Comments on: Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/ Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:04:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: ty http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-4551 ty Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:49:49 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-4551 David, how do you explain a large frameshift coding for something large and useful that can last. David, how do you explain a large frameshift coding for something large and useful that can last.

]]> By: David Annis http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3963 David Annis Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:07:23 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3963 Evolution is a process that takes a very long time. Just like I can't see my son growing over a period of a week, you won't see evolution of an entire new family happen in a century. However, just as I can gather evidence that tells me kids grow, I can gather evidence that shows me that species evolve. This is one more example among many. We see micro-evolution which is the first step in macro-evolution and happens quickly all the time. It is not just logic that tells us that enough micro-evolution leads to macro evolution, there is evidence of it all around us: <a href="http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm" rel="nofollow">the genes on the human chromosome 2,</a> the genes conserved from bacteria on up, the evidence in these studies and thousands of others. The truth is that no amount of evidence will convince those who believe that the species were all created by God - because they value faith which requires belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Evolution is a process that takes a very long time. Just like I can’t see my son growing over a period of a week, you won’t see evolution of an entire new family happen in a century. However, just as I can gather evidence that tells me kids grow, I can gather evidence that shows me that species evolve. This is one more example among many. We see micro-evolution which is the first step in macro-evolution and happens quickly all the time. It is not just logic that tells us that enough micro-evolution leads to macro evolution, there is evidence of it all around us: the genes on the human chromosome 2, the genes conserved from bacteria on up, the evidence in these studies and thousands of others.

The truth is that no amount of evidence will convince those who believe that the species were all created by God – because they value faith which requires belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

]]> By: Qazinix http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3946 Qazinix Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:15:22 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3946 They are still in the "Monarcha castaneiventris" not just the “Monarchidae” family. They are still in the “Monarcha castaneiventris” not just the “Monarchidae” family.

]]> By: Qazinix http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3939 Qazinix Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:59:03 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3939 I read the article thank you very much. Horses Scientific name "Equus Caballus" and mules "Equus asinus x caballus " is still part of the "Equidae" family. The flycatcher's scientific name is "Monarcha castaneiventris megarhynchus" while the other is "Monarcha castaneiventris ugiensis" and while I agree that there are differences I can't help but notice that they are both still part of the "Monarchidae" family. I read the article thank you very much.

Horses Scientific name “Equus Caballus” and mules “Equus asinus x caballus ” is still part of the “Equidae” family.

The flycatcher’s scientific name is “Monarcha castaneiventris megarhynchus” while the other is “Monarcha castaneiventris ugiensis” and while I agree that there are differences I can’t help but notice that they are both still part of the “Monarchidae” family.

]]> By: David Annis http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3918 David Annis Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:53:44 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3918 Question has any body seen Macro-evolution(formation of another species) two creatures don’t and can’t mate? An interesting article <a href="http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Study_catches_2_bird_populations_as_they_split_into_separate_species.asp" rel="nofollow">Study Catches 2 bird populations as they split into separate species</a>. Looks like they are showing macro-evolution currently being observed in birds. One other point -- in terms of can't mate - that does not need to be true - horses and mules can mate - many seperate species can mate and some of their offspring may even be fertile. Question has any body seen Macro-evolution(formation of another species) two creatures don’t and can’t mate?

An interesting article Study Catches 2 bird populations as they split into separate species. Looks like they are showing macro-evolution currently being observed in birds.

One other point — in terms of can’t mate – that does not need to be true – horses and mules can mate – many seperate species can mate and some of their offspring may even be fertile.

]]> By: Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3008 Andy Kaiser Wed, 27 May 2009 20:25:49 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3008 Qazinix, <i>Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister’s fairy tales) order formed, </i> That's not what evolution says. That sounds more like a religious creation myth. <i>why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened?</i> It might be in how you're asking. What do you ask? And are you asking because you want to know the answer? Or do you have an ulterior motive that's showing through? Andy Qazinix,

Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister’s fairy tales) order formed,

That’s not what evolution says. That sounds more like a religious creation myth.

why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened?

It might be in how you’re asking. What do you ask? And are you asking because you want to know the answer? Or do you have an ulterior motive that’s showing through?

Andy

]]> By: Qazinix http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-3006 Qazinix Wed, 27 May 2009 20:07:28 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-3006 Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister's fairy tales) order formed, but when I leave something long enough it falls apart. Is there any articles about fosil formation, because I find it very strange that the strata is water sorted, I spent my holidays looking at rocks, and one more thing why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened? Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister’s fairy tales) order formed, but when I leave something long enough it falls apart.
Is there any articles about fosil formation, because I find it very strange that the strata is water sorted, I spent my holidays looking at rocks, and one more thing why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened?

]]> By: ty http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-2937 ty Fri, 15 May 2009 02:51:33 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-2937 No one ever has seen real speciation positively I think there's a debate on it, but there's little doubt in my mind that it happens because we see evolution happening in the finch beaks etc fast. .. A new phyla is another matter yet the cambrian explosion had 50 phyla evolving and none since then. We have 30 something phyla now. So that's a good case for ID because the genomes started complex like they were seeded here. The man from monkeys theory is based on chromosome two being fused which was predicted but I don't see how they can say chromosome fusion isn't ID'd by aliens or something, don't know much about that but I don't think anyone does. The question is, how do you have a genome which is observed to only go toward entropy, and yet making a new phyla or even little mutations involves new data harmoniously encoded in an expanding genome? We only have genomes falling apart. Steven meyer's articles on the discovery institute site are easy to read he covers the whole debate. Also there's irreducibly complex eyes, teeth, flagellum, and vision and all the senses connections to the brain. The problem with biology right now is there's so much valid criticism and it's brushed off by handwaving because you aren't allowed to violate the paradigm. No one ever has seen real speciation positively I think there’s a debate on it, but there’s little doubt in my mind that it happens because we see evolution happening in the finch beaks etc fast. .. A new phyla is another matter yet the cambrian explosion had 50 phyla evolving and none since then. We have 30 something phyla now. So that’s a good case for ID because the genomes started complex like they were seeded here. The man from monkeys theory is based on chromosome two being fused which was predicted but I don’t see how they can say chromosome fusion isn’t ID’d by aliens or something, don’t know much about that but I don’t think anyone does. The question is, how do you have a genome which is observed to only go toward entropy, and yet making a new phyla or even little mutations involves new data harmoniously encoded in an expanding genome? We only have genomes falling apart. Steven meyer’s articles on the discovery institute site are easy to read he covers the whole debate.

Also there’s irreducibly complex eyes, teeth, flagellum, and vision and all the senses connections to the brain. The problem with biology right now is there’s so much valid criticism and it’s brushed off by handwaving because you aren’t allowed to violate the paradigm.

]]> By: Qazinix http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-2927 Qazinix Thu, 14 May 2009 06:30:19 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-2927 Thank you TY I'll read up on it through the weekend. Question has any body seen Macro-evolution(formation of another species) two creatures don't and can't mate? Thank you TY I’ll read up on it through the weekend. Question has any body seen Macro-evolution(formation of another species) two creatures don’t and can’t mate?

]]> By: ty http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/comment-page-1/#comment-2913 ty Mon, 11 May 2009 06:47:28 +0000 http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=91#comment-2913 Qazinix, look up "genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome." Natural selection by random mutation doesn't exist. The cost of a good mutation is extinction. There is a programmed intelligence into the genome and that's how large changes happen. Qazinix, look up “genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome.” Natural selection by random mutation doesn’t exist. The cost of a good mutation is extinction. There is a programmed intelligence into the genome and that’s how large changes happen.

]]>