Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? as edited by DylanBiery (Talk | contribs) at 07:32, 19 May 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--TimS 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.


Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

  • All life on Earth shares common ancestor
  1. All life on Earth shares molecular features.
    • Counter: This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--Aschlafly 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
      • Counter: Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
      • Counter: Recent scientific discoveries [1], have demonstrated a proven link between non biotic molecular features and biotic RNA. The counters raised by Aschlafly and others on this point are empirically shown to be false.--DylanBiery 08:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
      What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
    1. Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
    2. Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
    3. Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[1] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
      1. If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
    4. Genetic system:
      • Ribosome structure
      • tRNA structure
      • The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
      • Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
  2. Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
    • Counter: There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
      • Counter: Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--TimS 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Counter: There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
        • Counter: The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--Aschlafly 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
          • Counter: Mutations are mostly harmful, but not always.
            • Counter: Mutations are mostly inert.--TimS 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Additional Counter:Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
          • Additional Counter: Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--ChrisF
          • Counter: Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --Me4real 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Counter: On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
              • Counter: Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --KarmicNoose 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
                • But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--Άθεος 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
          • Counter: Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.

    • Counter: Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--Άθεος 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
      1. The speed of evolution is measured by the darwin (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [2]
      2. Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
      3. As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
      4. A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
    • No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
    • Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.
    • Counter: The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.

-Chris J

      • Counter:Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. JoshuaZ 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
      • Counter:If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[AdamNelson 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--Άθεος 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German) [[AdamNelson 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]


There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that natural selection will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, without any need for supernatural intervention.

The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky illustrations and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.

Both are earmarks of Pseudoscience.

On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --Ed Poor 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Counter: Except they have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. User:Cthx
Comment: The reason that the 'proponents' of macroevolution do not own up to this theory is, in fact, because they are NOT proponents of this theory. It is actually CREATIONISTS who refer to this as 'macroevolution'. The 'proponents' of this theory simply lump both 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' under one term - 'evolution'. The reason for this is quite simple - creationists admit that 'microevolution' occurs, as it has been proven to happen. Evolutionists say that 'macroevolution' is 'microevolution' continuing to happen for an extremely long time, so why use two different terms for the same thing? Urushnor 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)

The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? Truthis power 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Counter: Yes, in that the Bible is most likely wrong: it is a collection of texts and stories. How is it "logical" to have species appear out of no-where? What happens to the air that was there before the animals appeared? Doesn't this supernatural Genesis contradict all natural laws we observe? If anything, this seems to be illogical.User:Cthx

Actually Cthx, The Old Testament doesnt contradict any of the natural laws of the universe. In fact, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Things that were writtne thousands of years ago that did not make sence before are barely starting to make sence now. 17 times in the Old Testament it says that God stretches out the heavens. Nobody knew what that meant before but now we see that the universe is expanding. He also says that he holds all things together and that he stopped creating. Well we know this now. That nothing can be created or destroyed and everything is being held together. Were not figuring out anything that God isn't already in charge of. A last note. Matthew 22:29 says, "Ye do error, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Don't get upset however and become hard hearted and stubborn. Open your heart. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Revelation 3:20) User:wapfeffer

But Wapfeffer, all of the empirical evidence points torwards Evolution, and in science religious beliefs must be taken at face value. Science does not care what anybody believes, it just takes the availible info and comes up with the most logical explanation for said info. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Yes capercorn methinks you are correct. ;)

--Tortilla 11:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)