The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[GSOgymrat]

Not at all.

I'm also not polar in my opinions. Many of you guys feel as though if a person isn't on one side then they're on the other. I.E. If a person doesn't believe in evolution, then they are a creationist, or vice versa. You also associate those polar views to one's belief. You guys appear to only see two shades of black, and that's theist or atheist. However, you completely and utterly ignore agnostics, which is pretty interesting in and of itself.

What I found out, after speaking to many of you, is that many of you are on attack mode. The moment a new person shows up, you attack them and attempt to force them to choose a side so you can be friends with them. If they are theists, you quickly label them as trolls and you ban them. If they do not identify with either side (which is what many agnostics do), you pressure them.

I've also found out that the atheists here are not true atheists, but rather apostates that are now self-proclaimed atheists. None of the people I spoke to here knew the views of neo-atheism. None of the people here understand what traditional atheism is. Heck, many of the people here oppose theism so badly that they refuse to listen to data contrary to their own - and as a result, make total logical fallacies. To top it off, they don't even understand why they're fallacies.

Excuse me, you're complaining that forum members want to stick people in categories but then you are the one who brought up the categories: traditional atheists, neo-atheists and agnostics. Now you say that some people are not "true atheists" because they don't fit your expectations. The only requirement for being an atheist is not believing in gods.

[Solitary]

How many times have I heard, "I was an evolutionists, I was an atheist, It is only a theory, after someone spoke to an authority on religion that doesn't have a clue about how science works, how evolution works, or what the laws of physics means by people that are not scientist and believe in a magic man in the sky that has all the answers for the unknown.  Give me a fucking break.  Solitary

[Desdinova]

On top of the insults, mocking and overall ignorance of several individuals I've met here, I can see why many atheists are labeled as a "herds of cats". How can a community grow when new members are treated with such disdain? If you truly want me to leave, I will leave happily. Then perhaps you can add me to your invisible list of "trolls" many of you seem so eager to do.

I'm actually quite fond of cats.  As for the insults and mocking, you brought that on yourself by lecturing us, insinuating that we are ignorant, labeling us, and professing to tell us that we simply don't understand, or maybe we don't have the capacity to understand.  Why don't you answer the question and just tell us what you believe? 

[Mr.Obvious]

Here's a question for you. How does one observe the evolutionary chain of microevolution over a period of millions of years?

I'm a bit baffled by the mere fact that you ask this question. After all, what I seemed to understand from your vision is that you think micro- and macroevolution are supposed to run by different mechanics and therefore that testing microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution. And wondered if you didn't think micro- and macroevolution were governed by different processes and mechanics, how you could come to the conclusion that 'proof of evolution' wasn't 'proof of evolution'. After all, if I interpret your previous posts right, you seem to believe what you call 'microevolution' takes place.
So why you now ask me to find a way to observe 'microevolution' over a period of millions of years is a bit baffling. Unless you accidentally meant 'macroevolution' and made a typo, your question makes me think that you must believe that what you call 'microevolution' only started recently.

But, to answer your question. As such.
First we must realize that the question is 'How does one observe the evolutionary chain over a period of millions of years?' As micro and macroevolution are the same only differentiated in timescale, and if you think not then again I'd like to ask what's the difference in underlying processes and mechanics between the two, we have to observe evolutionary chains over such a vast period of time.
One way of doing this has already been adressed by missingnochi (who has done it better than I probably can but what the heck, let's give it a go). If we work with the hypothesis that all current life came from a common ancestor this should have implications for what we find in reality. Which means we can make predictions that one can test and verify or disprove. One would be that DNA, which is passed down slightly mutated and slightly adjusted to each next generation, should to some point resemble that of other organisms. We would also expect that organisms within one class would have more alike DNA than those between classes. Same for families, order, genus, ... Which we can repeatedly test and find to match our hypothesis and predictions.
We would also expect to find within certain layers of earth certain fossils of animals with certain characteristics. For example; we would expect to find 'simple' forms of life before we find more 'complex' organisms. Which is a bit vague and fishy terminology I admit, but it's the best I can do in English. But talking about fish; we would expect to find fish fossils in older layers than the layers in which we first find tetrapods, which we do. (What a segway into an example; I know.) This prediction is repeatedly examined and proven right by those who study the fossil record. So much so that scientists, as I said before, could predict in which layer one would be able to find which intermediary fossil of an organism with certain charactaristics which would fit perfectly in the evolutionary chain of one species to another. We can observe, over hundreds of millions of years, how in newer layers different fossils with slightly adjusted characteristics but still kin to those found in the layers that came before can be found. We can observe how these changes happen 'stepwise' and branch out, with many branches dying out, but others prevailing and branching out further, changing slightly over such a long period of time that the changes add up.
In short we can observe the fossils in the fossil record and find that these observations match the predictions set out for reality by the evolutionary hypothesis and, together with other evidences such as testing evolution in bacteria etcetera, solidify evolutionary theory as the predominant and (currently) best model for explaining and predicting the world as we know it.

Now it's your turn: Do you think there is a difference between the proposed underlying mechanics, principles and processes of micro- and macroevolution?
If yes, what do you think these are?
If no, why can't proof for 'microevolution' count as proof for 'macroevolution' as the two are simply evolution seen on a different timescale (and thus are governed by the same underlying mechanics, principles and processes)? In case this question confuses you, my bad, but allow me to pose it in a different wording: If 'evolution' encompasses 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' as the two are the same concept and flow from the same processes and mechanics only differentiated in timescale, than why does proving that bacteria evolve (which you accept under the guise of 'microevolution') not count as proof of the theory of evolution which you refute?

[Icarus]

On top of the insults, mocking and overall ignorance of several individuals I've met here, I can see why many atheists are labeled as a "herds of cats". How can a community grow when new members are treated with such disdain? If you truly want me to leave, I will leave happily. Then perhaps you can add me to your invisible list of "trolls" many of you seem so eager to do.

When you say evolution violates the scientific method, then proceed to run around with the goalposts, how do you expect to be taken seriously? Nice try, just make another account and keep the trolling to a minimum.

[Icarus]

I'm a biochemistry student, not an evolutionary biologist. But from my perspective it seems like horses evolved from Eohippus. I could put together similar profiles for any number of species, including humans, and with many overlaps where we find common ancestry. Are you satisfied?

No way! I'm not alone, do you have a specialty yet?

[missingnocchi]

No way! I'm not alone, do you have a specialty yet?

Nope! I'm possibly going on a study abroad trip to South Korea this summer, though, and the university I would be going to has some interesting research on antioxidants going on. That relates to life extension, which is broadly what I'm interested in, so I'm going to see if that's something I can get in to. Telomerase as a target for cancer treatment is also something I've done a bit of research on for previous classes, and it does seem promising. I've been eyeing UT as a possible grad school as they have one of the most prolific telomerase research programs. If you look at the literature, it seems like almost half of it is by Jerry Shay and Woodring Wright alone.

How about you?

[SGOS]

Here's the dope on micro/macro.  Micro evolution is small changes, like a small mutation in one generation.  Probably too small to even notice.  Now you would think that 100,000 micro evolutions over 100,000 generations would add up to a macro evolution, but as any creationist can tell you, macro evolution cannot happen.  It's because of the theoretical micro boundary, which kicks in after 100 micro evolutions, give or take.  This prevents unwanted cumulative changes that would result in an actual Darwinian evolution, which would amount to evolutionary chaos that would bother a lot of people.  Instead, the micro boundary reverses the mutation, and unmutates the damage, keeping it within tolerable limits.

The actual results of unlimited micro evolution would be intolerable.  You spend years trying to get a date with someone who is stupid enough to marry you and produce offspring.  You do this so that your family lineage will be preserved long after you are dead and gone, but three hundred million years from now, the results of so many couplings and cumulative mutations will be producing unrecognizable creatures that aren't even human.  I mean these would be creatures you wouldn't want to even sleep with.  So I'm against macro evolution because it would lead to abominations.  That's why it can't be true.

[Icarus]

Nope! I'm possibly going on a study abroad trip to South Korea this summer, though, and the university I would be going to has some interesting research on antioxidants going on. That relates to life extension, which is broadly what I'm interested in, so I'm going to see if that's something I can get in to. Telomerase as a target for cancer treatment is also something I've done a bit of research on for previous classes, and it does seem promising. I've been eyeing UT as a possible grad school as they have one of the most prolific telomerase research programs. If you look at the literature, it seems like almost half of it is by Jerry Shay and Woodring Wright alone.

How about you?

Cool, I actually know someone who specializes in free radical oxygen species and anti-oxidants (he reallllllllly likes them). Cancer is the big thing to be in for our field, an insane percentage of biochemists work directly or indirectly on cancer. All the money is funneled into cancer so people flock to it. I've been bouncing around for a few years as a sort of research tech/assistant, but I'm starting my PhD in the fall. I've worked on characterizing enzymes involved in unusual fatty alcohol biosynthesis in Brassica napus and some research in elucidating enzyme involved in alkaloid biosynthesis in Catharanthus. In my PhD I'm going to try and complete the natural rubber biosynthetic pathway and express it in Yeast. Plant natural products (or secondary metabolites) are my passion as you can see ;) (sorry for the billion 'in' s I'm tired)

[missingnocchi]

Cool, I actually know someone who specializes in free radical oxygen species and anti-oxidants (he reallllllllly likes them). Cancer is the big thing to be in for our field, an insane percentage of biochemists work directly or indirectly on cancer. All the money is funneled into cancer so people flock to it. I've been bouncing around for a few years as a sort of research tech/assistant, but I'm starting my PhD in the fall. I've worked on characterizing enzymes involved in unusual fatty alcohol biosynthesis in Brassica napus and some research in elucidating enzyme involved in alkaloid biosynthesis in Catharanthus. In my PhD I'm going to try and complete the natural rubber biosynthetic pathway and express it in Yeast. Plant natural products (or secondary metabolites) are my passion as you can see ;) (sorry for the billion 'in' s I'm tired)

That sounds like really cool stuff. Yeast is such a nifty little thing, synthesizing so many drugs and maybe even rubber now (not to mention alcohol :D). Yeah, I'm painfully aware that going into cancer puts me into an ocean of competition. But that's what I want to do, it's a large part of why I got into the major in the first place. I wish I had some cool research to brag about, but as of right now I've still not been involved in any to a serious degree. I'll have much more interesting stuff to talk about when I start my senior research project next year.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yikes, another one who doesn't know the proper term. It's "herding cats", not "herd of cats". You can't herd cats and you can't herd atheists. Neither can ever agree on where to go.

Qchan, your ignorance is embarrassing you.

[trdsf]

If a person doesn't believe in evolution, then they are a creationist, or vice versa.

Emphasis added.

One doesn't "believe" in evolution, certainly not in the way one requires belief in order to accept creationism/ID.  One accepts that it is the current best theory that accounts for the available facts and observations.

"Believe" is an exceptionally poor word choice; it heads in the same direction as "it's just a theory".  When discussing a scientific statement, 'theory' has a very precise meaning, and theories stand or fall on the weight of the evidence and observations, not on belief.

[SGOS]

One doesn't "believe" in evolution, certainly not in the way one requires belief in order to accept creationism/ID.

Belief doesn't quite have the same status of grandeur to a biologist.  You don't see evolutionary biologists going around clutching a science book to their heart and shouting to the heavens, "Yes, I BELIEVE in evolution."  Sure they believe it, but added to the mix is a tentativeness while looking for new information to either support current aspects of evolution or modify them if necessary.  It's this tentativeness that is lost on creationists.  It presents an uncomfortable grey area, where they lose their bearings.

Believing is a big issue for fundamentalist creationists.  They seem to be obsessed with it, as is often implied by their query, "If you don't believe in God, then what do you believe in?"  This tells me that they think you have to believe in one thing or another.  The concept of lack of belief seems lost on them, because not believing is beyond comprehension.  It's either black or it's white.

Creationists have an unshakable belief that Goddidit, so they seem to think that biologists must have the same unshakable belief in evolution. Or at least they want biologists to have that kind of belief.  In that way, they can point fingers at biologists and say, "Look!  Those guys are just as looney as we are.  Their minds are just as closed and are guilty of all the same things we are in our reasoning.

Now let's consider Qchan.  He claims to not believe in evolution as if it's a simple lack of belief, rather than denial.  He points his finger and says, I'm not like you guys.  I'm not swallowing any of it hook line and sinker, until every 'i' of the data about evolution  is dotted, accounted for, and something else as well, as if that's what those who accept evolution are doing.  It's as if he has experienced the weakness of such a closed minded position, and is trying to turn the tables using the same argument that has flummoxed him before.

I can't claim he's a creationist, but his thought processing is very similar to black and white creationist thinking.  If I had to bet money, I'd bet he's a poser claiming to be an atheist, so he can fool us into thinking his criticisms of atheism are more credible.  The problem he faces is that his approach to discussion, argumentation, intellectual honesty/dishonesty, and reasoning are evaluated on their merits.  No one gets a free pass in the forum because he's an atheist.  Bullshit, dishonesty, and an unwillingness to disclose hidden motives are going to get attacked whether it's from an atheist or a theist.

He is here to criticize atheism without actually engaging in discussion.  He's not here for discussion.  That part is obvious.  He's a critic, who wants to be above it all dressed in a suit of Iorn Man like armor, but the best he can do is veil himself a little by not being forthright.

[trdsf]

Belief doesn't quite have the same status of grandeur to a biologist.  You don't see evolutionary biologists going around clutching a science book to their heart and shouting to the heavens, "Yes, I BELIEVE in evolution."  Sure they believe it, but added to the mix is a tentativeness while looking for new information to either support current aspects of evolution or modify them if necessary.  It's this tentativeness that is lost on creationists.  It presents an uncomfortable grey area, where they lose their bearings.

I find the grays breathtaking.  As a writer, I depend upon them, since science fantasy depends on knowing where to do the handwaving so your reader is willing to go along for the ride.  If my writing were limited to the areas of "absolute" knowledge (or at least of solidest theory), I'd be doing mathematics textbooks, and those aren't anywhere near as much fun to write.

Believing is a big issue for fundamentalist creationists.  They seem to be obsessed with it, as is often implied by their query, "If you don't believe in God, then what do you believe in?"  This tells me that they think you have to believe in one thing or another.  The concept of lack of belief seems lost on them, because not believing is beyond comprehension.  It's either black or it's white.

Creationists have an unshakable belief that Goddidit, so they seem to think that biologists must have the same unshakable belief in evolution. Or at least they want biologists to have that kind of belief.  In that way, they can point fingers at biologists and say, "Look!  Those guys are just as looney as we are.  Their minds are just as closed and are guilty of all the same things we are in our reasoning.

Evolution is challenging to them because evolution says the universe doesn't revolve -- (r)evolve? -- around them.  That humans aren't the point of creation, they're just a temporary window on what biology is up to in this epoch, and on geological and cosmological time, we're the barest blip.  Our presence can be inferred only out to a distance of about 150 light years and perhaps directly detected to a radius of about half that, in a universe that's at least 13.5 billion light years or so in every direction.

Now let's consider Qchan.

All I'm going to say there is that I don't find his statements compelling, and don't care to guess at his motivations.

[Qchan]

Excuse me, you're complaining that forum members want to stick people in categories but then you are the one who brought up the categories: traditional atheists, neo-atheists and agnostics. Now you say that some people are not "true atheists" because they don't fit your expectations. The only requirement for being an atheist is not believing in gods.

Were you aware that there are different categories of atheism? There are different sects of Christianity and Muslims. There's different types of Jews too. This shouldn't be a surprise to you.

Hypothesis: Modern Equus evolved from Eohippus through the listed intermediate forms.

If Equus evolved from Eohippus, the fossils of Eohippus, Equus, and the intermediate forms should be found in geological layers correlating to the relationship between their DNA.

Weinstock J, Willerslev E, Cooper A, et al. Evolution, Systematics, and Phylogeography of Pleistocene Horses in the New World: A Molecular Perspective. Plos Biology [serial online]. August 2005;3(8):1373-1379. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed March 18, 2015.

If you have access to EBSCOhost's Academic Search Complete you can find this by simply plugging in the title.

I'm a biochemistry student, not an evolutionary biologist. But from my perspective it seems like horses evolved from Eohippus. I could put together similar profiles for any number of species, including humans, and with many overlaps where we find common ancestry. Are you satisfied?

I'm going to respond to you next since everyone else's reply is based from yours.
The lowest level you have in your graph is the Eohippus. The Eohippus is part of the equid ungulates. In other words, it's still a horse. What you've demonstrated was speciation. Speciation is factual and I agree with it. However, do you have _any_ evidence of a horse becoming a non-horse? This, my friend, is the foundation of my argument.