage should be proportionately rare). The primate to hominid lineage, the bison lineage in North America, the Equid lineage, have several examples each - and recently you may recall the discovery of yet another transitional fossil in the whale lineage, joining the many and nailing down the already likely artiodactyl origin hypothesis.

Which means there is a great deal of guesswork going on, in general in this field, without any hard DNA data at all.

Since when did DNA evidence become the only "hard evidence"?

Which means we have zero DNA data from all of the millions of creatures that died and/or went extinct for millions of years before that.

Fortunately for those demanding DNA evidence and no other, we have such evidence for a long enough time to pick up solid indications of Darwinian evolution even in fossils. And of course we have all the DNA evidence from living beings - that was my example of overwhelming evidence for macroevolution, in that early post you ignored.

So the question of the existence of macroevolution has been settled three or four times over, with a half dozen different kinds of evidence. What did you need the DNA from older fossils for?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Depends on your definition.
They have undergone macroevolution, at any rate - there are hundreds of different species, with radically different diets, head shapes, sizes, etc.
Then you would have proposed a wildly improbable macroevolutionary sequence for just a couple of species, and still have the hundreds of other related species to account for. You would need a hell of an argument, and a ton of evidence that contradicts the current body of evidence on dozens of points.
And of course you would be dealing with macroevolution, for all of them.

Or basically equivalent to the Microevolution in dogs. They are all still dogs.

And the fruit flies are still fruit flies.

All we have to do is change the word “breed” to “species” and poof, we can call it Macroevolution.

Labrador Retrievers are now a Species and are a leap in Macroevolution. Genius!

Really, all of it is Macroevolution anyway so let’s just get rid of that pesky Microevolution word all together.

It just causes confusion among the sheeple.

And the Genetic Mutation Limits that we know exist within Species, don’t really exist either.

We really should tell the dog breeding community that one.

Do you want to, or should I take that one on?

You are right it’s pretty overwhelming!?!?

It really is all about word tricks and definitions.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

The “Neanderthals” are only a branch of humans that became Genetically Corrupted over time.

But the Theory of Evolution, force interprets them as being our less developed ancestors.

“The Force”, really might exist!

You’re saying that any scientist that proposed such a thing could conceivably win the Nobel Prize. I mean of course, after they were abused, fired, and their career ruined. Got it.

Remember the wretched Spanish Inquisition? Like that, only they don’t actually kill anyone.

 

[iceaura]

But the Theory of Evolution, force interprets them as being our less developed ancestors.

No, it doesn't.
Darwinian theory currently classifies them as a separate evolutionary branch, whose status as species or breed or subspecies or the like, compared with Homo sapiens sapiens, remains undetermined. They are not "less developed" than sapiens (we interbred with them), and certainly not ancestral to Homo sapiens (many regional varieties of sapiens have no genetic contribution from neandertals).

Or basically equivalent to the Microevolution in dogs

No. Hundreds of different species, not breeds, filling dozens of fundamentally different ecological niches.
More phenotypic variety than is exhibited by Canids entire, let alone "dogs". Many cannot be interbred even in the lab.
To match the variation in Hawaiian Drosophila you would need something like dogs with beaks or suctioning tubular mouths instead of teeth, different numbers of toes and claws per toe, hands with thumbs, tree climbing dogs with rotating shoulders and prehensile tails, that kind of thing.

All we have to do is change the word “breed” to “species” and poof, we can call it Macroevolution.

You would also have to change the dogs themselves to species instead of breeds. The two different words do refer to different taxonomic categories, after all.

There's a joke or kid trick (often attributed to Abe Lincoln) that runs something like this:
If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?
(wait for answer - if set up properly you can get "five" pretty often)
Four. A tail isn't a leg no matter what you call it.
(Recent careful research into kangaroo locomotion has established the disconcerting fact that a kangaroo's tail functions as a leg - since function has been a defining attribute of "leg", and there is no functional definition of "tail", there's a genuine case to be made that a kangaroo is a five-legged organism. The joke will still work, if you have nephews)

But the Theory of Evolution, force interprets them as being our less developed ancestors.

No, it doesn't.
Darwinian theory currently classifies them as a separate evolutionary branch, whose status as species or breed or subspecies or race or the like, compared with Homo sapiens sapiens, remains undetermined. They are not "less developed" than sapiens (we interbred with them), and certainly not ancestral to Homo sapiens as a species (many regional varieties of sapiens have no genetic contribution from neandertals).

As noted: the assertion that those who reject Darwinian evolution do not understand it has yet to meet a counterexample on this forum, and only rarely if ever elsewhere.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

“The Force”, really might exist!

If it makes for better sex sign me up!

:EDIT:

Wonder what sex with Darth Vader would be like.

 

[billvon]

How many years can DNA survive intact after a plant or animal dies?

Completely intact? A few days.

Intact enough to sequence? Hundreds of thousands of years. Can be up to a million depending on storage conditions.

 

[billvon]

If anyone interpreted the data in any way that could go against the Theory of Evolution, and could back it up, they would win a Nobel Prize. It is wonderfully exciting and enticing to scientists!

Fixed it for you.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Thank You everyone for presenting your own personal articles of Naturalistic faith! It helps me understand why you believe the things you do.

Discussing different points of view can be a very healthy thing!

 

[iceaura]

You’re saying that any scientist that proposed such a thing could conceivably win the Nobel Prize. I mean of course, after they were abused, fired, and their career ruined.

You are changing the example from solid and successful reinterpretation of data to "proposed" reinterpretation of data.
Let's try to stay on topic: Where are you getting the idea that major advances in evolutionary theory and comprehension would be greeted with abuse and denigration?
It's a new field, rapidly changing - there are recent examples for you to learn from, living people with careers for you to examine.

The proponents of "punctuated equilibrium", including the minority who regarded it as a contradiction of Darwinian theory altogether (not only defiant, but mistaken) did not see their careers ruined.
The minority of theorists and researchers who defied the big names and conventional wisdom to focus on nucleic acids rather than proteins as the intergenerational carriers of evolutionary change were celebrated, not persecuted. Their careers were made, not ruined, by their findings and analyses.
The fringe researchers who discovered that "epigenetic" modifications were sometimes inherited - causing a fundamental revision of the standardized model of Darwinian evolution, shaking the entire field from top to bottom - did not see their careers ruined, were not fired, are still around (many of them) doing research and publishing and so forth.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160616302974

Looking at the growing calls among evolutionary biologists for a major revision of neo-Darwinism (though for very different reasons), paleobiologist Erwin (2007)concluded that “there is nothing scientists enjoy more than the prospect of a good paradigm shift”, referring to the concept of paradigm shifts by historian/philosopher of science Kuhn (1962). Erwin's observation is strongly supported by the development of epigenetics, a fashionable subject which is not only a fast-growing scientific field, but also widely attended to in the popular literature. Scientists and commentators of science enjoy the prospect that epigenetics is leading to a “paradigm shift” in many fields

Discussing different points of view can be a very healthy thing!

Yes, it can. Are you ever going to try it? Afaik you would be the first of your philosophical persuasion to engage in actual discussion on this forum - the first in a long while, anyway.

 

[(Q)]

I would say that the reality of Noah’s Flood breaks many theories about our past into pieces. And would require rethinking quite a bit of our assumptions about our past.

I believe that it would also break the Theory of Evolution apart at the seams.

It also clearly makes the faith of Naturalism false.

And that is the primary reason all evidence for it is rejected.

If you could reason with a Creationist, they wouldn't be a Creationist. That's why there's no reasoning with Seti.

 

[paddoboy]

If you could reason with a Creationist, they wouldn't be a Creationist. That's why there's no reasoning with Seti.

While what you say is true, at least Seti appears open and transparent as to his beliefs, and of course that's his business.
Let me say that in that respect, I have more respect for him [SETI] then one or two other fools in another thread, who like to pretend that there "science" supports there concept of ID and creationism.
The facts still stand....Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started: And evolution, both micro and macro are facts.

 

[billvon]

The “Neanderthals” are only a branch of humans that became Genetically Corrupted over time. But the Theory of Evolution, force interprets them as being our less developed ancestors.

See, you are imposing your religious beliefs on science. They were not our "less developed" ancestors. They were a separate branch of humanity. They went extinct, as 99.99% of all species have done.

And that "corrupted DNA?" We have some of that DNA. It is no more or less "corrupted" than any other DNA. Honestly you're starting to sound like the white supremacists, leery of mixing "corrupted" less-developed DNA in with the DNA of the master race.

You’re saying that any scientist that proposed such a thing could conceivably win the Nobel Prize. I mean of course, after they were abused, fired, and their career ruined. Got it.

Nope. After they spent years working on it, and it was accepted by mainstream science. Nobel Prizes aren't given to religious cranks who can't back up their claims.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Care to give me your opinion of the following?

 

[paddoboy]

Care to give me your opinion of the following?

I can find questionable videos to support any cause I wish Seti. While the Internet, WWW is one of our greatest inventions, it's also an invention that every kook, and nut in this world can use to spread his or her ideas, no matter how silly, no matter how implausible..You believe the Earth is flat? Check out the videos claiming that nonsense.
Only one fact matters: Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory for how life came to be.

 

[iceaura]

Care to give me your opinion of the following?

Transcript or forget it.

You have left four or five issues hanging - why not take a break from changing the subject and spamming the site with videos, and catch up on the issues you raised earlier?

Like the guy said:

Discussing different points of view can be a very healthy thing!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Here is the transcript as requested...

https://fpb.livejournal.com/297710.html

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Here is the transcript as requested...

https://fpb.livejournal.com/297710.html

Yet, I didn't request a transcript.

 

[billvon]

Here is the transcript as requested...

https://fpb.livejournal.com/297710.html

I like CS Lewis. He was a great fantasy writer, and was a staunch theologian.

But I would also point out that that makes him . . . not the best person to go to for opinions on science. It would be like going to Richard Dawkins for an interpretation of the Gospel of Mark.

 

[iceaura]

Here is the transcript as requested...

From the transcript, apparently CS Lewis written, the very first page, fifth paragraph:

I do not mean that the doctrine of Evolution as held by practising biologists is a Myth. It may be shown, by later biologists, to be a less satisfactory hypothesis than was hoped fifty years ago. But that does not amount to being a Myth. It is a genuine scientific hypothesis. But we must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth.

I mistook your posting for an attempt at discussing evolutionary theory as biologists and other scientists have it. If you intend to discuss the various misapprensions and errors and common flaws in understanding among the uneducated or unfamiliar, then a new thread in a different subforum would be more appropriate.

It might be interesting. Lewis seems a fairly reliable retailer of such things, at least among his own people, and the differences (or even more significantly the similarities in error) between the popular understanding of "evolution" in Lewis's day and in our own would almost certainly enlighten and inform.

For example, a little on, not far, still in the introductory paragraphs, Lewis:

To reach the positions held by the real scientists--which are taken over by the Myth--you must, in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational--if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel--how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution?

And the slide into drawing conclusions about the biological theory from observations of the Myth has already begun - at the very highest levels of Western intellectual endeavor.

That particular error*, common still, apparently dates to the early days of Western civilization's coming to terms with what we know today as "modern science" - from when an intellectual such as Lewis could look at scientific research and see a jumble of disparate investigations into clockwork mechanisms, not a body of interconnected and mutually enlightening discoveries coalescing into a vastly enlarged view of a hauntingly splendid and only contingently "material" universe.

*The mental flip of variation/selection from constraint to cause, replacing deity in deity's role, so that realizing the emergence of human reason was via "conditioning" undermines rather than reinforces its alignment with the natural world; the natural world being thereby presented as either directed by reason (deity) or "irrational" (no deity enforcing reason). The fundamentalist monotheist's frame - very nearly imposing a photonegative of the Darwinian evolutionary theorist's frame.

 

[James R]

Labrador Retrievers are now a Species and are a leap in Macroevolution. Genius!

Obviously you haven't managed to learn the basics, like the definition of the word "species". Look it up.

And the Genetic Mutation Limits that we know exist within Species, don’t really exist either.

Genetic mutation limits? What are they?

The “Neanderthals” are only a branch of humans that became Genetically Corrupted over time.

No. Modern humans are the species Homo sapiens. Neanderthals are a different species, Homo neanderthalensis.

There was nothing "genetically corrupted" about neanderthals. I don't even know what you mean by "genetically corrupted". Perhaps you can explain.

But the Theory of Evolution, force interprets them as being our less developed ancestors.

Firstly, they aren't exactly our ancestors.(*) Secondly, what do you mean by "less developed"? What makes you think that neanderthals were "less developed" than you are?

---
* Actually it seems likely that there was some interbreeding between early Homo sapiens and neanderthals, which means that most of us these days probably have some neanderthal DNA. But the two species co-existed. It is wrong to say that neanderthals were ancestors of Homo sapiens. The two species co-evolved.