Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2018 2:54 PM
205 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (7 members, 198 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity
Post Volume:
Total: 838,954 Year: 13,777/29,783 Month: 1,223/1,576 Week: 164/271 Day: 16/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 151 of 238 (591079)
11-11-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
The history of 'Macro-Evolution' would be a detailed account of how that process took place to date.

Anything short of a detailed account is a partial history.

When you have gaps of millions of years you do not have a complete history.

So in other words, you won't believe it unless there's evidence of every single step of the way, until each and every question has been answered.

Of course, that's not science. That's irrationality.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 3:41 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:15 PM subbie has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2792
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 152 of 238 (591080)
11-11-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
We do not have a 4.6 billion years of history. We have a book of 4.6 million years with many chapters covering millions of years missing.

Yea our pitcure is not perfect but that does not mean you cant see the full picture if a few jigsaw pieces are missing.

How many pieces are to the god jigsaw how many do you have in place?

Oh and how much change must one species undergo for you to call it a nother species? If the line is not the possebility of sexual reproduction then what would you call the line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2792
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 153 of 238 (591082)
11-11-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by subbie
11-11-2010 3:38 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
So in other words, you won't believe it unless there's evidence of every single step of the way, until each and every question has been answered.

Of course, that's not science. That's irrationality.

And yet he belives in a god whit no other proof then the bible a book written by sheppards

go figure


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by subbie, posted 11-11-2010 3:38 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 154 of 238 (591084)
11-11-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


I also want to see an answer to frako's question
You seem to be avoiding this question from Frako.

Frako writes:

How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 155 of 238 (591087)
11-11-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ICANT
11-11-2010 12:13 PM


Re: More assertions from jar
To me they are just a different variety of the same thing.

That's macroevolution - over time, our classifications describe a greater variety of organisms. You watched your "piney-woods rooters" go from describing one species of swine to two.

That's macroevolution. One kind of pig becomes several. "Canine" comes to describe an abundance of wolves and domesticated dogs. "Mammal" no longer refers to one kind of furry rodent (as it did in the time of dinosaurs), it refers to thousands of different types of organisms.

We classify living organisms in a hierarchal fashion. As species evolve and change over time, as new species arise, these levels of classification expand. That's macroevolution, and now you've admitted that you've seen an example of it first-hand, which is what you asked for.

They both are 100% horse with over 2000 pounds of flesh and bone difference.

If they're both horses, why are they so different? If they're so different, how do you know they're both horses?

Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 12:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:58 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 238 (591089)
11-11-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
11-11-2010 2:51 PM


Re: DNA
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 1:30 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1701
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 157 of 238 (591090)
11-11-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ICANT
11-11-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Good Grief!

ICANT writes:

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.

No wonder nobody seems to be able to get through to you.

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.

I CAN'T believe you missed the whole point, after more than 3800 posts and 3.5 years here.


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 145 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 238 (591091)
11-11-2010 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
11-11-2010 3:06 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
'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

http://tolweb.org/tree/

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 3:06 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 3:23 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 238 (591093)
11-11-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ICANT
11-11-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:32 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 160 of 238 (591096)
11-11-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by frako
11-10-2010 6:00 AM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi fraco,

fraco writes:

You and most Creos do not understand micro and macro evoulution are only terms used in 1927 to describe the same phenomenon on a diferent scale.

Micro evolution is when changes acure in the species, and macro when changes acure above the species level.

So micro is when say a breed of mice grow longer fur and can still mate whit the mice that did not evolve longer fur, macro is when enough micros happen that they cannot mate anymore whit the mice that did not evolve this way.

Well this creationist believes that your mice that can not breed with other mice is still mice.

When they cease to be mice then 'Macro-Evolution' will have taken place.

fraco writes:

For instance all dogs are the same species cause they can all mate and produce fertile offspring,

If that is true could you tell me where I could pick up a cross between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

fraco writes:

The mice that where left on that island 250 years ago all came from the same breed though enough micro evoulution happend that they cannot mate whit their naighburing mice who also came from the same parrents, and they cannot mate whit the original mice mice breed, and neither can you mate them whit other mice brreds and then mate them whit the original or their naighbur so enough micros happend to call it macro evolution.

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.

So call it what you will it 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 123 by frako, posted 11-10-2010 6:00 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:08 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 166 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:09 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 5:48 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 161 of 238 (591097)
11-11-2010 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
11-10-2010 9:57 AM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi jar,

jar writes:

Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolution over time.

I am still waiting for anyone to present a verifiable instance of
'Macro-Evolution'. That is enough of those little micro-evolution events over time to transform one creature into a totaly different creature.

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 124 by jar, posted 11-10-2010 9:57 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 11-11-2010 5:00 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 162 of 238 (591098)
11-11-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
11-11-2010 1:07 AM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi Dr,

Dr writes:

Er ... but they are different.

I don't see how the big stallion and the little mare in my avatar can breed and produce an offspring.

They are both classified as horses.

So where is the difference other than size?

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 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2010 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2010 9:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 163 of 238 (591101)
11-11-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by frako
11-11-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Mating
Hi fraco,

fraco writes:

It is not about physical impossebility but genetic imposibility of mating

I buy that statement.

It is possible for a stallion and a Heffer to mate. But it is impossible for them to produce offspring.

Now if they could produce offspring that could in return produce offspring I would call that 'Macro-Evolution'.


"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 138 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 12:34 PM frako has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30865
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 164 of 238 (591102)
11-11-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by ICANT
11-11-2010 4:40 PM


Fortunatelt, what ICANT thinks is irrelevant.
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 4:40 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

frako
Member
Posts: 2792
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 165 of 238 (591103)
11-11-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
11-11-2010 4:36 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Well this creationist believes that your mice that can not breed with other mice is still mice.

When they cease to be mice then 'Macro-Evolution' will have taken place.

So when would they cese to be mice, when would you stop cayyling them mice il find a simmilar example when you tell me what your definition of what makes seperate species is.

If that is true could you tell me where I could pick up a cross between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?

Well if you want it unatural then insaminate a grate dane bitch whit chiuahua sperm, the way nature would do it though is mix a few together, a grate dane would f%&/ a smaller dog and a Chiuhaua a slightly bigger dog and the ofspring of those 2 dogs could mate retaining parts of the chiuaua and the grate dane.

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.

So when do you stop calling them House mice, the second they go out the door well no cause they are still the same. Wehen they adapt to their new enviorment growing some parts larger some smaller, when.

On a nother note if those mice are mice then why is the buffalo a buffalo and not a cow they look the same they should be called cows so what they have a bit of fur and different horns everything else is roughly the same why are they buffalo and not cows what destiguishes a species in your eyes if not the fact of sucsesfull reproduction. Does every diferent species need a new organ well shit happens all mamals are the same species then.

What is the mechanism that you use to define 2 diferent species, what would the minimal changes haveto be in a house mouse to be called something different to be a different species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 4:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:19 PM frako has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018