Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

Oh yes I do, what "evidences" do you have, that I have not already discussed in THIS evolution thread, and the previous one started by me? Oh do enlighten me.

[loseyourname]

You haven't addressed any of the speciation events I posted about two or three pages back. I can post more as well. Or you can just go to the talk.origins archive yourself, where I'm copying all of this from.

[Anonymouse]

Alice in Wonderland all over again. We are back to square one in which there is no evidence of evolution other than adaptational changes and "species" not "breeding", or so they would have you believe, unless one looks closer at the definition. The "evidences" of speciation are nothing but manipulation of definition. Since there is an uncertainty of what a "species" constitutes ( contrary to what Dusken claims ), many changes can be "speciation". Thus a change in the walking stick, is no different than the 13 species of Darwin's "new finches". Despite all the hoopla, a walking stick changes into nothing other than a walking stick, the finches change into nothing other than a finch, and the fruit fly changes into nothing other than a fruit fly. I don't see this as anything but marginal adaptational change, and they can still breed mind you.

[loseyourname]

The fact that you don't agree with the biological species concept doesn't make it invalid. All of the events I've posted fit the concept. They cannot produce viable offspring. Again, different species can interbreed; it is called hybridization. You're looking for a change in genus at least, which rather obviously would take much longer than the amount of time we have had to observe these things. Just admit that. Speciation has occured. No sane person will dispute that. You just want more than speciation. That's fine. Again, just be honest. Don't try to say that speciation has not occured when it has.

[Anonymouse]

Ahh finally that's the excuse I was waiting for:

You're looking for a change in genus at least, which rather obviously would take much longer than the amount of time we have had to observe these things.

[loseyourname]

I don't understand this. Are you now conceding that speciation events have occured? The fact that more drastic changes from one genus to two have not been observed is evidence for the currently accepted theory of evolution as an accumulation of small changes. If a genus change occured in a single generation, that would be a macromutation, and would constitute evidence for saltationism.

I ask again: If you have variation within a species, and changes from one species to two, what more do you honestly expect to see? This is exactly what the theory predicts. Everything that is observed, in the lab, in nature, and in the fossil record, is in perfect accord with what is predicted. It is in utter discord with the predictions of all other proposed hypotheses.

[Anonymouse]

Speciation events are nothing new. I already stated this but you didn't pay attention. These are micro changes. It is believed that through time these all would cause macro changes. That doesn't mean they do, and it means it's an assumption. So far as we know, these changes go back and forth, such as the moths for example. It goes both ways, it is adaptation, the same with the finches. These would be "microevolution" and this is nothing in denial, even creationists admit this. What's your point?

[dusken]

Microevolution is the formation of subspecies. Saying speciation is microevolution does not make sense.

[Anonymouse]

Microevolution is the formation of subspecies. Saying speciation is microevolution does not make sense.

It is change on a micro level, not a macro.

[loseyourname]

Microevolution doesn't cause macroevolution. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Microevolution adds up to macroevolution. Think of it this way. You have a rock and you add a little sand to it, making it a 0.001% larger rock. That is a very microscopic change. But if you keep doing that, say, once a generation for 10,000 years, you'll end up with a rock that is several times the size of the original. Evolution works in a similar way. Small changes accumulate. The change from generation to generation is virtually unnoticeable without a detailed knowledge of zoology. But if you compare one generation to a generation that existed 50 million years ago, they'll look about as similar as Archaeopteryx and a sparrow.