Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,257 Year: 5,514/9,624 Month: 539/323 Week: 36/143 Day: 9/17 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 302 (319306)
06-08-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:02 PM


Re: bump for SWC
I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons.
How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.
This is what the fossil record shows.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:02 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:28 PM RAZD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1584 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 302 (319311)
06-08-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:27 PM


Re: Great example
Those creatures could not have evolved into whales because there are limits in variation, which would not permit this type of change.
Where do you observe evidence for these limits, and how do you make predictions about what variation is and is not allowed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:27 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 302 (319320)
06-08-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:16 PM


Re: Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
Anything you could show me. But this has to be a change between kinds of animals or plants, not species.
What kind of change, how much, ... what is your definition of "maccro"evolution?
You need to set the benchmark of what it is you want to see not just wave your hands at all the evidence.
Ok, so maybe that would show evolution, but it wouldn't help the evolution theory that a single cell evolved into a human.
So you keep stating,but you haven't provided any evidence for HOW it cannot happen. Just repeating statements of incredulity and ignorance is NOT evidence.
... for the progressive evolution ...
Why progressive? Evolution is evolution, it is neither "progressive" nor "regressive" - it is just change in species over time.
"Progressive" is an egotistical valuation of some changes compared to others from a purely human viewpoint, a viewpoint which - like your opinion - has absolutely no effect on what happens in the natural world universe.
... we would need many advances and growth.
Nope. Again your assumption of "advances" is an erroneous valuation from your {egotistical} human viewpoint.
We would just need a lot of changes, each one small and relatively insignificant in the grand scope of things, but by accumulation over time (3.5 billion years) amounting to "significant" enough for a vast and divergent ecology that happens to include us at this time.
But decreases and loss may happen sometime in there, but that's nothing that would convince me of evolution.
But you see, "decreases and loss" is once again your {egotistical} human viewpoint, and not of any importance to the natural universe. Is it a "loss" to get rid of extra baggage? Is it a "decrease" to stop wasting resources on a non-productive element?
Is it a loss for a horse to lose extra toes so that it can stand taller on one extended and fused toe-foot? It's still standing isn't it? And that extra leg length translates into being able to run faster for the same amount of leg development: is that a decrease?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:16 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:37 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 302 (319323)
06-08-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:23 PM


age of the earth ... again?
This earth is only about 6,000 years old.
Another unsubstantiate assertion that is contradicted by facts.
If you want to discuss this you can take it to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Or I can start another {Age Correlations, step by step} just for you.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.
or you can try to ignore reality.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:23 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 125 of 302 (319331)
06-08-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Great example
Untrue. You can see the initial 1983 paper yourself, pdf over there.
That link doesn't work for some reason...

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:56 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 126 of 302 (319336)
06-08-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
Before he did whales? Like trilobites were created and then died out utterly before the first modern ray-finned fish was created? That doesn't sound like "six days."
What makes you so sure that the trilobites died out before the first modern ray-finned fish existed? Proof?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:59 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:33 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 127 of 302 (319338)
06-08-2006 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by NosyNed
06-08-2006 9:20 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
You could say it. Want to open a thread on a comparison of the two?
We can take turns picking an item from one then the other. Offer evidence to support what we say. Saying is cheap. Backing it up is where the meat lies.
Nah, that's not what I would be interested in.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2006 9:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:10 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 128 of 302 (319341)
06-08-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 9:22 PM


Re: bump for SWC
I would say something similar, I think. To use a well-worn analogy, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 really does equal fourteen. Those little changes add up. That's why humans don't look so much like colugos: our ancestors have been undergoing tiny changes down through the several million generations since we shared a mama. And neither of us look like her, either.
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 9:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:14 PM Someone who cares has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 129 of 302 (319342)
06-08-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:07 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:43 PM RAZD has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 851 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 130 of 302 (319343)
06-08-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:04 PM


Re: Great example
That link doesn't work for some reason...
Hmmm. Try Philip D. Gingerich and go to
Gingerich, P. D., N. A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. I. Shah.? 1983.? Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan.? Science, 220: 403-406. PDF down in the references.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:04 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:47 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 145 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 10:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1584 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 131 of 302 (319344)
06-08-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:09 PM


Re: bump for SWC
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really
Sure they can.
See how much fun this is, when both of us make assertions and then don't provide anything to prove them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:09 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 132 of 302 (319345)
06-08-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:09 PM


define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really.
So you keep saying, but you have yet to present ANY evidence.
You are saying that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 does not equal 14.
Saying it does not make it so.
Until you actually present some kind of evidence for your assertion all it amounts to is your opinion stated over and over and over and over, and ... it has absolutely NO effect on the natural universe.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:09 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM RAZD has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 133 of 302 (319350)
06-08-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:26 PM


So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance.
I have already said what macroevolution would be.
But, here are the major differences:
*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.
*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism
*Microevolution happens, it has been observed
*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen
*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"
*Macroevolution is the common belief "evolution"
You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again.
So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh?
Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing.
Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed.
Willing to support this claim with proof instead of just saying it? And I mean about macroevolution, not microevolution.
Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe.
That was not meant to be an argument. I was just answering a direct question. Please check that out.
What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way.
I cannot deny that which NO ONE has showed me. No one has showed me how a feather would have evolved from other tissue. Want to try?
Does a feather need to evolve from a scale?
Well if your claim is that a bird evolved from a reptile...
I know your theory says it all happened slowly, with many changes, over many generations. But, you have yet to supply an example of macroevolution, or part of it, that would be definitely relevant and precisely showing macroevolution.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:26 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 134 of 302 (319351)
06-08-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:30 PM


Re: bump for SWC
How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.
This is what the fossil record shows.
The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly. It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:30 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5867 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 135 of 302 (319355)
06-08-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 9:41 PM


Re: Great example
Where do you observe evidence for these limits, and how do you make predictions about what variation is and is not allowed?
IN EVERY REPRODUCING ORGANISM FOR THE PAST 2,000 OR SO YEARS! No one has observed evolution for these past 2,000 years! Dogs have remained dogs. Monkeys have remained monkeys. Humans have remained humans. Fish have remained fish. ETC...
Edited by Someone who cares, : Misprint

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 9:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024