allenmaher said:
it is eminently clear that you don't really understand what you are quoting. A phenotype, or phenotypic trait can be preserved because it is evolutionarily successful, having claws for example. At a genetic level all species are evolving an all species today that resemble ancient species do so because they have inherited traits, not because they are the same species and have not evolved. i called macro evolution BS because the genotypic changes do not always have large phenotypic changes. Large phenotypic changes can occur without a change in speciation. I have never claimed that species don't evolve, they are all constatnly evolving. Similar inherited traits due to ancestry do not equate to the same species remaining unchanged for long periods of time. The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is largely discredited since it conflicts with a considerable amount of evidence. While shifts in morphology can occur in relatively short evolutionary time (still millions of years) this does not mean that the underlying mechanism of change is any different. Changes in hox genes create very noticable differences but it is still just one genetic mutation. The gentic difference between hair, scales and feathers, very different ectodermic manifestations are really just a few base pair mutations. Small genetic changes can have large manifestations or subtle phenotypicly invisible ones. Humans are apes, we have a few traits that are different than the other apes, but really not that many. The genetic differences between us and the other chimps is less than the natural genetic variation within many spcies. We even give ourselves our own genus, Homo, even though if we were to follow our own nomenclature rules the genus of humans should be Pan. The three extant species of chimps are us Pan sapien, the regular chimp Pan troglodytes, and the bonobo Pan paniscus. They share common traits because they have common ancestry, all three species have evolved genetically since the last common ancestor. A collegue and occasional drinking buddy of mine is an evolutionary biologist, he works on the area of post sexual selection (mainly at a molecular level), and while there is debate and research in the filed of evolution about things like the relative importance of selecetion methods, all of those debating understand that evolution is a fact. In his words "I don't believe in evolution, it is a fact, there is no need for belief." Debate in science is normal, but the evidence (facts) are agreed upon because they are verifyable. That evolution occured is considered as much a fact as gravity. Evolution is better understood than gravity. we know the mechanisms and we have ample evidence. In science the term theory is not used casually. A well reasoned and supported conjecture is called a hypothesis, when something in science is called a theory, it is because there are mountains of supporting evidence and it represents our best understanding of how things work based on many well tested hyponthesis. Rather than cherry picking quotes from papers that you clearly don't understand, why not read the papers? Have you read them or do you just grab the quotes out of context from some creationist disinformation site?
|
Okay, instead of going back and forth with this how about you show me empirical evidence that evolution is a fact - that is an organism evolving an eye, wing or some type of feature that would give credence to the goo to you by the way of the zoo story. What's you show me the documentation we can call it a day.
You may think I am asking for too much but am I really if evolution is supposedly scientific?
The scientific method is based on observable, empirical evidence among other things. Indeed empiricism (an basis in experiment) is what gives science its credibility. Showing empirical evidence of some repitilian species evolving feathers or wings, or a land mammal species evolving a blow hole, or a culture of prokaryotes evolving eyes or limbs.
If you can't show any empirical evidence then it falls short of the scientific method. Simple as that.
Evolution proponents are good at giving just-so stories but not actually producing hard science.
