Infidel guy on way of the master radio

[Guest]

Asimov,

You wrote:
"For the record, micro and macro evolution are not actual dichotomies."

To the thoroughgoing evolutionist, this statement is correct. To such, macro evolution is the mere extension or extrapolation of micro evolution. The processes that cause insignificant changes within a species or a type of animal (variations in a population of finches, for example) are thought to be the same processes that gave rise to birds as a category from reptilian ancestors.

For "believers" this statement can be affirmed and embraced, with or without any evidence that it is in fact true. Lacking experimental verification, it remains an entirely religious statement--the creation myth of modern atheism.

To those who are more skeptical, and who await evidence before believing such exceptional claims ("exceptional claims require exceptional evidences"), there is indeed a very wide gap between the shapes of the beaks of two varieties of finch arising from an original type, on the one hand, and the idea that beaks themselves evolved from an entirely different mandibular structure. It is not in the least evident that any such myth is the most realistic creation account, and those who are not committed to atheism (the most narrow-minded of all religious cults) are certainly not compelled to embrace it, until compelling evidence is forthcoming.

What kind of evidence would be compelling? Well, the following, at the very least:

1. A series of smooth transitions from one body type (reptilian) to another (avian), with evidence of common ancestry, would be very attention-getting;

2. A logical explanation of how the alleged transitional forms (for example, the creature whose forelimb was no linger a leg, but not yet a functional wing) might be described as "more fit" for survival than its ancestors, each of which had four functional limbs;

3. A reason why this explanation makes better sense than does the more intuitive suggestion of intelligent design and creation (since the latter view has full explanatory power, it should only be overturned by a theory that has superior explanatory power).

There may be other evidences, which I am not capable of anticipating, which would prove convincing. However, the three items above would need to be satisfied, it seems to me, if we were to recognise "extraordinary evidence" for the extraordinary claims of macro evolution.

[Guest]

To the thoroughgoing evolutionist, this statement is correct. To such, macro evolution is the mere extension or extrapolation of micro evolution. The processes that cause insignificant changes within a species or a type of animal (variations in a population of finches, for example) are thought to be the same processes that gave rise to birds as a category from reptilian ancestors.

Of course they are, micro and macro are references to time. Let me put it in perspective for you:

"To the thoroughgoing traveller, this statement is correct. To such, macro travel is the mere extension or extrapolation of micro travel. The processes that cause insignificant changes in distance are thought to be the same processes that give rise to walking across Canada."

Huh? If you're saying that small changes added up over a long period of time do not amount to large changes then I really see no reason to discuss further with you.

For "believers" this statement can be affirmed and embraced, with or without any evidence that it is in fact true. Lacking experimental verification, it remains an entirely religious statement--the creation myth of modern atheism.

Atheism has nothing to do with it.

What kind of evidence would be compelling? Well, the following, at the very least:

1. A series of smooth transitions from one body type (reptilian) to another (avian), with evidence of common ancestry, would be very attention-getting;

What do you mean by "smooth transitions"?

http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003 ... 1-0001.pdf
http://research.amnh.org/users/sunny/hw ... l.2002.pdf
http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003 ... 1-0001.pdf
http://diglib1.amnh.org/bulletins/i0003 ... 1-0001.pdf
http://diglib1.amnh.org/novitates/i0003 ... 1-0001.pdf

Evidence of common ancestry between reptiles and birds is genetic examination.

http://www.tolweb.org/Amniota

2. A logical explanation of how the alleged transitional forms (for example, the creature whose forelimb was no linger a leg, but not yet a functional wing) might be described as "more fit" for survival than its ancestors, each of which had four functional limbs;

Straw-man.

3. A reason why this explanation makes better sense than does the more intuitive suggestion of intelligent design and creation (since the latter view has full explanatory power, it should only be overturned by a theory that has superior explanatory power).

Because God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[Guest]

Asimov,

Your illustration about travel fails to make the necessary analogy to evolution. Walking across Canada, as can easily be demonstrated, is possible to accomplish by the multiplication of the very same kind of steps by which walking across a street in Vancouver is accomplished. One requires only a larger number of the same kind of steps.

On the other hand, if we consider walking across a street to be "micro travel" and we count a trip from Vancouver to China to be "macro travel"—then we must postulate a different mechanism of transport for the latter than for the former. There is nothing to indicate that the type of locomotion that accomplished the micro is all that is needed in order to accomplish the macro.

This is because between Canada and China there lies an obstacle that does not lie between Vancouver and Quebec. Micro evolution (tiny changes within a species, which can be made without interrupting the life patterns for which that species was already well-adapted) is not the same thing as a process that requires a lizard to surrender its viability as a lizard millions of years before it can acquire a comparable viability as a bird.

The problem between reptiles and birds is less troublesome, however, than is the transition from protozoa to metazoa, or from fish to amphibian, or from mammals that give birth to offspring on land to mammals that give birth under water—since reptiles and birds at least both breath with lungs, lay eggs on land, and eat similar diets.

A perfectly contented protozoan, however, performs all its necessary bodily functions without a differentiation of organs. A creature consisting of many cells must have cells for blood, cells for tissues, cells for nerves, etc. The DNA for a protozoan provides for the satisfactory duplication of the organism, which consists of one kind of cell. If a mutation occurred that provided a new type of cell (say, a liver cell), this would not easily find a use in an organism that already had everything it needed in a single cell. Why would natural selection preserve the superfluous liver cell?

Another seemingly insurmountable barrier to macro evolution would be the change from any kind of earlier animal into an insect that undergoes a pupal transformation from one body structure to another. The caterpillar in its cocoon, for example, dissolves into a "nutrient broth" before reassembling itself into a butterfly. The transition from one kind of worm, whose whole lifespan is spent as a worm, and a latter type of worm that liquifies into soup before transforming itself into a winged creature would seem to represent a very perilous path indeed.

You call my second point a "straw man." However, it is this point that presents the Pacific Ocean between Canada and China. To call it a straw man is a poor replacement for a logical argument.

You are right that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. However, divine creation and atheism are mutually exclusive. I did not say that all evolutionists are atheists—in fact, many evolutinists are Christians. What I was saying is that all atheists are evolutionists. They need evolution for their religion to make sense. Christians can take or leave evolution, and their religion makes sense either way.

[Guest]

Your illustration about travel fails to make the necessary analogy to evolution. Walking across Canada, as can easily be demonstrated, is possible to accomplish by the multiplication of the very same kind of steps by which walking across a street in Vancouver is accomplished. One requires only a larger number of the same kind of steps.

Yes, exactly. The same mechanisms.

Micro evolution (tiny changes within a species, which can be made without interrupting the life patterns for which that species was already well-adapted) is not the same thing as a process that requires a lizard to surrender its viability as a lizard millions of years before it can acquire a comparable viability as a bird.

Huh? Yes it is. It has the same mechanisms. Evolutionary Theory uses the same mechanisms.

You still have not defined macro evolution or micro evolution.

You call my second point a "straw man." However, it is this point that presents the Pacific Ocean between Canada and China. To call it a straw man is a poor replacement for a logical argument.

Your second point:
"2. A logical explanation of how the alleged transitional forms (for example, the creature whose forelimb was no linger a leg, but not yet a functional wing) might be described as "more fit" for survival than its ancestors, each of which had four functional limbs;"

1. You ignore environmental changes that would bring about such a change in an organism.
2. The strawman is inherent in this statement "no longer a leg, but not yet a functional wing". Let's look at the dinosaurs that are theorized to have been the ancestors of birds:

a. They were bipedal.
b. Small arms.
c. Had feathers.

So we already have a foundation to build on. Since when is a limb that has feathers on it non-functional as a limb? Bats have wings, they also have functional limbs. Functional only means for a specific purpose, as environmental changes occured, who's to say that the required purpose changed as well?

You are right that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. However, divine creation and atheism are mutually exclusive. I did not say that all evolutionists are atheists—in fact, many evolutinists are Christians. What I was saying is that all atheists are evolutionists. They need evolution for their religion to make sense. Christians can take or leave evolution, and their religion makes sense either way.

No they aren't and no they don't. Atheism is not a religion, anymore than Theism is a religion.