Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:41 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Taq (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   "Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution."
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 61 of 63 (302305)
04-08-2006 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
04-07-2006 9:53 PM


Topic Drift Alert
Hi Faith,

I'm slowly catching up with this thread after last night's discussion.

This thread isn't about the flood. It also isn't about definition of kinds. It isn't about the definition of species, either, except as it might bear on the difference between micro- and macroevolution.

--Percy

This message has been edited by Admin, 04-08-2006 07:59 AM


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12590
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 62 of 63 (302307)
04-08-2006 8:11 AM


Topic Advisory
Except as it bears directly on the difference between micro- and macroevolution, I don't think a discussion about probability belongs in this thread. If I could quote Subbie from the OP (bolded text from the original):

subbie writes:

I would like this thread to be limited to a discussion of the definition and usage of these terms, rather than a debate about whether "macroevolution" can be proved.

That being said, I think a thread about probability could be very valuable if someone would like to propose one.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2865 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 63 of 63 (302524)
04-08-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
04-07-2006 9:55 PM


Faith writes:

If I'm following what you said, you just proved that abiogenesis is impossible.

No, what I've done is independent of your understanding.
If we modify it thus: "If I'm following what you said, you just proved to me that abiogenesis is impossible," well, that still ignores your part in the process. For it to be accurate, we'd need: "Using the sequence of concepts elicited by my reading your post, I just proved to myself that abiogenesis is impossible; thus, if my sequence of concepts is the same as yours, it can be said that you proved to me that abiogenesis is impossible."
We can drop the last bit, since it's just semantics. So we have: "Using the sequence of concepts elicited by my reading your post, I just proved to myself that abiogenesis is impossible;" which, coming from my model, "Faith," wouldn't be saying much.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-08-2006 07:37 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019