|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4305 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nij writes: ICANT writes:
No. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it contains that number, so you have to support it. Each strand has 750 megabits of information, which contains all the information required to construct a human body. If this is wrong please reference the information that states differently. You need to understand that assertion to see just how futile responding to ICANT is. The figure he uses, IIRC, was how much storage it would take for some database he found. It has absolutely nothing to do with any measure of information or DNA or Macro-Evolution or just about anything else in the known world, it is just yet another example of ICANT simply not understanding what he is talking about. And what the hell would an eye have to do with the topic in the first place? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but that is simply bullshit and totally irrelevant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: I brought up the eye because for the eye to begin to exist from a single cell life form massive amounts of 'Macro-Evolution' had to occur. Why? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Taq writes: ICANT writes: Now as to why I say modern man did not exist prior to the man created in the image/likeness of God. The oldest known writings are 6800 years old. Cave paintings are much older than that. And there are lots of remains of modern humans from long before 6000 years ago as well. BUT...there is NO evidence of God creating man in his own image. ICANT is simply once again trying to lead people down those attractive rabbit holes. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How many specimens of just Australopithecus have been found so far?
Edited by jar, : missed an "h" there some ow Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there is nothing but chemical reactions there would be no room for errors to arise. Why?
But to assume that a lot of small changes can amount to 'Macro-Evolution' is a streach. Why?
Evolution above the species level is assumed, believed, accepted because the alternative is creation by outside means. Totally untrue. It is accepted because there is evidence of the methods and processes foe the Theory of Evolution while there is NO evidence of creation by an outside means. Given two possibilities, one where there is evidence and one where there is absolutely NO evidence, it seems reasonable to accept the former and reject the later. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Certainly.
In the transition between fish to tetrapods, we see a pretty continuous line of critters that gradually evolve tetrapod, land animal features that are modified from existing fish features. The most recent finds are related to Tiktaalik. The importance of this find is not just that it shows the continuing macro-evolutionary trends seen in the other critters in the line, but that it was possible based on the characteristics of the older and younger examples what the critter would be like even before it was found as well as the general age of the rocks where it would be found. The chain from fish to tetrapod is verifiable evidence of macro-evolution. Now YOU present the verifiable evidence that there is a god. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: Since all those modifications could be and was made by microevolution where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolution over time. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You can wait till hell freezes over for all anyone cares. What you believe is of course totally irrelevant to either the topic or reality.
The topic is "Can I disprove Macro-evolution", not can I doubt if it happened or question if it happened; it is can it be shown that Macro Evolution is impossible. As you have admitted, there is evidence that the critters existed. As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve. The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time. It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters. 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. 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. 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. Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market. When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again. But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant. Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: I will hereby make a prediction that in the very near future that the word 'Macro-Evolution' will cease to be used except by creationist, or when someone is answering a creationist. And I will make the prediction that when used by anyone other than a Creationist it will be used correctly and understood. In addition, as has been explained to you, the topic is whether macro-evolution can be disproved. What you think, believe, understand, hope, assert is irrelevant, unimportant, of no relevancy to the topic. The topic is "Can I disprove Macro-evolution", not can I doubt if it happened or question if it happened; it is can it be shown that Macro Evolution is impossible. As you have admitted, there is evidence that the critters existed. As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve. The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time. It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters. 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. 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. 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. Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market. When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again. But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant. Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer. Edited by jar, : add on topic material Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The problem is that Dawn Bertot and JRTjr and ICANT are happily leading you and others down those oh so attractive rabbit holes.
The topic is NOT whether Macro-Evolution happened, it is an assertion that they can disprove Macro-evolution. It is their assertion that it did not happen, and until they provide a model that better explains what is seen than the current model, they have failed. Stop letting them change the subject and lead you guys astray. It is up to them to provide convincing evidence that Macro-Evolution did not happen. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024