Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Lamb Boy]

There is a question posed that you're avoiding as usual ...

Besides it proves speciation which is the same thing as "macro" evolution

Why don't you take the time to read the 29+ evidences for Macro evolution. If you really are open minded then you will ... if you're Anon you won't. Look at the time I posted then he and tell me he read the article before responding. His mind is a box ...

I'd especially love to hear your thoughts on the reasons why ...

"Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis)."

Nope all faith based no real empirical evidence what so ever. It's a dogmatic viewpoint you know Wino?!?

[Anonymouse]

There is a question posed that you're avoiding as usual ...

Besides it proves speciation which is the same thing as "macro" evolution

Why don't you take the time to read the 29+ evidences for Macro evolution. If you really are open minded then you will ... if you're Anon you won't. Look at the time I posted then he and tell me he read the article before responding. His mind is a box ...

I'd especially love to hear your thoughts on the reasons why ...

"Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis)."

Nope all faith based no real empirical evidence what so ever. It's a dogmatic viewpoint you know Wino?!?

When we speak of changes on a macro level, we are talking about exactly that evidence which is lacking in evolution, and why Darwin's gradualism had to be revised to radicalism and punctuated equilibria. Furthermore, there is nothing in the giant claims of evolution that allows for its repeatability, testability and observation. This big aspect of evolution, does not deal with adaptation or minor within species variations, it deals with the grand architecture of the theory, the big claim it posits that life began from simple little things and into complex organisms.

To echo Fred Reed's musings:

(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.

The answer was, and is, "no." We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn't nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.

(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn't, and hasn't.

(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn't, and don't.

(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn't, and can't. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.)

All you can do, and all you have done, is resort to childish desperation, and personal attacks to vindicate your said beliefs and deride and diminish the viewpoints of others, much like winoman. Anyone who disagrees is akin to an enemy of the idea that you have made a fetish of. What I have found is that you are a suitable companion for winoman on these here boards. He was getting so lonely lately, I was beginning to wonder.

[Otto3]

but that cell can come from space by a meteor maybe.... 42

[winoman]

Difference between macro and micro Evolution is largely semantic IMO - but anyway - many Biologists do ascribe to such - and also believe that the fossile record as well as DNA evidence are more then sufficient proof for such - I agree (whatever one wants to call it - it is clear that adaptive changes occur and have resulted in the great speciation/diversity of creatures alive today (and others who were once alive but are no longer)...the concept of speciation is primariy linked to the inability to further breed BTW - and in fact we have seen an abdunce of such - in plants! Thus we have evidence of such. Furthermore - we have evidence in higher organism based upon geographic diversity and discovery of genetically highly similar creatures - yet with inability to interbreed - and while we may not have seen - or ever witness the first of such being born (as we do not directly witness all stellar or sub-microscopic phenomenon) - but infer such based on the preponderonce of evidence as it conforms to the knowledge that we posses which is testable - this is sufficient and is what most all (interesting) Science is based upon.

Some related statements (not mine):

The relationship between species is also testable; if species are related in particular manners, then we expect certain patterns to exist in their DNA, in their physiology, and in the fossil record. The relationships of species and structures is constantly tested in evolution studies that look for evidence of homology vs. convergent evolution.

Living (and fossilized) organisms show a lot of patterns that match up with the hypotheses that they share common ancestors. Many of these patterns were predicted beforehand, based on these hypotheses. There may be a better explanation for these patterns, but it hasn't been proposed yet.

[winoman]

ho hum

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/speciation.html

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/macroevolution.html#speciation

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/...humanevol.html (I included this one just because its interesting - not necessarily for relevance to the point...)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Otto3]

aliens produced us and put us on earth...this explains both religion and evolution...