[TRIGGER WARNING] how does religion exist in educated first world countries?

[Jubel]

old family photo of grandpa getting into the olives

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

I keep saying what I mean by transcending species. A dog has never been documented to turn into a not dog, a fish has never turned into a non-fish. There is no evidence of this even happening. Even platypuses don't appear to be changing into from anything into anything because, although they have so many different traits, they don't seem to be growing out of any of them.

you've said something about it so I know you know this process can take quite a long time. I have no idea what kind of evidence you expect to exist. are you talking about the small mutations that eventually make a big difference? many of them are not visible, but we know they happen. like sickle-cell anemia, or animals with different color patterns

What did the platypus change from, and what is it changing into, and why does it need to change so drastically at all?

I don't know what it evolved from. maybe echidnas apparently. it changed because something in its environment changed. I don't know what. I wasn't there, and I'm not an expert. but how could anyone possibly know what it's changing into?

Let me lay out something for you: For a species to be an intermediary species, it needs to have leftover traits from one species that eventually become no longer useful as it becomes another thing. For instance, a hypothetical intermediary between a fish and a mammal may have traits left over from its fish phase. There has never been any evidence of a mammal with gills, scales, or fins like a fish has. I guess if you say that if mammals evolved from amphibians, it should have some traits like webbed feet or a skeleton designed to be on both land and in water.

every species in a genus has traits from other species in that genus. the traits that are different are the ones that were no longer useful or became useful. like I said earlier, the platypus is a mammal with non-mammal traits, I'm not sure why that doesn't count for you? it also has webbed feet and most of its anatomy is probably suited for semiaquatic life considering the fact that it is a semiaquatic animal

And I don't understand your argument about the fossils. All you're saying is that you're confirming that there isn't any evidence of these species ever existing.

yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm also saying that the lack of a fossil record doesn't mean they didn't exist

[Moppy]

They don't immediately grow lungs, they don't immediately sprout feet. Their current organs and limbs gradually become more tolerant of an environment that they've been forced into, be it from food shortages, predator threats, temperature drops, etc., until they're eventually just not the previous organ or limb.

Again, where the the genes for legs come from? Just because an animal needs a trait to help it survive, does not mean that the trait will suddenly appear in their genepool.
Unless, of course, its mutation. But the chances of a useful mutation happening so conveniently are so astronomical as to be implausible.

I'm not going to read through that huge post because I don't have time at the moment. If you could condense it into a couple paragraphs, maybe.

Well, I know you all are an impatient bunch so that's what the TL;DR for each paragraph is for. You can just read the final TL;DR if you're really short on time.

First, micro evolution vs macro evolution is a distinction without a difference. The two terms are rarely, if ever (at least not that I've seen) used outside of creationists arguing against them. They both happen for the same reason, and via the same process. One is just an accumulation of the other.

I've explained several times why they are different. Yes, they're a term made and used majorly by creationists, but it is a legitimate scientific concept. After all, we have only ever observed active evolution within species, never a species changing due to spontaneous traits.

Now this is just blatant denial.
We've found all sorts of intermediary fossils.
There's also numerous anatomical oddities that make no sense under intelligent design, but perfect sense under evolution

Please provide examples. I am not familliar with all of these evidences, you see, and the more solid evidences the better.


As for the example that has already been provided: the Tiktaalik.

The problem with the Tiktaalik is that, while it claims to be the first example of a fish evolving into an amphibian, the progenetor of 4 legged land animals, it does not hold consistency with this particular fossil:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/
This fossil dates to be considerably older than the Tiktaalik, yet there are clear patterns of footprints from a time in which, theoritically, animals with such developed feed did not exist. This seems to pose a bit of a problem for our friend.
Even if it was just a late bloomer, there's another problem.
It's skeletal structure seems pretty far off from the land dwelling animals that live today. Maybe a fish could have gotten this far. There are fish that move along the bottoms of rivers and on the shallow shore using their fins, after all. To devolop full functional legs eventually would require massive restructuring of the bones and the gap between the Tiktaalik's "feet" and common feet are still a bit too wide to be considered a missing link.

I'm gonna take a break from this for a while, you guys. This is taking up way too much of my mindspace and I've got work to do. I'll let you guys the last word in for a while, so tear up my argument, if you want or can. Sorry if I've left anything unadressed for now, but remind me and I'll get to it when I have more time.

[Lego lad]

old family photo of grandpa getting into the olives

who eats olives with a SPOON

[Moppy]

who eats olives with a SPOON

take that, evolutionists

[Juncoph]

Again, where the the genes for legs come from? Just because an animal needs a trait to help it survive, does not mean that the trait will suddenly appear in their genepool.
Unless, of course, its mutation.

It is mutation. Yes, it does take astronomical amounts of time. This is why the dogs-don't-give-birth-to-cats brown townogy, for example, doesn't work.

Back to the fish- for the legs, as an example, it's actually their fins gradually becoming more muscular and durable. They aren't growing new bones- while new bones can and have formed through evolution, so much of the body depends on them that it's exceedingly rare to see the bones actually change in number. What regularly happens is shape and bone mass being altered.

For example, the bird. Looks like it has backwards knees, right? It doesn't.

it's possible there's a type of bird or two with different leg anatomy, but I can't think of any.

[Headcrab Zombie]

I've explained several times why they are different. Yes, they're a term made and used majorly by creationists, but it is a legitimate scientific concept. After all, we have only ever observed active evolution within species, never a species changing due to spontaneous traits.

The only "difference" is the length of time that natural selection had worked.
It's not exactly a scientific concept when the idea creating it isn't scientific. You can't create terms to support your idea, and then claim the terms are supported by your idea. That's circular reasoning.
You can't "observe" one animal simply changing into another because that's not how evolution works. But we can observe small changes. Do you have any reason why small changes couldn't accumulate?
And although we can't directly observe it, we can see it's effects through historical evidence.

Please provide examples. I am not familliar with all of these evidences, you see, and the more solid evidences the better.

There's vestigial organs for one. Organs that serve no purpose in a modern species, but have a very clear purpose in that species' evolutionary history.

Genetic markers that match markers in other species (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm)

In mammals, there's a nerve that connects the brain to the larynx. These organs are only a few inches from each other, yet instead this nerve goes down to the heart, loops around the aorta, and then comes back up before finally connecting to the larynx. In small mammals, this detour is a couple inches. In humans, maybe a foot. In a giraffe, this is several feet. This isn't explainable by intelligent design, it would be more intelligent to connect the brain straight to the larynx.
But if you look through evolutionary history, it makes perfect sense. In fish, this nerve connects to the gills, pretty close to the heart. And as elongated necks started being formed, it's easier to lengthen the nerve by a tiny bit at a time, rather than completely rewire it.

[Ipquarx]

One more thing: I am not a scientist, nor have I any science based education beyond high school. There will be times where I have very little idea of what I'm talking about. Still, I stand by my arguments as legitimate, so please consider them as such.

I will try to cite sources when I can be bothered to. If you see that I'm saying something incorrect, do not hesitate to correct me, as some of you, I'm sure, will vigorously and violently do so.

EDIT: I didnt realize this might be necessary, but the ultimate goal for my arguing against Evolution is to discount it as a scientific replacement for a creator God.

I don't have a ton of background in evolutionary sciences either but I've learned quite a bit over the years, doing various internet research. Also by no means an expert, but I also have the means to talk and learn from actual evolutionary biologists, ones which have devoted 10+ years of their lives to learning about the mechanics and specifics of the evolution of life as we know it.

If I feel that something you say needs a citation, I'll try to find it myself. If I can't find it, I'll ask you to provide it otherwise I'll have no choice but to assume that the evidence simply isn't there.

Also, I know you've stated the purpose but no doubt some people will take this as proof of young earth creationism, which it is not. Young earth creationism hinges on dozens upon dozens of unproven assumptions, most of which have nothing to do with evolution and will no doubt not be covered.

Now with that out of the way...

TL;DR, Microevolution is contained to species, Macroevolution transcends species.

Your TL;DR is right, microevolution is defined as the process of genetic change within species, and macroevolution is when that process leads to new species.

However it's worth noting that both of them are the same process applied over different timeframes. Microevolution is natural selection applied over the short term, macroevolution is natural selection applied over a very long time.

Now, the point where we say an animal has become a new species is when it becomes incapable of breeding with the original species. It's very difficult to tell the exact tipping point of this, but there is a rigorous definition.

Alrighty then, lets start at the beginning. The dawn of life on earth.

TL;DR, A pool of organic matter on early Earth mixed with the atmosphere and energy spawned amino acids that spawned DNA, then cells, and eventually, life forms..

Let me stop you right there. If we're talking about macroevolution, which you specifically stated we were, then there is absolutely no need to be talking about the dawn of life (Which is referred to scientifically as abiogenesis.)

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life itself, only what happens after the first self-replicating life form was made.

The first problem with this theory is how any amino acids form in the first place. After all, they are the building blocks of life, and nothing living is without them. The common reference to how the amino acids formed is famous "Life in a test tube" experiment, or the Miller-Urey experiment, an experiment that brought Evolution to true prominence in the scientific community. -Explanation of the experiment- This experiment is still widely used in arguments for evolution. I'm sure you are have at least a passing familiarity with this experiment, Mr. Ipquarx, whom I hope is still reading.

Again, as I've said, evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis. Bringing it up is completely irrelevant. If you want to believe that a god did something to cause abiogenesis, that's fine, but nothing you could say about abiogenesis can disprove evolution because the two have nothing in common.

The experiment wasn't even made to prove that this was exactly how abiogenesis occurred, it's just an experiment that showed that amino acids could form in nature on their own. If other people have used it to "prove" evolution then they have no idea what they're talking about.

There are a few problems with this experiment which make it somewhat problematic. I will cite these sites which I draw most of my arguments from up front. Yes, I know that you can tell right from the names that a couple of these are biased sources, but they draw their arguments from very valid and highly accredited sources that they cite so I don't have to cite all of those individually.
http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122&Itemid=62
http://creation.com/life-in-a-test-tube
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/geology/earths-early-atmosphere/

You're absolutely right that all of these sources are biased. However I'm not going to bother going through them at all. It is not any form of counterargument against evolution or even abiogenesis. As I've mentioned many times. However even in the very first source, every single one of their "counterarguments" towards the experiment had many implied assumptions that went unproven with any evidence.

You seem to focus an irrational amount on this, so I'll respond to it, but seriously, it's not worth arguing about.

You say that the processes that formed the amino acids could just as easily have destroyed the acids. That is true, in energetic processes like this things don't work out perfectly, however that doesn't mean that every single last bit of the amino acids would have been destroyed. Even if only 1% of 1% survived that could have been more than enough to start forming life.

You then say that the gasses used in the experiment were not on the early earth. This can easily be seen to be false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Earliest_atmosphere The fact that there was hydrogen doesn't even need justification; during the formation of earth it would have pulled hydrogen towards it through simply the pull of gravity. This is also how the gas giants formed, earth just got less material to suck in. Evidence of water on the surface has been there since 3.8 billion years ago. Volcanoes spewed out Nitrogen, CO2, methane and ammonia, everything else needed for the experiment. Even if there was relatively little of it, that doesn't stop it from forming.

You then say that half of the amino acids weren't useful for life. So what? Half of them are useful for life. Just because it has a useless byproduct doesn't mean it's bunk, it just means there was some stuff left over.

Essentially, when you consider all of these factors that diminishes the count of potential useful amino acids, you find that it is very unlikely that life could form from the primordial soup that so many believe it did. This is a problem for macroevolution, since this is how life started in the first place according to the theory, and it is partly why I find macroevolution to be so hard to believe.

As I've just explained, it's really not unlikely at all. Not only that, but again, the experiment was not made to give a solid absolute explanation for abiogenesis. There is no scientific consensus on it and it has no application to evolution whatsoever. Evolution only cares what happens after life has already formed. The lack of a consensus on abiogenesis does nothing to hurt evolution.

FINAL TL;DR, The way evolutionary scientists propose that life formed in the first place is extremely unlikely to the point of being implausible. This shows that evolution is fundamentally flawed, as the very origin of life cannot be explained without inconsistency or error.

What you're saying is the equivalent of "Some boats can't fit under bridges, therefore Ipquarx's hair is blue." You're trying to connect two ideas which have no connection at all: it's simply got no relevance to the point you're trying to prove.

Do you have any other arguments that don't hinge on abiogenesis? I'd be much more interested in hearing those rather than abiogenesis over and over again. You literally didn't even touch evolution in your argument :/

[Juncoph]

im really happy that the creation vs evolution in this topic isn't a flamewar

[Whackin]

because people's parents scare them into believing it. its why there are so few scientologists--that stuff is weird and there arent many parents.

pretty much this

[Lego lad]

im really happy that the creation vs evolution in this topic isn't a flamewar

ur gey kil urself g0 2 hel LOL

[Steve5451²]

Moppy I don't see why you can't just believe God allowed mutations to occur to allow adaptation.

[Clownfish]

drinking game: for every person who says there isn't proof for religion or that they require proof in this thread, take a shot

[Lego lad]

drinking game: for every person who says there isn't proof for religion or that they require proof in this thread, take a shot

but drinkings BAD >:^(

[sir dooble]

Let me lay out something for you: For a species to be an intermediary species, it needs to have leftover traits from one species that eventually become no longer useful as it becomes another thing. For instance, a hypothetical intermediary between a fish and a mammal may have traits left over from its fish phase. There has never been any evidence of a mammal with gills, scales, or fins like a fish has. I guess if you say that if mammals evolved from amphibians, it should have some traits like webbed feet or a skeleton designed to be on both land and in water.

The ear-bones of modern terrestrial mammals are well documented as transitioning from their earlier use in reptiles.

We have mammals with fins. They are called Dolphins and Whales. They actually evolved from having arms into having fins.
The reason you won't see evidence of fish-life in mammals is because mammals did not evolve directly from fish.
Mammals evolved from lizards. Lizards evolved from amphibians, which in turn evolved from fish. The length of time between this is phenonemal. We're talking hundreds of millions of years.


You're not going to find any living creatures today that have body parts from other animal groups, because those things have either evolved away/into other structures, or have become completely vestigial.

Unless, of course, its mutation. But the chances of a useful mutation happening so conveniently are so astronomical as to be implausible.

The mutations don't happen in response to the selection pressure (a change in an environment).
They happen beforehand, by random chance in the natural mutation of genes during procreation.

What happens is you end up with a species that has a wide range of variations that have little to no impact upon it.
For example, human hair colour. It makes no difference if you have black/blonde/brown/ginger hair. In fact, black/brown are the oldest haircolours, with blonde and ginger being much more modern mutations.

Now, if there were to be some event that affected humanity, it may turn out that people with ginger hair are more likely to survive. As a result, over time, the population of ginger people increases, and non-gingers decreases.
Over a long time, if there are multiple of these selection pressures that cause other traits to be useful, such as longer legs, or larger hearts, or shorter noses, we will get a population of humans who have ginger hair, long legs, large hearts, and short noses.
They bear less resemblance to humans, and eventually can be considered a different species.


And at any rate, it's not a low chance. The time between big selection pressures is usually immense. Quite often we're talking about environmental events, usually natural, meaning meteorological, or geological events, which don't happen quickly.
Between these events there's ample time for a wide range of minor nuances to appear within a species.
When the event does happen it's fairly likely that some nuance will be of use to the population.
And if there isn't one, which can happen, then a population may go entirely exctinct.