[quote="JudgeMental";p="687070"]And greater distance between the steps is another way of saying we have no evidence for it. Evolution on a short-term scale, sure. But we have no way to determine if it really does scale the way some people think it does.[/quote]
Yes, we do. The most obvious is the fossil record, but there's also DNA evidence in various species' genomes.
In any case, if you accept "short-term scale" then all you need to do is think of a long series of short-term scales adding up to a much larger change.
Evolution happened on the scale of millions of years.
Theory
-
jimkatai
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1982
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:37 am
- Real Name: Yahweh
- Gender: Male
- Location: Olympia, WA
It isn't just a bunch of short-term evolutions leading up to one long-term evolution. There are big jumps in evolution that are assumed to make long-term evolution possible. Look at it this way. Short-term evolution means [genus name here] [species name here] turns into [genus name here] [different species name here]. Long-term evolution means [genus name here] [species name here] turns into [different genus name here] [different species name here]. There is a radical genetic difference between one genus of organisms and another, greater so than species of the same genus, and there is no proof that this change can take place or even an explanation of how it would happen.
EDIT: By the way, I am waiting for an email from a person that went to college with a major concerning evolution and he should be able to give me an answer to my question, and I'll post it here.
EDIT: By the way, I am waiting for an email from a person that went to college with a major concerning evolution and he should be able to give me an answer to my question, and I'll post it here.
Stand in awe of my creativity
-
JudgeMental
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:48 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Oregon
[quote="dmpotter";p="687141"]
Yes, we do. The most obvious is the fossil record, but there's also DNA evidence in various species' genomes.
In any case, if you accept "short-term scale" then all you need to do is think of a long series of short-term scales adding up to a much larger change.
Evolution happened on the scale of millions of years.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm passingly familiar with the DNA evidence and the fossil record, but there are two problems with it. First, the portion of the evidence that could be considered "overwhelming" is really differentiation on a theme. That is, whales changing their physiological arrangement in one way or another.
The second problem isn't fully shown here, because nobody's really hard-lining. But I've run across a form of circular logic combined with an odd twist to the slippery path fallicy. Evolution (pertaining to unicellular evolving into modern diversity) is true, thus the evidence is interpreted with such in mind, so the evidence quite clearly proves large-scale evolution to be true. The circle starts with the quite obvious evidence that evolution does happen, but the argument becomes increasingly circular the grander the scale becomes.
And besides, as advanced as it is fossil comparison is really quite primitive when you get down to biological nuts and bolts; it's using silhouettes to figure out how to build a car. DNA evidence is only looking at the result of whatever process that created it. Undoubtedly, the evidence points to a relationship. But the nature of the relationship isn't inscribed in any DNA.
Yes, we do. The most obvious is the fossil record, but there's also DNA evidence in various species' genomes.
In any case, if you accept "short-term scale" then all you need to do is think of a long series of short-term scales adding up to a much larger change.
Evolution happened on the scale of millions of years.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm passingly familiar with the DNA evidence and the fossil record, but there are two problems with it. First, the portion of the evidence that could be considered "overwhelming" is really differentiation on a theme. That is, whales changing their physiological arrangement in one way or another.
The second problem isn't fully shown here, because nobody's really hard-lining. But I've run across a form of circular logic combined with an odd twist to the slippery path fallicy. Evolution (pertaining to unicellular evolving into modern diversity) is true, thus the evidence is interpreted with such in mind, so the evidence quite clearly proves large-scale evolution to be true. The circle starts with the quite obvious evidence that evolution does happen, but the argument becomes increasingly circular the grander the scale becomes.
And besides, as advanced as it is fossil comparison is really quite primitive when you get down to biological nuts and bolts; it's using silhouettes to figure out how to build a car. DNA evidence is only looking at the result of whatever process that created it. Undoubtedly, the evidence points to a relationship. But the nature of the relationship isn't inscribed in any DNA.
"HTRN, you've failed. Give up now and praise the awesomeness that is JudgeMental." - Arc Orion
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests