The biogeographic evidence for evolution

[Subduction Zone]

You are claiming that Social Darwinism is unlinked to Darwinism. Interesting...

You misunderstand. Perhaps on purpose. But I am glad that you are continuing to claim that Hitler was a Christian and that he based his pogroms on Christianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are unaware that unto recent decades, aboriginal man was presented in museums as a lower, less evolved race? Interesting.

Jumping to yet another topic, I see.

Now it's double clear. Your only goal here is to do everything you can, no matter how ridiculous and asanine your "argument", to make evolutionary biology seem "evil" or "bad".

You can't even stay on topic of your derailments.

I'll just repeat what I said earlier: put a sock in it and get back to the actual topic.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You misunderstand. Perhaps on purpose. But I am glad that you are continuing to claim that Hitler was a Christian and that he based his pogroms on Christianity.

I don't misunderstand, what is the etymology to your (bizarre) way of thinking for the term "Social Darwinism".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jumping to yet another topic, I see.

Now it's double clear. Your only goal here is to do everything you can, no matter how ridiculous and asanine your "argument", to make evolutionary biology seem "evil" or "bad".

You can't even stay on topic of your derailments.

I'll just repeat what I said earlier: put a sock in it and get back to the actual topic.

No, this statement I just made prior:

"You are unaware that unto recent decades, aboriginal man was presented in museums as a lower, less evolved race? Interesting."

Underscores what Social Darwinism is and it's root doctrine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't misunderstand, what is the etymology to your (bizarre) way of thinking for the term "Social Darwinism".

Now now, let's not lie. My use of etymology is no more bizarre than yours. That was the point of my argument. You can see that it is bizarre when used the same way against Christianity. By your poor standards Hitler was a Christian. You were the one that used your etymology argument, you have to apply it evenly if you want to use it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, this statement I just made prior:

"You are unaware that unto recent decades, aboriginal man was presented in museums as a lower, less evolved race? Interesting."

Underscores what Social Darwinism is and it's root doctrine.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the political concept of social darwinism.

Did you even read the wikipedia article that you yourself quoted?

Again man, it's getting embarassing.
I think you should quit while you are ahea... err... behind, before you are so far behind that you're just a speck on the horizon.

At this point, it's become page after page of your juvenile and dishonest attempt to try and draw links between the science of biology and nazi's.

It is absolutely ridiculous. You're not accomplishing anything here, aside from derailing what was a perfectly decent thread and making a gigantic epic fool of yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the political concept of social darwinism.

Did you even read the wikipedia article that you yourself quoted?

Again man, it's getting embarassing.
I think you should quit while you are ahea... err... behind, before you are so far behind that you're just a speck on the horizon.

At this point, it's become page after page of your juvenile and dishonest attempt to try and draw links between the science of biology and nazi's.

It is absolutely ridiculous. You're not accomplishing anything here, aside from derailing what was a perfectly decent thread and making a gigantic epic fool of yourself.

Oddly enough he can see that my use of his arguments applied to Christianity are "bizarre" but he does not see how that makes his arguments bizarre. I was not serious in my claims, but by his standards . . .

 

[Deeje]

Few creationists are familiar with the biogeographic evidence for evolution, yet it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution.

Why do species on islands resemble species on the nearest mainland, even if there is a vast difference in environmental conditions between the island and the mainland? If a creator was independently creating species, why would he create species on islands that are similar to those on the nearest continent or mainland? The species found on islands such as the Galapagos, while distinct from the species of the nearest mainland, resemble them more closely than they resemble the species of other islands with more similar environmental conditions, indicating that the species on the islands descended and evolved from the species on the nearest mainland.

Since I have no desire to read all 44 pages of this thread, I will just address the OP.....

It seems to fail to understand that "adaptation" is not "evolution" in the sense that science presents the "macro" version of it. By calling it "micro-evolution", they think they can get away with lumping all their assertions under one banner. The truth is....there is no banner. Adaptation and macro-evolution are two entirely different processes. One does not prove the other. It operates on the premise that if a little is good, a lot must be better....but a lot cannot be proven.

In any experiment on "speciation" what do we see? We see a new variety of an established species.....an adapted version of the same creature.....nothing more. To suggest that adaptation can then translate into an "amoebas to dinosaurs" scenario, is more of a stretch than is reasonable for any logical thinker to make. If one is going on "evidence" then it is clear that there is real evidence for adaptation....but no real evidence for macro-evolution....that is taking the truth and stretching is way beyond anything that can be backed up by concrete evidence. All that is associated with macro-evolution is based on what is assumed by their own interpretation of evidence.

This is what Darwin had to say on the subject:

"The naturalist, looking at the inhabitants of these volcanic islands in the Pacific, distant several hundred miles from the continent,feels that he is standing on American land. Why should this be so? Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America?There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which closely resemble the conditions of the South American coast: in fact, there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects.... Facts such as these admit of no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation; whereas on the view here maintained, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists from America, whether by occasional means of transport or (though I do not believe in this doctrine) by formerly continuous land ...such colonists would be liable to modification,—the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birthplace."

Creationists cannot explain away this evidence. They just pretend it doesn't exist.

You're joking...right?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created every species specifically.....it says that he created "kinds"...as in "families" of creatures which have the ability to adapt in any changed circumstance to survive. The potential to create many varieties was only limited by their environments. They would never transform or morph into something else.That is imagined by evolutionary scientists.

What Darwin observed was adaptation to a marine environment by creatures who were related to their mainland 'cousins'. Did Darwin witness the production of a new "kind" or just a new variety of the same kind of creature that he already recognized? The finches were all still finches...the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises.....all adapted to island living. So what was wrong with his assessment?

Darwin's main problem was his misinterpretation of scripture. His first premise was in error and he built everything on what was a flawed foundation. Today, that edifice has continued to be added to until it has become an impressive temple.....but no one seems to notice that it is built on matchsticks.

There is absolutely nothing to back up what science has presented because it is basically founded on guesswork and wishful thinking. There is no real evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to fail to understand that "adaptation" is not "evolution" in the sense that science presents the "macro" version of it.

You're wrong.
Adaption IS evolution.
Adaption is just naturally selected change.
Changes / adaptions accumulated every generation.


So generation 1 is slightly different then 0

Generation 1 is slightly different then 0
Generation 2 is slightly different then 1
Generation 3 is slightly different then 2
Generation 4 is slightly different then 3
Generation 5 is slightly different then 4
Generation 6 is slightly different then 5
...
Generation 1000 is slightly different then generation 999

But by this point, generation 1000 is likely very different from generation 0 it started out as.

This is the nature of accumulation.
And this is the only real difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

"Micro" evolution is the difference between say generation 5 and generation 7.
While "macro" is the difference between generation 5 and generation 892.

If you would finally go through the effort to learn the basics of the theory, you'ld realise this.
I'm sure plenty of people have already brought this stuff to your attention.
Ignoring it, won't make it go away.

​

By calling it "micro-evolution", they think they can get away with lumping all their assertions under one banner

YOU are the ones calling it "micro evolution", as if it is some kind of special or other process as opposed to macro-evolution.

I just call it "evolution". I have no use for conceptual adjectives that aren't actually relevant to the point since they don't make difference.

Adaptation and macro-evolution are two entirely different processes

No, they are not, as I have just explained to you with the generational accumulation of "adaption".
At no point in that lineage is another process at work between generations.

It's just so happens to be the case that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+.......+1+1 ends up inevitably being a large number.

If you take 5 steps, you will have covered a "micro distance".
If you take 5 million steps, you will have covered a "macro distance".

Both employ the exact same process of "walking".
You don't need a "special" type of "walking" or "steps" to cover a large distance as opposed to a short distance.

Instead, you just walk for a longer period. The longer period allows you to accumulate more steps, which results in longer distance.

It's not rocket science.

One does not prove the other. It operates on the premise that if a little is good, a lot must be better....but a lot cannot be proven.

No. It operates on the premise that if you accumulate lots of small things for some time, you and up with a big thing after a while.

In any experiment on "speciation" what do we see?

A new species.

We see a new variety of an established species.....an adapted version of the same creature.....nothing more.

A subspecies, to be exact.
What else did you expect? A cat giving birth to a dog? A crockoduck?

To suggest that adaptation can then translate into an "amoebas to dinosaurs" scenario

Ow yes, sure, let's pretend as if +3 billion years of evolution is the equivalent of an experiment that runs for a couple months or years...

, is more of a stretch than is reasonable for any logical thinker to make.

Your argument from incredulity is noted.

If one is going on "evidence" then it is clear that there is real evidence for adaptation....

Which is evolution.

but no real evidence for macro-evolution....

It's the same evidence because it's the same process, making the same predictions, resulting in the same evidence.

that is taking the truth and stretching is way beyond anything that can be backed up by concrete evidence.

Not if you actually understand the process as well as the evidence for it.
Off course, if you insist on getting it wrong...................

All that is associated with macro-evolution is based on what is assumed by their own interpretation of evidence.

All that is associated with macro-evolution, is the exact same stuff that is associated with micro-evolution, because all of it is just evolution.

You're joking...right?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created every species specifically.....it says that he created "kinds"...as in "families" of creatures which have the ability to adapt in any changed circumstance to survive. The potential to create many varieties was only limited by their environments. They would never transform or morph into something else.That is imagined by evolutionary scientists.

Give me one example of something you think evolution claims that it "morphed" or "transformed" into "something else" - as in: in anything other then a subspecies of its ancestral species.

Just one example will do.

My expectation is that you are unable to do so because no such examples exist, because evolution doesn't at all say such a thing. In fact, the whole point of Nested Hierarchies is that such doesn't happen. If such would happen, it would be a violation of NH and it would result in something that is actually not explainable by evolution theory.

As such, it would be evidence against evolution. So you're basically claiming that evolutionary scientists "imagine" evidence that would actually be problematic for evolution to address.

I think it's kind of funny that your strawman of evolution causes you to even be wrong about your misrepresentation of the science involved.

What Darwin observed was adaptation to a marine environment by creatures who were related to their mainland 'cousins'. Did Darwin witness the production of a new "kind"

The word "kind" has no meaning in biology.

or just a new variety of the same kind of creature that he already recognized?

Every new species is a variety of its ancestry. This is what produces nested hierarchies.
In fact, every newborn is a variation of its parents.

The finches were all still finches...the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises.....

And humans are still primates.
And primates are still mammals.
And mammals are still tetrapods.
And tetrapods are still vertebrates.
And vertebrates are still eukaryotes.
A human is a variation of a primate, mammal, tetrpod, vertebrate, eukaryote.

In fact, if would find NON-finches that came from finches, you'ld have evidence against evolution.

So what's your point?

Today, that edifice has continued to be added to until it has become an impressive temple.....but no one seems to notice that it is built on matchsticks.

Thank goodness for fundamentalist dogmatic bible believing christians such as yourself, so that you can inform the millions of professional biologists, molecular biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, micro-biologists, evolutionary biologists, etc etc ... that their life's work is all wrong, ey?

There is absolutely nothing to back up what science has presented because it is basically founded on guesswork and wishful thinking. There is no real evidence for macro-evolution.

Uhu, uhu... no evidence at all! Nope!
This tree here, respresenting literally billions of datapoints from fully sequenced genomes:

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Nope, not real! All made up!

uhu

 

[BilliardsBall]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the political concept of social darwinism.

Did you even read the wikipedia article that you yourself quoted?

Again man, it's getting embarassing.
I think you should quit while you are ahea... err... behind, before you are so far behind that you're just a speck on the horizon.

At this point, it's become page after page of your juvenile and dishonest attempt to try and draw links between the science of biology and nazi's.

It is absolutely ridiculous. You're not accomplishing anything here, aside from derailing what was a perfectly decent thread and making a gigantic epic fool of yourself.

Of course it's germane, Hitler et al said non-white races were lower, inferior. This was accepted as truth in universities and museums into my lifetime.

Social Darwinism is aptly named.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now now, let's not lie. My use of etymology is no more bizarre than yours. That was the point of my argument. You can see that it is bizarre when used the same way against Christianity. By your poor standards Hitler was a Christian. You were the one that used your etymology argument, you have to apply it evenly if you want to use it.

False analogy. Hitler doesn't have an "etymological" reason to be called a Christian. Stop goal post shifting:

What is the etymology to you for the STANDARD TERM, "Social Darwinism"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it's germane, Hitler et al said non-white races were lower, inferior. This was accepted as truth in universities and museums into my lifetime.

Social Darwinism is aptly named.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False analogy. Hitler doesn't have an "etymological" reason to be called a Christian. Stop goal post shifting:

What is the etymology to you for the STANDARD TERM, "Social Darwinism"?

LOL! You are right. He had an even stronger one. Even more so by your admittedly bizarre standards Hitler was now a devout Christian.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're wrong.
Adaption IS evolution.

Unsurprisingly, this exact point has been covered before.

What's the difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL! You are right. He had an even stronger one. Even more so by your admittedly bizarre standards Hitler was now a devout Christian.

Again I'm asking:

What is your etymology for the STANDARD TERM, "Social Darwinism"? Hint: It roots from "social" and "Darwinian evolution".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since I have no desire to read all 44 pages of this thread, I will just address the OP.....

It seems to fail to understand that "adaptation" is not "evolution" in the sense that science presents the "macro" version of it. By calling it "micro-evolution", they think they can get away with lumping all their assertions under one banner. The truth is....there is no banner. Adaptation and macro-evolution are two entirely different processes. One does not prove the other. It operates on the premise that if a little is good, a lot must be better....but a lot cannot be proven.

In any experiment on "speciation" what do we see? We see a new variety of an established species.....an adapted version of the same creature.....nothing more. To suggest that adaptation can then translate into an "amoebas to dinosaurs" scenario, is more of a stretch than is reasonable for any logical thinker to make. If one is going on "evidence" then it is clear that there is real evidence for adaptation....but no real evidence for macro-evolution....that is taking the truth and stretching is way beyond anything that can be backed up by concrete evidence. All that is associated with macro-evolution is based on what is assumed by their own interpretation of evidence.



You're joking...right?

First of all, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created every species specifically.....it says that he created "kinds"...as in "families" of creatures which have the ability to adapt in any changed circumstance to survive. The potential to create many varieties was only limited by their environments. They would never transform or morph into something else.That is imagined by evolutionary scientists.

What Darwin observed was adaptation to a marine environment by creatures who were related to their mainland 'cousins'. Did Darwin witness the production of a new "kind" or just a new variety of the same kind of creature that he already recognized? The finches were all still finches...the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises.....all adapted to island living. So what was wrong with his assessment?

Darwin's main problem was his misinterpretation of scripture. His first premise was in error and he built everything on what was a flawed foundation. Today, that edifice has continued to be added to until it has become an impressive temple.....but no one seems to notice that it is built on matchsticks.

There is absolutely nothing to back up what science has presented because it is basically founded on guesswork and wishful thinking. There is no real evidence for macro-evolution.

For the last time, evolution doesn't predict that creatures "morph" into other creatures. If such an event were to occur, it would FALSIFY evolution.

Absolutely nobody who understands and accepts evolution expects to see any creature "morphing" into any other creature. Stop projecting your misunderstandings onto others.

You've been repeating this nonsense for years while never correcting your errors. Stop it.
Are you trying to emulate Kent Hovind or does that just come naturally to you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it's germane, Hitler et al said non-white races were lower, inferior. This was accepted as truth in universities and museums into my lifetime.

Social Darwinism is aptly named.

How's that?

Evolution says nothing about people of different skin colours being inferior or superior to people of other skin colours. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite - that we're basically all the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again I'm asking:

What is your etymology for the STANDARD TERM, "Social Darwinism"? Hint: It roots from "social" and "Darwinian evolution".

What difference does that make? You are using etymology as the basis of a poor argument. We can see where your argument goes,but you need to remember the consequences of using such an argument. Try to reason rationally for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How's that?

Evolution says nothing about people of different skin colours being inferior or superior to people of other skin colours. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite - that we're basically all the same.

He won't allow himself to reason rationally or consistently. His poor Hitler argument backfires since by the standards of his argument Hitler was a devout Christian.

 

[Deeje]

Absolutely nobody who understands and accepts evolution expects to see any creature "morphing" into any other creature. Stop projecting your misunderstandings onto others.

"Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.[1]

This includes aspects of the outward appearance (shape, structure, colour, pattern, size), i.e. external morphology (or eidonomy), as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs, i.e. internal morphology (or anatomy). This is in contrast to physiology, which deals primarily with function. Morphology is a branch of life science dealing with the study of gross structure of an organism or taxon and its component parts." (Wiki)

No morphing?......really? Then please explain how those single-celled microscopic organisms "changed" (morphed) over time into something the size of a three story building....Then perhaps you can explain how that single cell organism just managed to "poof" itself into existence in the first place, and just as accidentally have the inbuilt mechanism to become anything else.....let alone a dinosaur....?

Show us your evidence.....but you already know that there isn't anything real or substantive to back up that scenario. It is assumed that it "must have" happened because science needs for that to be true.

"Might have"...."could have"...."leads us to the conclusion that..."....applies to a Creator too. It's called "belief".....you have beliefs too. You exercise faith in science, even though it can't prove anything that it assumes where macro-evolution is concerned. That is the uncomfortable truth, which is why I keep saying it. I will not be bullied into silence....