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 2:35 PM
174 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo (4 members, 170 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
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 211 of 238 (591216)
11-12-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 1:05 PM


Re: DNA
Fortunately Ive been discussing issues like these much longer than yourself . Part of that experience is learning when a person actually has answers to questions and can formulate rational responses, neither of which, seem to be a part of you abilities or your agendas

When you get backed against the wall, you start to cry fowl, in the hopes people will get distracted by the real fact, that you are not acting responsible and cannot act or respond in any real fashion

DA, your wasting valuable time that should be invested in rebutals that make sense

Remember DA, your audience is watching your behavior

I assume you are actually older than say, 20 years of age, so you should have learned this simple mature point by now. Perhaps I am wrong and you are still a teenage testosterone fueled boy. Are you still just a boy DA?

I'd mock you some more, but the challenge is gone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 1:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

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


Message 212 of 238 (591217)
11-12-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Coyote
11-11-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

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.

In your article under time estimates you find:

There are no known fossils that represent the CHLCA,

If there is no fossil how is that creature the common ancestor?

I am constantly told belief in someting is not evidence.

You are free to believe in 'Macro-Evolution' if you desire to do so. You keep talking about my belief system hindering me from accepting the evidence. Well actualy what you are saying is that I will not accept your version of what you believe is the evidence.

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 146 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2010 2:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 213 of 238 (591218)
11-12-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
11-12-2010 1:25 PM


Non Sequitur Time
If there is no fossil how is that creature the common ancestor?

If I don't have the bones of my great-grandfather, how is he the common ancestor of me and my second cousin?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 1:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 214 of 238 (591220)
11-12-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:05 PM


Re: DNA
Hi crash,

crashfrog writes:

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?

There is no direct evidence for 'Macro-Evolution'. No one has witnessed it occuring. There is no string of fossils showing one creature becoming a totaly different creature with no missing links.

The only thing we have is some fossils that have simularities and the conclusion has been drawn that they had to come from a common ancestor.

Many creatures have similar DNA and thus the conclusion drawn that they had to come from a common ancestor.

You can stand by the side of an Interstate Highway and watch many automobiles pass by they will range from tractor-trailer rigs 75' in length to two wheel motercycles. Nobody that I have ever met put forth that all those came from the same source. In fact not only did they come from different factories they came from different minds and designers.

BTW my verson includes a common ancestor.

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 156 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:05 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 215 of 238 (591221)
11-12-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Theodoric
11-12-2010 1:23 PM


Re: Enough is enough
There is no excuse or reason for this being posted. I hope the admins deal with this swiftly and severely.

Go back my simple friend and take a close look at where these snipets started. I was simply complimenting ICANT on his contribution and began to be attacked both in my estimations of him and his talents

If you want to accuse someone, start with the initator of the insults. Atleast try and be objective in your complaints

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2010 1:23 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2010 2:46 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 216 of 238 (591222)
11-12-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Coyote
11-12-2010 1:15 PM


Re: "Still mice"
So what do you think? Are they all still mice?

Where are the skeleton (remains) bodies, of all these wonderful examples you provide?

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?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 1:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:46 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 220 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2010 2:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 221 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 2:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 217 of 238 (591225)
11-12-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 1:37 PM


Re: "Still mice"
Is there a primate type (monkey if you will) that humans cannot procreate with ...

I don't think many people have tried to procreate with monkeys. If you wish to find out whether this is merely assortative mating or whether there is a genuine genetic incompatibility ... then I look forward to reading the results of your research.

While you're busy looking for a baboon with low standards, we'll be here chatting about evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 1:37 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 219 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 2:17 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 218 of 238 (591227)
11-12-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 1:46 PM


Re: "Still mice"
While you're busy looking for a baboon with low standards, we'll be here chatting about evolution.

One would wonder why if there is common ancestry and DNA is so similar, why such has not been attempted even in a labratory context. My bet is that they know it would not work

So the simple answer is, No and you dont have a response

Here is a simpler one for you, perhaps you can take a stab at it. Where are the mass graves of the imaginary hominid creatures? Since there were literally thousands upon thousands, possibilby millions

Shouldnt we have come across some mass graves of such creatures, possibly one frozen in the ice, or something of that nature.

Yet, all we are ever treated to are a few isolated examples and skull fragments.

You see, its this type of lack of evidence that makes Macro-evolution, nothing more than theory, unsubstantiated by real evidence

Chatting about evolution, seems to be all you can do

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 219 of 238 (591230)
11-12-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 1:46 PM


Re: "Still mice"
While you're busy looking for a baboon with low standards

I will admit that was funny though. I realized before I questioned that point I was opening myself up for that response

Fortunately, God and nature has blessed me with a brain, appearance and frame that does not require such actions

Im sure you dont share such qualites that would not allow you to take such desprate actions

That was funny BTW

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 220 of 238 (591231)
11-12-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 1:37 PM


Avoiding the question?
ICANT has ignored this question from frako. It seems you are too. Is this part of your vaunted debating skills? Ignoring the difficult questions.

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 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 1:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 221 of 238 (591232)
11-12-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 1:37 PM


Re: "Still mice"
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 1:37 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

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


Message 222 of 238 (591234)
11-12-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Tanypteryx
11-11-2010 4:13 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Tanypteryx,

Tanpteryx writes:

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

There is no problem with explaining something I can understand.

If you say dirt is dirty. I can understand that and if I doubt it I can go outside and test it.

If you say a pig is a pig even if you give him a bath and put a ribbon around his neck and put lipstick on him I can understand that.

If you want to tell me that we evolved from a single cell life form that no one has any evidence how that life form began to exist then I do have a lot of questions as I don't understand that.

The first bit of information needed for me to accept evolution would be where, how, why, when, and what from, that first life form began to exist.

Since that has never been established I don't have faith enough to believe that it did happen.

I know the evidence it did is that we exist.

But there are several alternatives to the one proposed.

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

Now the evidence that has been presented for 'Macro-Evolution' is non existant, like that for how the first life form began to exist.

Albert Einstein said: “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”

According to Einstein it is not my problem of understanding it is the problem that the 27 posters that have tried to explain it to me.

They just don't understand it themselves well enough.

Since you have just come aboard maybe you can shed some light on the subject.

'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.

According to Berekeley in Understanding Evolution says "there is no firsthand history accounts to be read".

If there is no firsthand history to be read then the only thing we have is the beliefs and conclusions of mankind. So whatever the worldview is of those people shape their conclusions.

Similarities is not evidence of a common ancestor.

For 20 years I built cabinets. There are thousands of people who build cabinets. Many are different, but there are multitudes that have similarities. Those similarities do not even mean they came from the same kind of material, even though you can not tell the difference by looking at them.

So when someone tries to convience me that because things are similar they are somehow descendant from each other I am very skeptical and demand proof.

But then I am told science does not deal in proof as nothing is ever proved. But that is not the attitude presented here.

So do you have some verifible evidence that an event of 'Macro-Evolution' has ever taken place?

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 157 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-11-2010 4:13 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-12-2010 8:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 223 of 238 (591235)
11-12-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 1:31 PM


ok simpleton
It seems the admins are going to allow personal attacks and insults.
Maybe you can understand forum rules if the are listed again for you. Let me see if someone as simple as you can understand the rules of the forum. I will point out the ones you have not followed in the last day.

2 Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

The topic can easily be deduced by the title. Do you have anything to say on topic? No rabbit holes please, just topic related.

10 Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

You have tendency to lash out and attack the person you disagree with. Evidently Admins do not have an issue with this though.

So do you think you can get your simple mind wrapped around these simple rules? But then again if the admins keep giving you the latitude they do, I guess you have no reason to change.

How is that for a poke?

Suspension expected and deserved.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 1:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by AdminPD, posted 11-12-2010 9:12 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


Message 224 of 238 (591239)
11-12-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:13 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi crash,

crashfrog writes:

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.

So you disagree with:

Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
From Evolution 101Source

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
Source

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

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 158 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:13 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2010 4:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


Message 225 of 238 (591240)
11-12-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by frako
11-11-2010 5:08 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi frako,

fraco writes:

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.

The buffalo is a buffalo because someone that designates what a critter is said he was a buffalo.

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.

frako writes:

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.

In the course of research during this thread I find that the word microevolution definition has been changed a little here at EvC.

The references I find say that sub-species is created by microevolution. Not new species.

'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'.

We still have walking fish today. So if they evolved one time into a land creature why are they not present in all forms every step of the way from fish to land creature today?

It is also theorized that later a creature that was small deerlike in build and lived around water went into the water and became our modern day whales. That would be 'Macro-Evolution'.

The problem is that there is no direct verifible evidence of either of those events occuring.

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 165 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 5:08 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 4:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 229 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 4:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
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