open system theory applied to evolution., page-214

Bowral, thank you for your detailed reply.

Let me say this in reply

Firstly,im not sure its worth my while,but i will try,reason being,you have admitted you only brush over my posts,so imo you aernt that serious about what we are saying or conveying,i have read each one of your posts and watched all your utubes etc,i know by your answers and questions to me,you havent afforded me the same

For the one millionth time,we,agree with you on the micro evolution of the tree,we reach a common ground there! :)

We see the minute changes,unobservable from day to day,because they are minute

Where i find fault with your analogy,is this-

The tree when you come back to look at it,is still a tree,even though it has grown etc,it changed from a juvenile tree to a more advanced tree

Charles darwin,went to the Golapogas islands,and observed,genetic changes,within a species of finches,longer beaks,shorter beaks,different variations of colour,mutational changes

Within a species
(i can agree with all of this to this point,its observable ,provable, scientific.

The finches were finches at the start of his observations,and at the finish of his observations,they were still finches

Where science dissapears and "blind faith" is introduced into the sinerio

Is then, his theory assumes,like others do on this thread

1 Is if you give enough time,then the mutational changes etc will then EVENTUALLY, give you a change of species

A different type of species ,than what a finch is,of course given enough TIME, generations etc(time and blind faith here are interchangable words)

This can not be proved,there is no evidence for this in any species in the history of planet earth

Because if there was, there would never be the debate about if we find the missing link(a species in transition between one species,to another,there can be no question,macro evolution(blind faith)is scientific fact

There should be conclusive transition evidence in the fossil record,skeletons etc

Because this has been happening constantly over millions of years

2 The excuses talked about by the supporters of evolution are not valid,because you are saying you need time to prove your theory

Is not several millions years not long enough to have conclusive evidence to support your faith in evolution??

WITH CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE?you all keep parroting,given enough time its observable,well how much time do you want?

If what Darwin was saying was true,there would and could be no question of argument, debate,because like manny1970 keeps imagining in his childish antics,it would be game over,and his kindergarten bully boy tactics would not even be needed,but he hasnt had long enough to evolve that far yet

The tree in your sinerio whereru,was still a tree at every point of your argument,if your point were true,you would clearly be able to demonstrate,where that tree,ever so incremently,changed form,to something different from a tree, from the millions of years of data,because that is how old evolution says the earth is

Then you would be able to say,look at this tiny tree,which micro evolution brought it to maturity,then, see here from the fossil record,over generations,macro evolution took over and we demonstrate here how it changed into something completely different, here at the end of my demonstrable evidence, because it happened over such a long period of millions of years,its observable everywhere and demonstrable

Fortunately because this has happened so often over such a long period of millions of years,i can present to you transitional examples that numerous, the theory is not theory at all,its demonstrable conclusive proof

On the question of Microevolution the process for Macroevolution is the same on a different time scale. For this reason I fail to understand how come Microevolution is OK but Macroevolution is not.

On the tree analogy. An analogy is used to compare things for the purposes of explanation, and not offered as proof.


In the post to which you replied I stated

"In looking at the evolution from species A to Species B evidence provided on this forum are snapshots of species between the two that are linked by time, structure and sometimes by genetics. Each snapshot in time represents a species moving further A and closer to B."

In the analogy I used various stages of the tree development as a representation of different species. I know that they are not - its just an anogy. The constraints that I put on tree observations were to compare to the real constraints of evolution taking a very long time to produce different species.

Example of Whale evolution

This picture shows snapshots of species leading from Pakicetus to Mysticetus. It shows the progression of the loss of legs, the changes and retention of features in the skull, and the development of the tail as a continuum for species on the time line. This is what would be expected of the intermediary species on an evolutionary path.

The evidence lies in terms of the gradually changing features in a way that can be linked and in the retention of other features. We cannot see legs actually disappearing but along a time line can see changes in the legs from species to species. In the tree analogy we cannot see the tree growing by just looking at it but we can see tree growth from the difference in its size in time.

We don't identify changes of the magnitude shown as happening to one species. This is because they are called different species by the time these changes happened.

As far as being given sufficient time is concerned, millions of years is sufficient time. I don't understand your point about being given more time other than if you want to observe current evolution taking place on a macro level.

We look back on records of species and find a multitude of patterns along time lines (Whales are just one example). Our understanding of genetics enables us to understand changes at the micro- and macro level. I don't see the difference between these concepts other than time scales.

On the question of changes being OK within a species but that there is some uncrossable boundary placed on these changes is a concept that I fail to understand. I contribute to a website that is collecting images of all the bird species, and the rapidity at which birds are reclassified leads me to believe that what constitutes a species is far from settled. It seems that no definition covers everything. In terms of evolution I don't find this surprising as changes occur slowly (micro before macro) and species represent a continuum rather than quantum leaps. The snapshots over millions of years make the changes appear to be quantum because we don't have millions of intermediary remains. In the tree analogy we see quantum changes because we are not looking at the tree all the time.

As far as the word faith is concerned I'm not a fan of the word:)
Faith appears to be belief in something without evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. It is therefore blind by definition, and I should not accuse someone of just having faith.