Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great Debate Challenge to DarkStar
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 15 (161314)
11-18-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by DarkStar
11-18-2004 10:50 PM


Not to get bogged down in details (and not to enter a discussion with a participant who has historically refused to respond to evidence), but it's obvious to me that we've observed macroevolutionary change:
quote:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
(Emphasis added by me.) Evolving into a different family? That's definately macroevolutionary change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 10:50 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 11:20 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 15 (161343)
11-18-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DarkStar
11-18-2004 11:20 PM


Apples to Oranges
Using your method of what I consider to be flawed reasoning coupled with illogical assumption, one might just as easily consider a tadpole transforming into a frog or a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly as undeniable visual evidence of macroevolutionary change.
This is an inappropriate comparison. You're comparing two different stages in the life style of the same organism. The normal Chlorella life-cycle does not include colonality at any stage, ever.
These chlorella are fully mature, and have evolved from single-cell organisms to multi-cellular ones, a state that has now persisted in the population for over 2 decades. That's macroevolutionary change, and I find it amusing that the only response you have is to throw up some garbage about frogs and run away.
So, yes. Quite good enough. Exactly what you asked for, and everyone can see how hollow and nonsensical your objection is.
Since you're not willing to address evidence, why don't you drop the facade and admit you have no interest in debate, but rather, in taking hit-and-run potshots?
BTW, you did not reference the source of your quote.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Look it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 11:20 PM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DarkStar, posted 11-19-2004 1:48 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 15 (161374)
11-19-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by DarkStar
11-19-2004 1:48 AM


DarkStar goes nuclear
Your poor debating skills aside, what evidence are you talking about?
The evidence of Chlorella vulgaris, which precisely meets the criteria of evidence you requested for macroevolution.
But, of course, now your "reasoning" is made clear: "Macroevolution is a myth, because no evidence is observed. We know that no evidence can be observed, because macroevolution is a myth."
Perfectly, utterly circular. An invulnerable entrenchment of ignorance.
You have now received your last response from me.
If only that were likely to be the case. Of course, since you respond to evidence only with a flatulent burst of name-calling, how you expect to entice the scant few evolutionists you do respect to debate with you is beyond me.
I retract my earlier assertion that you do not desire legitimate, intellectual debate. I see now that you are simply incapable of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DarkStar, posted 11-19-2004 1:48 AM DarkStar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1546 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 15 (161379)
11-19-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DarkStar
11-19-2004 2:02 AM


I guess I should not be surprised that so many macroevolutionists believe what they believe when they insist upon using that type of distorted reasoning.
You mean induction? Yes, I can see how that kind of reasoning is so "distorted" that it forms the backbone of every science.
Well, at least now we know that there's no point in arguing with you - it's not that you refuse to admit that macroevolution is an appropriate conclusion from the evidence; it's that you're mentally inequipped to do so.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-19-2004 02:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DarkStar, posted 11-19-2004 2:02 AM DarkStar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024