Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 6:19 AM
205 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie, Son of Man (3 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,039 Year: 16,862/29,783 Month: 850/1,956 Week: 353/331 Day: 12/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 238 (591242)
11-12-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by ICANT
11-12-2010 3:23 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
ICANT, I believe you've lost track of what it is you are trying to prove.

quote:
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
noun
Definition:
theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.


The first definition above would include major changes within a species, as well as changes exceeding species boundaries. That definition is not consistent with the second definition that you cite.

Secondly, I'm sure you are aware that not all canines are of a single species. I suspect that you will agree wolves are the ancestors of domestic dogs. But using either of the definitions you've cited, that ancestry is the result of macro-evolution.

The stated goal is to prove that Macro-Evolution does not occur. The normal way to do that is to say that Macro-Evolution is evolution from one kind of animal to another. You are not suppose to acknowledge the word species as anything more than an artificial classification made up by scientists to deny God. Instead you are suppose to talk about baramins and about "wolfy" kinds.

On the other hand, you are supposed to allow evolution between species but within a kind so that all of the present day land animals can be descended from the animals that would fit on the ark. Instead you are undermining Noah.

I think we have our answer. Regardless of the truth, you cannot disprove Macro-Evolution. At least not this way.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 3:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 227 of 238 (591244)
11-12-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
11-12-2010 4:19 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Since they can breed with cattle and produce offspring that can produce offspring as far as I am concerned they are just another breed of cattle.

Cattle, by definition, are domesticated bovine. Something tells me buffalo are not domesticated bovine. It's a good thing that animals aren't defined by your concern.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 228 of 238 (591245)
11-12-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 5:48 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi crash,

crashfrog writes:

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.

I understand mice will always be mice.
I understand that apes will always be apes.
I understand that flying creatures will always be flying creatures.
I understand that all the water creatures will remain water creatures.
I understand that all land creatures will remain land creatures.
I understand that all the air breating creatures that can also survive in the water will remain air breating creatures that can survive in water.
I understand that mankind will always remain mankind.

I just understand that for a different reason than you do.

I also understand that there will be sub-species that will arise due to malfunctions in errors in DNA information resulting in mutations.

Now if you have definite, verifible evidence that a new creature that has never existed before began to exist please present it.

That would be evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured.

Now you said species will still be changing and will be emerging.

Just what is your definition of a species?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 5:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2010 5:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 236 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 7:04 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 229 of 238 (591246)
11-12-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
11-12-2010 4:19 PM


ICANT is wrong yet again as he tries to avoid the topic.
ICANT writes:

'Macro-Evolution' is when a critter ceases to be a specific critter and becomes a totaly different critter.

It is theorized that a fish walked up on land and became the first land dwelling life form creature. That would be 'Macro-Evolution'.

No, that is not what is theorized. And no critter has ever ceased being a specific critter and become a totally different critter.

BUT, once again, all of that is simply irrelevant as you try to dance around and avoid addressing the topic.

The topic involves disproving Macro-Evolution.

What you think, believe, assert, speculate or fantasize has nothing to do with the topic.

The current Theory of Evolution provides a method that can explain all of the diversity of life seen.

Until you can provide a more compelling, convincing and testable method and model, your input is as worthless as the god you try to market.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1736
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 230 of 238 (591247)
11-12-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ICANT
11-12-2010 4:44 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
I understand that apes will always be apes

So are you finally admitting that humans, who are apes, are related to the other apes?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 231 of 238 (591250)
11-12-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
11-11-2010 6:14 PM


Re: ICANT's predictions about as valueless as the god he markets.
Hi jar,

jar writes:

In addition, as has been explained to you, the topic is whether macro-evolution can be disproved.

In Message 1 JRTjr said:

JRTjr writes:

I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ {Also known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’ or ‘Natural selection’}.

This statement asks a question.

That question was used as the title of the topic.

Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?
The balance of the sentence being: "using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences.

I find nowhere that JRTjr said he was going to give any information other than what is in the OP.

You guys have a reading or compherension problem I don't know which.

jar writes:

As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve.

I have actualy admitted that changes in critters takes place and that change can cause critters not to be able to breed and reproduce.

No place have I admitted that critter 1 can become critter 2 that has never existed before.

That is 'Macro-Evolution'.

jar writes:

The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time.

Yes.

jar writes:

It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters.

ToE does not explain why.

It attempts to tell us how current life forms evolved from the first single cell life form on Earth.

jar writes:

The divisions of critters into the various categories is simply a human construct we created to put labels on things. The difference between humans and the rest of the great apes exists only in the minds of man, that we, man, decided to extend the labeling system to that level.

I agree that labels have been put on critters by mankind that has a personal worldview that shapes their beliefs.

jar writes:

Now you may not believe any of this, and that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.

BUT, there is evidence to support the conventional model, and no evidence to support any alternative.

I am glad I have your permission to think outside the box.

There is evidence to support that changes in species take place over time.

There is no evidence that supports changes from species 1 to a totaly different species 2 that has never existed prior to division.

jar writes:

In addition, neither you or anyone else has presented any reason to even consider that macro-evolution is not simply the sum of micro-evolution over time, much less any evidence that would disprove Macro-evolution.

There is no direct history of 'Macro-Evolution' from Berekeley.

Therefore there is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'.

jar writes:

Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market.

You are welcome to your opinion and belief just as I am.

jar writes:

When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again.

So why have you wasted your time reading what I have posted and then made 12 posts of your own?

jar writes:

But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant.

As are your assertions, and belief

jar writes:

Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer.

Why do I need a model?

But as you know I do have one. God did it.

Now back to the topic.

JRTjr asked the question: "Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?"

Where would one find evidence to disprove 'Macro-Evolution' when there is no direct evidence to refute?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 11-11-2010 6:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 5:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 232 of 238 (591251)
11-12-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ICANT
11-12-2010 5:42 PM


Re: ICANT's predictions about as valueless as the god he markets.
ICANT writes:

Why do I need a model?

But as you know I do have one. God did it.

Now back to the topic.

JRTjr asked the question: "Can I disprove Macro-Evolution?"

Where would one find evidence to disprove 'Macro-Evolution' when there is no direct evidence to refute?

I'm sorry but "God did it" is certainly not a model and is worthless as an explanation.

The issue is still, can you disprove Macro-Evolution. If you cannot find evidence then that is just your problem, not mine.

And no critter has ever changed into other than what it was born as, and no one has eve made such a claim except Creationists.

It really doesn't matter whether or not you think there is evidence that Macro-evolution has happened, unless you can present a model that better explains what is seen and is more convincing, your input is as worthless as the god you try to market.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 5:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 233 of 238 (591257)
11-12-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 6:16 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi crash,

crashfrog writes:

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?

No.

But I know there are land creatures that spend a lot of time in the water.

The problem is they can not exist under water indefinitely. So they are a different critter than a fish.

crashfrog writes:

That evidence has already been presented to you. There's no "lack" of it.

What you believe is evidence that supports 'Macro-Evolution' may have been presented. But just because you believe it is evidence does not make it evidence.

crashfrog writes:

"Steel" isn't an element, it's an alloy of iron and carbon.

I stand corrected. I should have used the word metal.

crashfrog writes:

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.

First off I don't believe the two horses in my avatar are two different types of horses. I do believe they are two different breeds of horses.

I did not turn my pig into a totaly different pig. I modified a pig by selective breeding to increase in size. He still retained his ability to live on smaller amounts of food and water than the breed of pig he was mixed with. This was modification by artificial selection. It was not 'Macro-Evolution'.

Since you asked me to be specific all creatures was formed from the ground except fish and modern man which was created.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 6:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 234 of 238 (591259)
11-12-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by ICANT
11-12-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Do you misuse the word "was" where "were" is supposed to be used, on purpose?


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 235 of 238 (591260)
11-12-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by frako
11-11-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi frako,

frako writes:

Ok so you acnowlage that they are different species not breeds so what is then the problem of macro evolution being evolution above the species level.

Actually if you want to be correct it would be necessary to say they are sub-species. Which would be a division out of an existing species.

In other words a species sub dividing because for one reason or another they can not nor will not breed for any reason is not 'Macro-Evolution'.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:09 PM frako has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 236 of 238 (591264)
11-12-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by ICANT
11-12-2010 4:44 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'

Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1770
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 237 of 238 (591274)
11-12-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ICANT
11-12-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi ICANT,

You ignored the point I was trying to make.

You said in message 145

quote:
A man leaves point A and a man reaches point B where is the 'Macro-Evolution'?

I am sure he changed a lot during the trip you described one being that he would be very, very, very old.

But if he is still a man when he arrives no 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. Whether the journey took a week or a billion years, and no matter how many pictures of that man you had along the way.


and I responded in message 157 that no one was saying the man was macro-evolving:

quote:
No one is saying that the man making the journey is evolving. It is an analogy: each individual step in his journey is like each individual step in Micro-evolution. When he reaches his destination, all those small steps add up to his entire journey. just like all those small steps of Micro-evolution add up to become Macro-evolution.

Do you get it now?

ICANT in message 157 writes:

Once it is established how life began to exist then we could get serious about what has happened since that time.

Well this thread topic is Can you disprove Macro-Evolution, not how life began.

ICANT writes:

'Micro-Evolution' is changes up through speciation. This has empirical, verifiable, reproducible evidence in support of that position.

'Macro-Evolution' is changes after speciation and above speciation.

In this discussion, the point that we are trying to make, is that there is really ONLY micro-evolution. Micro-evolution keeps going on and on and on………

In the populations during and after a speciation event micro-evolution keeps right on happening, continuing on and on and on……… and if another speciation event happens, it keeps going on and on and on in the new populations……….but, in each of the new populations the micro-evolution that is happening is different from all of the others, because they were all separated at each speciation event.

So, the only thing that is happening to these species is micro-evolution. There is no separate mechanism that suddenly starts happening called macro-evolution. The species are micro-evolving and slowly getting a little more different from each other each generation and the differences may not even be noticeable for many generations.

The micro-evolution continues on forever until the species goes extinct. If an individual in a population dies before it has a chance to reproduce, then the long line of micro-evolution that happened to all of its ancestors, back through the past, to the first common ancestor ends. If other members of the species are still alive then every time they reproduce micro-evolution is continuing on in each generation.

We humans love to categorize things into various groups. Animals and plants and other organisms seem to fall into some obvious groupings. We find it convenient name the groups and we have been doing this as long as people have been studying living things.

Macro-evolution is just a label that we use to denote points along those long lines of micro-evolution that are happening in every lineage in every species when they reproduce. It is not a separate or different kind of evolution.

Enjoy


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 2:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 238 of 238 (591283)
11-12-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Theodoric
11-12-2010 2:46 PM


Topic Seems Lost
quote:
It seems the admins are going to allow personal attacks and insults.
No we aren't, so knock it off.

This thread seems to have lost its way and participants have nothing better to do than to get personal.

I'm closing the thread.

Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.

Thank you
AdminPD Purple


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2010 2:46 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1112131415
16
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018