Is macroevolution true?

[SiderealExalt]

THAT evolution occurs is a fact. The MECHANICS of evolution is where contention lies. People who wish to rail against evolutionary theory tend to leave out that tidbit of information.

As for as macroevolution goes. Yes, given what we know these days, both micro and macro evolution have occured in the history of our planet. Are the mechanics and time lines of all these events known to a huge degree as of yet? No.

 

[bob b]

THAT evolution occurs is a fact. The MECHANICS of evolution is where contention lies. People who wish to rail against evolutionary theory tend to leave out that tidbit of information.

As for as macroevolution goes. Yes, given what we know these days, both micro and macro evolution have occured in the history of our planet. Are the mechanics and time lines of all these events known to a huge degree as of yet? No.

It is interesting how some people muddle the difference between a theory and a fact.

 

[supersport]

(macroevolution, common descent)

I don't think either can really be falsified.


.

That says alot. Tell me, if it were proven that individuals evolve, not populations would that change your mind?

 

[SiderealExalt]

It is interesting how some people muddle the difference between a theory and a fact.

None of which has either anything to do with what I said or changes the fact that evolution does occur and that questions in the scientific community occur on the basis of evolutionary mechanics. Not that evolution occurs at all.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

From Dictionary.com.Emphasis mine. LIKE I SAID People should learn to use the term theory when they mean theory, not hypothesis. And like I said, the argument is on mechanics(ie the explination of known facts of phenomenon. Evolution is a known phenomenon of organisms.

 

[Skeptic]

Many evolutionists have said on these forums that science is always open to the possibility that a particular theory is not true.

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case..

If strong evidence became available showing that macroevolution was unlikely the mechanism that caused the fossil and genetic record to appear as it does, then scientists would have to search for other possible mechanisms. Such mechanisms would have to be consistent with known or suspected scientific truths.

If macroevolution is not true, then what other possible mechanisms could explain the fossil and genetic record? .... Let's see, ... perhaps highly advanced extraterrestrial aliens planted the fossils and implanted the genetic code of all plants and animals to make it appear that they macroevolved.

Perhaps there are several other natural mechanisms that have some consistency with suspected scientific possibilities. But, until there is some reason to believe that unnatural entities or forces exist, there is no rational reason to suspect that any kind of supernatural mechanism was involved in the formation of the fossil and genetic record.

So, if the evidence demonstrated the improbability of macroevolution, rather than suspect the existence of supernatural entities or forces, I would suspect other unknown natural mechanisms. My world view would remain naturalistic.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I think ultimately christians can't reconcile the fact that investigations of how the universe and this planet actually works doesn't include their view of the earth and the universe because nothing discovered points to their explinations and rather speaks against it. If you ask the universe a question and the answer isn't one you like. The problem is yours christianity, not the universe.

 

[Layla]

That says alot. Tell me, if it were proven that individuals evolve, not populations would that change your mind?

About what? Whether it can be falsified? Or?

 

[Vision in Verse]

Or putting it another way: are you open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single primitive ancestor?

What is the importance of what we "think is possible"? If something is possible or impossible it should be able to shown objectively so it wouldn't matter what our predispositions are.

 

[Vision in Verse]

That says alot. Tell me, if it were proven that individuals evolve, not populations would that change your mind?

Individuals "evolving" does not contradict macroevolution, so no.

 

[bob b]

I think ultimately christians can't reconcile the fact that investigations of how the universe and this planet actually works doesn't include their view of the earth and the universe because nothing discovered points to their explinations and rather speaks against it. If you ask the universe a question and the answer isn't one you like. The problem is yours christianity, not the universe.

Did you have something specific in mind or were you just blowing smoke?

 

[SiderealExalt]

To mirror what one of another fundie type like yourself said. Truth hurts eh.

 

[SUTG]

I'm just trying to show you that there is far more to evolutionary controversies than you seem to realize.

Evolution is not a "slam dunk", regardless of what extremists like Richard Dawkins would have people believe.

True, there are alot of evolutionary controversies. But whether evolution occurred is not a controversy at all. The controveries all exist within the context of evolution being true.

To use your own phrase, evolution has been a slam dunk for over a hundred years.

 

[Wads4]

Many evolutionists have said on these forums that science is always open to the possibility that a particular theory is not true.

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case..

Macroevolution is nothing more than just a lot of microevolution. Even Creationists appear to accept microevolution. When enough gradual changes have occurred until an animal or plant is unable to mate with it's former ancestral parents, then speciation can be assumed to have occurred,--and the accumulated changes can therefore be called "macroevolution"; it is not a word that evolutionists themselves use much.. Creationists are hung up on it as they think in terms of watertight "kinds" invented by God.
In fact species merely merge gradually into each other. Any apparent divisions between them are more subjective than real.

 

[bob b]

Macroevolution is nothing more than just a lot of microevolution. Even Creationists appear to accept microevolution. When enough gradual changes have occurred until an animal or plant is unable to mate with it's former ancestral parents, then speciation can be assumed to have occurred,--and the accumulated changes can therefore be called "macroevolution"; it is not a word that evolutionists themselves use much.. Creationists are hung up on it as they think in terms of watertight "kinds" invented by God.
In fact species merely merge gradually into each other. Any apparent divisions between them are more subjective than real.

Wads4,

You are much too mature an individual to be taken in by the simple stories which have lured so many youngsters into accepting the evolutionary fairy tale. I encourage you to look into these things in detail yourself to determine the actual facts in the matter.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Bob doesn't even know the rudiments of things such as the difference between laymen use of "theory" and scientific use of "theory". Somehow I don't see him as an authority on the matter.

 

[noguru]

Many evolutionists have said on these forums that science is always open to the possibility that a particular theory is not true.

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case..

I am open to the possibility that a single common ancestor model is not accurate. I have considered in depth the proposal you have made about the multiple forms model. If your model was found to be more accurate my world view would change. It would have to change my world view to adjust for this new information.

 

[noguru]

Bob doesn't even know the rudiments of things such as the difference between laymen use of "theory" and scientific use of "theory". Somehow I don't see him as an authority on the matter.

I think he does understand that scientists claim there is a difference. However such clarifications don't bolster the strength of his campaign style that is mostly targeted at laymen. So he is either purposely ignoring these clarifications, or denying that they are relevant with his silence. Either way his claims can easily be insulated from criticism by appeals to plausible deniability in regard to such issues. And since his highest priority is to offer a compelling argument for his specific brand of Christianity, he probably sees discussions about these distinctions to be less than prudent for his purpose(s).

You might also note that the distinct but specific set of definitions attached to species continues to be the impetus for another of his rallying cries. "Species is not clearly defined!" To acknowledge that species has several distinct and clear defintions (just like many words) does not strengthen his argument against natural evolution. So it is a shrewd move (I think) on his part to continue in overdramatizing the confusion.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Yeah, part of why I said, I think in another post, is that ultimately he's a liar. He doesn't love or appreciate science, he dispises it. His appeals to it seem to start and end solely upon when he can use half truths to attempt to bolster his own claims. That's ethically and morally deceitfull.

 

[noguru]

Yeah, part of why I said, I think in another post, is that ultimately he's a liar. He doesn't love or appreciate science, he dispises it. His appeals to it seem to start and end solely upon when he can use half truths to attempt to bolster his own claims. That's ethically and morally deceitfull.

But if he really believes that the supernatural is responsible then he thinks those who accept a natural explanation are being deceived. So in a sense he is choosing the lesser of two evils. In his mind his choices are; either modify the argument for YEC so as to make it more compelling, or allow people to be deceived by the naturalistic explanation. He chooses the former. The later leads more people to eternal torment in his mind. A few "white" lies to get people to Heaven is the better option. Our eternal destiny is more important in his mind than complete and strict adherence to the truth in regard to natural philosophy.