The battle over Evolution (continued)

[winoman]

Microevolution vs Macroevolution - misconceptions

Much of the misconception of these concepts has to do with the definition of what consititues a species - and in fact this is somewhat arbitrary (much like defining/deliniating one race from another) etc

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

From above:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell.

[Anonymouse]

Hm - how can one "adapt" if they do not "evolve"? And evolve, change, adapt - all interelated. And there is more then ample evidence for creatures that were not quite dogs or not quite all the various creatures we see now - being something that is in essence an earlier form - there is a tremendous amount of evidence for such - that combined with observations of all types, predictions that have come to pass, application of falsability, application of genetic discoveries and so on and so forth - comprising a great body of evidence - making the proof for evolution as solid as that of any scientific understanding.

From Websters:
Main Entry: adapt
Pronunciation: &-'dapt, a-
Function: verb
Etymology: French or Latin; French adapter, from Latin adaptare, from ad- + aptare to fit, from aptus apt, fit
transitive senses : to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification

ADAPT implies a modification according to changing circumstances

Main Entry: mod·i·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "mä-d&-f&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun

3 a : the making of a limited change in something; also : the result of such a change b : a change in an organism caused by environmental factors


Entry Word: evolve
Function: verb
Text: 1
Synonyms DERIVE 1, educe, excogitate
Related Word get (at), obtain; advance
2
Synonyms UNFOLD 3, develop, elaborate
Related Word advance, progress; mature

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere

2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

That's where you're wrong. Adaptation is not evolution. Evolutionary theory likes to be inclusive and include adaptation so as to have "proof" but they are not the same. Moths and fruit flies do not evolve they merely adapt. You can make definitions elastic to have something, but that is just what evolutionary desperation is.

[Anonymouse]

After all the discussion you have seen from me? Youre either desporate for a come back or.... nope, youre desporate for a come back.

Why do you mention winoman when he wasnt even talking to you and them complain about him? Stop insulting people and noone will bother you.

I didn't insult anyone. The only one desperate for a comeback is yourself which would explain your above post. And the only reason I mentioned winoman was not an insult. Why are you so quick to assume it's an insult. Are you paranoid? I only mentioned him because all he does is post articles as you can clearly see. By the way, no one bothers me.

[Anonymouse]

Much of the misconception of these concepts has to do with the definition of what consititues a species - and in fact this is somewhat arbitrary (much like defining/deliniating one race from another) etc

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

From above:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell.

What does posting this prove? Nothing. Why would evolutionists want to claim there is a difference between micro and macro? Of course they wouldn't. Within species variation is still within species variation. That is about the only thing that we have observed is that species adapt within themselves. How does this lead to bigger and better changes? That is where the guessing game begins.

[Anonymouse]

Peppered with Dishonesty
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Almost every biology book printed in the last two decades contains a picture with which most college students are quite familiar—the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In fact, earlier this year the Discovery Institute reviewed eleven textbooks being considered by the Texas State Board of Education, and six of them contained the story of these moths (for the complete review, visit http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...exasPrelim.pdf.) Of those six books, five received failing grades for their dishonest portrayal of the peppered moths. For many years, the images of the light- and dark-colored moths have been touted as proof that evolution occurs. The story that commonly accompanies the picture of England’s famous peppered moths revolved around the industrial revolution in England. Reportedly, at that time most of the moths were a light, speckled-gray color. Their light color supposedly allowed them to camouflage themselves among the light colored lichens on the trees. Thus, birds had trouble identifying these light-colored moths. A dark (melanic) form also existed, but this moth was said to be rare, as it stood out on the lichen-covered trees, and was easily seen (and thus eaten) by birds.

Textbooks then point to pollution as the trigger for an evolutionary change in the moths. The industrial factories in England started producing soot and smoke, and the tree lichens died, exposing the dark bark, and thus causing the trees to turn black. Allegedly, this change caused light-colored moths to become easier to see, while the darker moths remained safely camouflaged. Thus, in only a few years, the population of light and dark moths had reversed itself—with the black moths greatly outnumbering the white moths. According to evolutionists, this change in the moth population “proves” that species can “evolve” different characteristics that allow them to survive—or so the story goes.

But while the story may sound good, it is far from the truth. As Gabby Dover admitted:

This earlier group [of British naturalists—BH] had succeeded in convincing itself, and the academic world at large, that their manipulations of the peppered moth in industrial and non-industrial environments had finally and permanently nailed Darwin’s theory of natural selection to the mast of the good ship Beagle. How the mighty have fallen. The soft underbelly of flawed science, dubious methodology and wishful thinking in what became a classic textbook account of evolution in action has since been exposed… (2003, 4[3]:235, emp. added).

This little secret of science did not suddenly come to light just this year. In the introduction to the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, L. Harrison Matthews summed up the obvious when he wrote:

Some experiments are said to demonstrate evolution in action; those on industrial melanism in moths are a well-known example…. The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection or survival of the fittest. But they do not show evolution in progress. For however the population may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia (Darwin, p. xi).

The problems with using the peppered moths as an evolutionary icon only begin there. There also is a serious problem with those images that adorn so many textbooks. The problem is—the images were faked! During the decades that H.B. Kettlewell spent researching the moths, only two moths were ever found resting on tree trunks during the day—one light and one dark. British scientist Cyril Clarke, who later investigated the peppered moth extensively, noted:

But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time.… In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere (Clarke, et al., 1985, 26:197, parenthetical item in orig.).

Peppered moths, it turns out, are night-fliers. As University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne observed: “The natural resting spots are, in fact, a mystery. This alone invalidates Kettlewell’s release-recapture experiments, as moths were released by placing them directly onto tree trunks, where they are highly visible to bird predators” (1998, 396:35, emp. added). So how did the textbook editors obtain such dramatic pictures of the moths on trees? The moths were arranged in an artificial setting—dead moths were either pinned or glued to tree trunks, or captured moths were forced to stay on the trunks. As Carl Wieland noted:

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured “a lot of fraudulent photographs” (1999, 21[3]:56, emp. in orig.)

The theory about the moths “evolving camouflage” for survival was totally false. And, even though many of the writers and textbook publishers know the truth, they are still using the images today.

Also consider that dark moths and light moths have always been around. There was no new genetic material created to form a black moth. This “textbook story” is nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, between populations. But realize, we still are dealing with a single created kind. The moths are still moths! They did not evolve into spiders, cats, or humans. Yet, sadly, the peppered moths nevertheless are being used as “proof” for evolution. Young people need to understand that while the moth population always had the built-in ability to vary in color, the moths never had the ability to become anything other than moths.

And if all that were not bad enough, Coyne reported that the results of Kettlewell’s behavioral experiments were not replicated in later studies: “moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds” (396:35). As Roy Herbert remarked: “The melanic moth became a textbook example of evolution, solidly established. However, there have since been so many criticisms of Kettlewell’s work that industrial melanism has lost almost all credibility” (2002, 175[2361]:52). Indeed it has. Now, if we could just inform the millions of students who were sold this bill of goods in their freshman biology classrooms, and have since bought into the evolutionary theory as a result.

Evolutionist Jerry Coyne admitted that the peppered moth story, which was “the prize horse in our stable,” now must be discarded (p. 35). He went on to admit: “My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve” (p. 35). But sadly, as the Discovery Institute documented, six out of eleven science textbooks being considered by the Texas State Board of Education in 2003 contained this false story. If evolutionists are going to point to the peppered moth as proof of evolution, then they must be ready for parents and children to question the accuracy and validity of such “proof.” And textbook publishers need to know that they no longer can feign ignorance in their biased support of evolutionary theory. The gig is up.

REFERENCES

Clarke, C.A., G.S. Mani and G. Wynne, (1985), “Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 26:189–199.

Coyne, Jerry A. (1998), “Not Black and White,” Nature, 396:35-36, November 5.

Darwin, Charles (1971 edition), The Origin of Species (New York: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Dover, Gabby (2003), “Mothbusters,” EMBO Reports, 4[3]:235.

Herbert, Roy (2002), “Fly By Nights,” New Scientist, 175[2361]:52.

Wieland, Carl (1999), “Goodbye Peppered Moths,” Creation, 21[3]:56.

[rabinovich]

May I join the conversation and ask you, Anonymouse, what do you offer as an alternative of evolution? A theory saying that every single creature is created on its own seems more credible to you? Why?
I personall find the concept of evolution to be a very natural and logical observation, one that corresponds to experimental truth and common sense. I can't remember any conflict in my mind when I first heard of evolution, I think I took it as a very clear and logical idea - given that I was raised as an atheist and fairy tales have always been just that, fairy tales, to me.

[Anonymouse]

May I join the conversation and ask you, Anonymouse, what do you offer as an alternative of evolution? A theory saying that every single creature is created on its own seems more credible to you? Why?
I personall find the concept of evolution to be a very natural and logical observation, one that corresponds to experimental truth and common sense. I can't remember any conflict in my mind when I first heard of evolution, I think I took it as a very clear and logical idea - given that I was raised as an atheist and fairy tales have always been just that, fairy tales, to me.

It doesn't matter what the alternative is, what matters is that it is a belief system. To my knowledge people who believe in creationism don't say creatures created themselves, but there was a God or some supernatural entity or force which triggered their creation. Evolution is a belief system. Intelligent design is a belief system. I do not claim to know. I only claim to believe. Evolutionists don't like to believe, they like to claim they know things, when in reality all they are expressing is a belief, a guess - as that is what a theory is.

You state observation, just what has been observed by evolution? This is the question I have constantly asked and gotten silence as an answer. Evolutionists get around by this by making things pliable and coming up with all the reasons and excuses for why it is does not need to observable it for it to happen. I have no problem with you believing that, but I do have a problem if it is asserted as 'fact'. To this day, evolution as understood by Darwin, is not reproducible or observable. It is nothing more than a philosophy of naturalism.

[rabinovich]

It doesn't matter what the alternative is, what matters is that it is a belief system. To my knowledge people who believe in creationism don't say creatures created themselves, but there was a God or some supernatural entity or force which triggered their creation. Evolution is a belief system. Intelligent design is a belief system. I do not claim to know. I only claim to believe. Evolutionists don't like to believe, they like to claim they know things, when in reality all they are expressing is a belief, a guess - as that is what a theory is.

Can't you say the same about physics? history? archeology? etc. etc. How do we know stars are out there, how do we know dynosaurs really existed, or Julius Ceasar did this or that. There's a space for doubt in any scientific claim and observation. If your only goal is doubting - you can doubt everything, you can be doubtful about every piece of information you get from outside world. but then again, that's not how science works, people take most credible hypothesis as current state of truth and move from there.

You state observation, just what has been observed by evolution? This is the question I have constantly asked and gotten silence as an answer. Evolutionists get around by this by making things pliable and coming up with all the reasons and excuses for why it is does not need to observable it for it to happen. I have no problem with you believing that, but I do have a problem if it is asserted as 'fact'. To this day, evolution as understood by Darwin, is not reproducible or observable. It is nothing more than a philosophy of naturalism.

We have a planet full of structurally, behavorially, physically, chemically related creatures, which can be clustered into groups we call species. Based on all the similarities between these species, people have devised a hierarchic grouping of the species into an evolutionary tree and proposed a hypothesis of their common origins. The theory is supported by chemical, microbiological, physical, and other scientific observations on these biological creatures, and as far as I know, all serious scientists take it as a very credible theory (for a serious scientist, credible means there's a lot of arguments in favor on the theory, and very little against it).

Another more tricky issue is how life originated. Now that's a field where no fully accepted theory exists, but a few competing ones do, which I am guessing will all sound not so good to you.

[rabinovich]

Evolutionists get around by this by making things pliable and coming up with all the reasons and excuses for why it is does not need to observable it for it to happen.

There is millions of other statements that are seen as apparently true but are not directly observable. Human life is too short, and our senses are too limited, to observe and directly test every hypothesis that comes to mind. But we shouldn't limit our knowledge by these constraints, should we?

There's many physical phenomena that are only indirectly observable. Those are taken as facts by physicists. There's historical and anthropological facts that are only indirectly observable. But people don't usually doubt them as much, as they doubt evolution.

This only means one thing to me - people have problems accepting evolution. Personal problems, not scientific ones.

[Anonymouse]

Can't you say the same about physics? history? archeology? etc. etc. How do we know stars are out there, how do we know dynosaurs really existed, or Julius Ceasar did this or that. There's a space for doubt in any scientific claim and observation. If your only goal is doubting - you can doubt everything, you can be doubtful about every piece of information you get from outside world. but then again, that's not how science works, people take most credible hypothesis as current state of truth and move from there.

If you read the thread I mentioned how science itself has changed, i.e. in its descriptive models about reality such as from Newtonian physics to modern physics. Of course you are going into a whole metaphysical debate which deserves a thread on its own, i.e. the sociology of knowledge, and faith in that knowledge. Evidence for dinosaurs or Julias Ceaser or fossils is not the same as going beyond the evidence and postulating a pattern of development which is a theory, a guess. As such one is expressing a belief. The scientific method is about observation and reproducibility. Evolution is neither observed nor is it reproducible or verifiable in any empirical way.

We have a planet full of structurally, behavorially, physically, chemically related creatures, which can be clustered into groups we call species. Based on all the similarities between these species, people have devised a hierarchic grouping of the species into an evolutionary tree and proposed a hypothesis of their common origins. The theory is supported by chemical, microbiological, physical, and other scientific observations on these biological creatures, and as far as I know, all serious scientists take it as a very credible theory (for a serious scientist, credible means there's a lot of arguments in favor on the theory, and very little against it).

No one is denying science, when it behaves like science within the realms of science and what is scientifically acceptable. Evolution goes beyond science. That many scientists find it credible is again a reflection on their willingness to believe. That evolution is not observable nor reproducible is telling. We have fossil A, and then we have fossil B. There is no way of knowing what happened between fossil A and B aside from conjectures. We never observed it, nor can we reproduce anything of that nature.