Mikie

What I mean is that Darwin's contribution was not the idea of evolution, but the idea that natural selection and decent with modification provide the means to carry it out. The problem is (and I'm sure you've heard it before) that their is no documented case of MACRO evolution, or a jump to another level dramatic enough to constitute actual "evolution" in the Darwinian sense. Any changes that have been observed in the lab can just as well be attributed to adaptation within the localized gene pool, and have not demonstrated true evolutionary MACRO change. Puncuated Equilbrium has attempted to account for the macro problem, but has not satisfied the requirements of the scientific method, and as such remains a "wish" rather than good science.

Even Darwin, on page 75 (if memory serves) of his Origin of Species, admits that organs such as the eye cannot be explained by his theory. According to the requirements of natural selection, the eye cannot "evolve" because there is no immediate merit to a "light sensor" and thus it would be discarded before the other independent elements of the eye that are required for sight would be developed.

Darwin's modification theory fails with the eye. There are other problems, but the eye is the most dramatic demonstration of how Darwin's modification theory cannot stand. Either the eye works and provides vision from the get go, or it must be discarded. The eye could not have "evolved".

simian

(grabs a bowl of popcorn and watches the experts)

Simian

MrDarwin

There are numerous observed cases of macroevolution. Among these are the progressions (in both morphology and through time) of transitional forms from fish to tetrapods, from dinosaurs to birds, and from apes to modern humans. The changes are quite dramatic, and quite well-documented.

nogods4me

Utter crap. And probably cut and paste from some creationist site, Hamm, Hovind, or some other nutter.

Try Here. for a start.

More out of context quoting. You really should learn to just use Google, it would make our lives so much simpler. just type in evolution of the eye, and off you go.

Sven

Oh no, not again...

This isn't "macroevolution". Please read up on the theory instead of bolstering your ignorance. Ever heard of www.talkorigins.org ?

No one who knows the theory thinks that evolution works by "jumps".

When talking about "macroevolution", this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
is especially interesting. Reserve some hours for reading, then come back to discuss.

Hmm, as far as I know, this controversy is not yet settled.

Oh no, not that again... Why do creationists always blindly repeat what they read on a web page?
Darwin did no such thing. He asked the question rhetorically how an eye could have developped this way and then goes on and answers this question. This is a nice example of the typical creationist tactic of "quote mining". I seldom encountered a more dishonest tactic to win an argument.

[snipped rest of misinformed, ignorant blather]

Edited to add a quote:
This is what you want to believe to be true. But the paragraph continues this way:
"Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable."
From www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

Sven

I don't think I count as "expert", but I answered anyway... just could not resist

MrDarwin

First, let's make clear what we mean by "macroevolution". "Macroevolution" in the modern biological sense simply means the evolution of one species from another. Creationists and other anti-evolutionists use the word in a different (although probably its original) sense to mean a transformation from one major group to another (e.g., from fish to tetrapods).

The theory of punctuated equilibrium tried to explain observed patterns in the origins of individual species, not in the origins of major groups. So yes, in the biological sense it tried to explain a macroevolutionary pattern, but not in the way the creationists always seem to think.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis, an explanation of observations. It can make predictions, can be tested, and can be potentially falsified. In this sense it is eminently good science, whether you think it's true or not.

Kingreaper

also try the ever relevant TO http://talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Edit: lots of posts in between, mine was supposed to come after nogods4me's

Mikie

There is no reason to believe that your examples show macro evolution. The example you give of "fish to terapods" has not been shown anywhere other than the fossil record, which is repleate with fully formed tetrapods that show no incremental change that can be directly linked to more primitive forms. The evidence you give here is, I believe, evidence in similarity, and assumption.

The evidence you give for transofomation from dinosaur to bird "Puncuated Equilbrium", again is hypothesis, and never demonstrated in the wild, nor shown in the fossil record because the event can't be demonstrated that way. Also, there has never been an adequate explanation of just how that happens. It seems to be an idea of how, since the fossil record supports stasis, that macro change can occur, but it fails to provide anything other than an explanation of how something that scientists already believe to be true could possibly be true. True science needs more - it needs evidence.

Also - you need to be aware that true evolutionary theory does not state that we evloved from "apes", but rather that humans and primates had a common ancestor. This is quite a different notion.

Mikie

I fail to see how PE can be tested. Has it been tested and documented? I was under the impression that it was mere speculation - (I used the word hypothesis earlier to not offend). I don't believe that PE can be tested. I also don't beleive that it's been observed.

Do you have references? I know that Gould and Eldredge postulated the idea, but I haven't heard that it's been tested.