format_quote Originally Posted by
root
That is just you blowing hot air, like when you imply abiogenesis as part of evolution. Under the theory of evolution no distinction is made to differentiate between Micro & Macro Evolution, it's no good spitting the dummy because you want to simplify things (And I simply don't believe that anyway).
Well then they should make that distinction because there's a big difrence between some species sharing a common ancester and all species sharing a common ancestor. I was refering to the universal ancestor, so your comment
was irrelevant. You just can't let it go can you? You're not even defending your theory. Yuo're just desperatly trying to defend your comment what's the point of that when I already stated you misinterpreted it?
It's the link within that post that I was refering to so here it is:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0508653103v1
The new study – published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive.
Look I explained you this a thousand times. Ask any biologist he'll agree. Natural selection hapens AFTER the apearance of a new specie. First you need to have an evolved specie, then it can overpopulate through natural selection. That makes natural selection a secundairy force in evolution, not a driving force. What they meant in this article is that natural selection does have an effect they had a lousy choice of words by saying it's a driving force. What they meant is that it can steer evolution to a certain direction. But
natural selection does not cause new DNA. get your cause and effect right.
As I have clearly stated Steve, I question what you mean by an Intermediate species, since mainstream evolutionary biologists see all living species past and present as intermediate. perhaps you could enlighten us as to what
YOU mean when you use the term "Intermediate species"!
Well for universal common descent to be considered a theory rather then a hypothesis, they need to present mechanistic theorys. This includes a family tree, with every step in teh line. But a tree derved not from fenotype, but from simularities in genotype. Show me the fysical proces that occured between every two links in the chain, for teh DNA to have mutated from
specie A to specie B. If you'll try this, you'll find that the difrent chains have to much difrence in between their DNA for a single proces to have caused such an evolution. So for all those steps should exist a missing link.
PS, what do you mean "way to much gaps" if we only currently can account for only around 15% of all known extinct life!
Ok stop. Look at what you did. We've only found 15%? SO how do we know that there actually is 85% missing? Because evolution predicts so! So in your own words, you just admitted 85% of the chain in common descent is missing! I'd say that's a huge gap. Still having troubles understanding what I mean with intermediate species and missing links? You see why I call it a hypothesy!
Sorry Steve, the scientific consensus is not in agreement with you. It's not circular neither. Science does not deal in "facts", and these statements are as close to a fact as science will allow, all of which is based on available scientific data with overwhelming scientific agreement.
How can you call this science? All those scientists stubornly call this theory when it's clearly a hypothesis that isn't even worked out yet. As long as nobody brings foreward some mechanistic theories we don't even have a theory to put up to the test, yet you claim this is science? NO it's speculation, it's believe. And your comment about missing percentages showed you just how circular the reasonings are!
Your idea that mutation is the sole producer of evolution just went out the window eh. And yes it is still a cat and would be able to interbreed with other cats so it's a bad example. perhaps you should read the link I gave in this post.
NO it didn't it still stands very solidly. See the whole confusion here is due to a lousy terminology. Technically once two branches of the same specie grow apart to the point that the can no longer mate they're considered difrent species. But such a proces cannot account for new DNA within these species. The reason they can no longer mate is because in one of the branches a mutation took place. For new species, you need new DNA. For new DNA you need mutation. For evolution to work, you need a mutation in every single step. Once that occured, other factors like natural selection can come and interfere, but that is no longer the "cause" of evolution, that is simply the way the mutation will manifest itself.
I would suggest that the theory of evolution, while you accept the main points clash with your own belief, and your attempt to try to blur this area so you may integrate the two is the root of the problem,
First of all, I never accepted that evolution clashes with my belief. I see it perfectly posible to combine the two. I never made such claims, seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. I can see Islam and evolution combined without any problem. The reason I'm doubtfull about universal common descent is because it has way to much speculation.
I just don't (and probably never will) understand how you demand so much proof to something as common descent yet accept God split the moon into two then rejoined them again on the basis of a religous book, without any "facts" proof or even rational logic.
Why I need proof for one and not for the other? Because one of them makes sense, while the other doesn't. Because one fits better in my paradigm then the other. And you find this odd for the very same reason. I could turn this question aruond, and formulate it in a difrent way so one sounds more credible then the other to a neutral observer. But regardles of how we compare those two. Our difrent paradigms will alwyas result in oppository thinking that one is more reasonable then the other. and no matter how many arguments you can bring, and no matter how many arguments I bring. In the end of the day, both rely on belief (or disbelief in your case). In teh end of the day, the reason universal common descent sounds reasonable to you regardless of all the missing links, regardless of the lack of mechanistic theorys, regardless of all the hypothesis is simply because it's easyer for you to accept this. You don't believe in God (creation), so therefor it's more reasonable that one chain of species evolved into teh current number of species rather then assuming that several difrent species evolved into the current number of species. So the very base of your acceptance of this theory is because you don't believe in God. If you'd believe in God, you would argue that it is firly easy for GOd to split the moon, and you'd have no problem with accepting it. You can debate it as much as you want in the end of the day, our difrence in preferance is caused by personal convincion. Not by proofs or not because one is more "logical" then the other.
Truth is, you don't want to accept your 249,000th grandparent was an ape like primate because that makes you an animal just like the rest of life and suddenly, your uniqueness as man being seperate from the animal kingdom dissapears in a puff of smoke.
You couldn't be more wrong, I absolutely don't need my descent to establish myself as "special". Wheter I am considered part of the animal kingdom or not makes lil difrance to me. I told you I can see Islam and evolution go hand in hand perfectly. The reason I won't accept universal common descent is just because it has way to many gaps in it. Nothing more, nothing less. If tommorow you'd show me mechanistic theories filling the gaps, showing which processes took place, fine I'll accept it. And you know what? It will make absolutely NO difrence in my belief. It will make absolutely no difrence in my day to day life. I do not have a hidden agenda. I do not "NEED" this hypothesis to be false. I can live with it perfectly. It wouldn't require me to take a single step back in faithfullness or belief.
Tell me, who is the one here that should question his (dis) beliefs if his point of view were proven wrong? Who has everything to loose and everything at stake here?