|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4305 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Circumstantial evidence I don't understand what you mean by "circumstantial evidence." That's a term of law, not way of describing scientific evidence (since all scientific evidence requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.) But this would seem to indicate your admission that evidence for macroevolution has been presented; you just don't like it, for some reason. Can you elaborate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
'Macro-Evolution' is the process that is proposed to explain how we and all other creatures extinct or living arrived on planet earth from a single cell life form. Not quite. Macroevolution is the process that is observed as the origin of new species. The theory of evolution is the proposal for how all extant life forms did arise, and its a scientific conclusion from the evidence (as well as the logical conclusion of parsimony) that all organisms share common descent from a single organism. The theory of evolution, in other words, explains the history of macroevolution.
The history of 'Macro-Evolution' would be a detailed account of how that process took place to date. Correct. You can view that history, as best we understand it, at
Tree
of Life Web Project When you have gaps of millions of years you do not have a complete history. True, but the proper response to this is not to abandon all progress simply because there's progress yet to make. We don't know everything about medicine, for instance. The appropriate response is not to tear down hospitals, it's to build more schools.
We have a book of 4.6 million years with many chapters covering millions of years missing. If there wasn't more to do, what would be the point of teaching people biology? Yes, I admit - we don't have infinite knowledge about the past. Yeah, you really got me there.
If you want me to look at it present your argumentation along with the link. Ok. You asked for evidence of macroevolution. I argue that
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent presents 29+ evidences for macroevolution, to which you have not yet replied or even read.
If you make an assertion and present a link, why should I even consider it? Because you asked for it. You asked for evidence; it was provided. Why would you not even look at something you specifically asked for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
ICANT -
Is this an image of a man in motion, or a man who is motionless? If you think this man is in motion, could you explain how you know that, since the picture is not moving in any way? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can call it anything you want to call it. But if you start with two mice and a billion years later you got trillions of mice and billions of them can not breed with each other because of changes or habits you still got trillions of mice, whether they can breed with each other or not. Right. And again - macroevolution is not the prediction that mice will ever stop being mice; it's that the group called "mice" will come to refer to more and more different species. "Ape" referred, once, to only a single species. Now it refers to dozens, including hominids like us. "Hominid" once referred to a single species; now, it refers to dozens, including Homo hablis, Homo neandertalis, and Homo sapiens. Do you understand, yet? Mice will still be mice, apes will still be apes, tetrapods will still be tetrapods, birds will still be birds - yet, macroevolution will still be occurring, species will still be changing, and new species will still be emerging from old ones. Mice will never turn into birds - but evolution doesn't say that they ever did. Do you understand that? Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of land creatures. I don't have a problem with there being many different species of water creatures. Could you believe that the same "kind" of creature could come in both land and water varieties? I mean, surely that's not a stretch - you've heard of "water rats", right? So why couldn't every kind of mammal be the same "kind" of creature, only in different species - very different species - in very different environments? Why couldn't every reptile be the same "kind" of creature, only in very different species? And if you can imagine the diversity of mammals all being one "kind", and the diversity of reptiles all being one "kind", then why couldn't mammals and reptiles themselves just be two different versions of the same "kind"? If something in there doesn't work for you - then how much diversity, exactly, are you not prepared to accept as emerging from a single type of organism via microevolutionary change? Be specific.
The problem arises because of the lack of evidence that everything has evolved from one living life form that began to exist all by itself. That evidence has already been presented to you. There's no "lack" of it.
Example changing steel into gold. "Steel" isn't an element, it's an alloy of iron and carbon.
One creature into a totaly different creature. Your avatar is of two totally different types of horses. You can, I assume, imagine two totally different types of mice - say, one that dwells on land and another that lives in the water. You yourself have admitted to turning one kind of pig into a totally different kind of pig. Yeah, yeah, they're "still mice, still pigs", whatever that means (you won't say.) So why is it impossible for you to believe that all living things are actually the same type of creature in an extraordinary diversity of form and environment? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Actually knowing each and every step would be science. Well, no. Science doesn't insist on having perfect knowledge immediately. If science knew everything as soon as it started, why would we still be doing it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
At no time did the piney-woods-rooter cease to be the same creature that I started with. Well, it's not the same creature you started with. The creature you started with, presumably, died long ago, and the piney-woods rooters you have now are his descendants. And, again - if "piney-woods rooter", as a term, can now encompass two species where before it encompassed one, why can't that be happening in nature? Why can't that have happened in the past? Why can't "mammal", for instance, at one time have encompassed only a single kind of creature, and then over time come to have encompassed a large number of related creatures?
We do a lot of things and over time we change a lot of the things we have done in the past. Sure, definitions change. Is that what happened with your piney-woods rooters? Was everybody wrong about what that term referred to, and you wrote a letter to Miriam-Webster or whatever and have the definition changed? That's not at all what you did, right? Didn't you actually breed a new form of piney-woods rooter? In other words - nothing about the word was changed at all; the actual biological reality was changed. What the word referred to changed, not the word. Why couldn't that happen to another species? Be specific.
Well when that picture was taken Radar was the largest horse in the world. Thumbelina was the smallest horse in the world. Neither was refered to as anyother creature. So you take some expert's word that they're both horses, but not that evolution happens? Come on, ICANT, think for yourself. Do you really need some egghead to tell you what a horse is? I doubt even you could be that intellectually timid. You breed animals, for Christ's sake, you must know how to recognize them. How do you know that both animals are horses? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. Can you briefly summarize what you believe are his best points?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024