|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4327 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The oldest known writings are 6800 years old. Deep in the mountainside near the Ariege river in France, ghostly images of long ago still dance across the rock walls of tunnels, overhangs, and vast caverns. Hmmmmm. Older than 6,800 years, eh? What do it mean? What do it mean? If you want to discuss this, start a new thread. Maybe you could title it, "Nothing on or in this earth is greater than 6,800 years old." That could be fun! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The introduction from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87 Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). Many pages of details are available at this source. They show that, contrary to creationists' claims, macroevolution does occur. How do you deal with all of that evidence? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: Many pages of details are available at this source. They show that, contrary to creationists' claims, macroevolution does occur. How do you deal with all of that evidence? Well I can find no verifiable, repoducible evidence there that proves 'Macro-Evolution has occured. I don't doubt that you can find no evidence in those pages. From your past posts you are expert at ignoring evidence. And further, where do you dredge up "reproducible" as a necessary qualifier? It is never necessary to reproduce historical events, just to show that they occurred, which those pages do. (You don't really need to reproduce the Gettysburg address before you accept it, now do you?)
If fact they state that their information does not address how 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. The question we are discussing is whether macro-evolution occurred, not how. Stick to the subject.
Now if you have some verifiable reproducible evidence to present please do. I have steered you to the evidence. Please address it in your next post. Pick one specific topic and we can start there. Trying to hand-wave it all away is a typical creationist tactic. Sorry, it doesn't work. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Try googling "transitional fossils hominid" for more results.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
lyx2no writes: How long, ICANT, will this utter stupidity be repeated. Until someone can present verifiable evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' (evolution above the species level) has occured. Scientists and just plain folks from all around the world can see it. It is only folks who subscribe to a particular narrow religious belief who can't see it. Your name, ICANT, is apt. You are willfully dismissing any evidence that doesn't comport with your religious belief no matter what that evidence may be. And you don't have to study that evidence and see what it is, you just dismiss it out of hand. Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning," and you are making yourself the poster boy for that statement. (The history of the past few centuries has shown that belief vs. evidence is not the way to bet the rent money.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I haven't kept up with all the details since grad school, but it is several.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
ICANT, this is a test.
We have the following passages from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentVersion 2.87, Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent [V]ery complete fossil records should be smoothly connected geographically. Intermediates should be found close to their fossil ancestors. We have here a very brief summary of 58 million years of horse evolution. More complete details can be found all over the interweb for those who care to look. Your test, and the test for the co-religionists you represent, is to explain this evidence in some other way than it is explained by the theory of evolution. Your grade depends on the completeness of your answer, the degree to which your answer explains the data, and the internal consistency of the various points you make. In order to falsify this evidence for macro-evolution you will need to do more than just say, "Where you there?" You will need to do more than just say, "Is it reproducible?" You will need to do more than hand-wave it all away with some pseudo-clever creationist quip. The degree to which you can do this determines your grade on this test. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Fail.
EPIC FAIL! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Just a slight hint:
Mouse is not a technical scientific term. You can't use it to make the argument you are making in the above post. Really! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans?
From Wiki: The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last individual, an african ape, that both humans and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor. The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of chimpanzee, the Bonobos and the Chimp, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.
You have pictures of 14 different skulls and some of them only being fragments.
So? (There are a lot more fossils out there than you might think.)
The only thing you verified by these pictures is that a creature with that skull existed at one time. Anything else you claim is verified is nothing more than a conclusion.
False again. The evidence (and it is a lot more than just a few fragmentary skulls) forms a cohesive picture of the past. If this was a court, you could call it circumstantial evidence, which is a lot more reliable that eyewitness testimony. You have just closed your mind to any and all evidence that doesn't support your particular religious beliefs. But that won't make the evidence go away, sorry. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice. But they are still mice. Wrong! Absolutely wrong! "Mouse" and "mice" are generic terms, not scientific ones. In a scientific argument they mean nothing! I've told you this before, but you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anything which, for religious reasons, you might disagree with. If that's the case you have absolutely no business discussing science, or presenting opinions dealing with science. You are simply not qualified. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have advised him twice that generic terms like "mouse" are useless in scientific classification, and mean nothing in the current debate.
My posts have been ignored. As usual. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice. But they are still mice. OK, if changes at the species level are "still mice" then what do you make of the six figures in the upper left half of the figure below? They are a similar level of change to the "mice" you are so fond of. Do you agree that they are all the same?
Here is a better view of one of the early specimens:
So what do you think? Are they all still mice? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Where are the skeleton (remains) bodies, of all these wonderful examples you provide? Here is a very small sampling:
There are a lot of postcranial remains out there, and I can post more if you seriously want to see them.
Is there a primate type (monkey if you will) that humans can procreate with, to produce something not human and not monkey? Simply put can they precreate? Please stick to the topic. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024