Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 302 (319356)
06-08-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:28 PM


Re: bump for SWC
It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.
Sure it does. The transitional forms are the families, taxons, creatures etc that you refer to - the ones that appear suddenly.
Why wouldn't the transitional forms appear suddenly? You say those two things like they're mutually inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 137 of 302 (319357)
06-08-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
What makes you so sure that the trilobites died out before the first modern ray-finned fish existed? Proof?
The same thing that makes me sure that conodonts didn't live with diatoms, or eurypterids with crabs, or mososaurs with whales, or placoderms with pleisiosaurs: there's never been fossils of the first of each pair found in the same rock with one of the last of each pair. The firsts were all extinct before the seconds evolved.
Fusilinids and rudists.
Dicynodonts and crocodiles.
Dinosaurs with grass. Rugose with scleratinian corals.
A paleontologist could go on all night. This is how the Christian parson/geologists of the early 1800's figured out that the Earth is very old and that Noah's Flood wasn't. They looked at the rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:06 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:58 PM Coragyps has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1576 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 302 (319359)
06-08-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Great example
Fish have remained humans.
I think you meant "fish have remained fish."
But, yeah. Here's the thing - there's more different breeds of dogs now than before. There's more different species of monkey now than before. There's more families of fish now than before.
There's more different kinds of mammals now than before. More different kinds of plants. More different kinds of everything. That's the definition, and proof, of evolution. Evolution is not one organism changing into another. It's populations of species giving rise to new species. "Mammal" used to encompass a single species. Now it encompasses thousands. There used to be one kind of insect. Now there are millions.
That's evolution. And when we see new species arise, even now, that's observing evolution in action.
And you still haven't answered my question. Instead, you're reasoning circularly - your proof that evolution can't happen is because there's this barrier. But your proof that the barrier exists is your assertion that evolution can't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 11:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 139 of 302 (319360)
06-08-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:25 PM


No one has showed me how a feather would have evolved from other tissue.
I referred you to chickens with feathers on their legs, where their ancestors had scales/scutes/? in that position. There ya go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:25 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 11:07 PM Coragyps has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 140 of 302 (319361)
06-08-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
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.
I have already said, you keep ignoring it. I'm not going to post it hundreds of times. Please check back, I already said.
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.
Do you even know what I was talking about there? Or did you just go through and pick and choose at random without having a clue what I was talking about and to what I was replying?
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.
The total effect is progressive, a cell evolving into a human. Sure, according to your beliefs it may have gone down and up, but the total effect is what I see, and it could only have come by through serious progression, this doesn't mean it couldn't go down at times.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:50 PM RAZD has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 141 of 302 (319364)
06-08-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:57 PM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
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.
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:53 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 142 of 302 (319367)
06-08-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
06-08-2006 10:10 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?
Enjoy.
I wasn't making any assertions. I was pointing out how I could use the same reasoning an evolutionist used to put down AIG, to put down TO. It's a claim that can be flipped around right back at the person who used it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:10 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 5:03 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 143 of 302 (319369)
06-08-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Great example
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.
I did just like you told me to, and when I clicked on PDF, it didn't work, again. I think it's a dead link. Did it work with you?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 144 of 302 (319370)
06-08-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: bump for SWC
Sure they can.
See how much fun this is, when both of us make assertions and then don't provide anything to prove them?
Hey, I provided my back up, just recently. So now you provide your's.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34133
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 145 of 302 (319371)
06-08-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Great example
the link works both ways down here. And I'm even further down the line than you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 146 of 302 (319374)
06-08-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by RAZD
06-08-2006 10:14 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
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.
Ok, here, you can go to my essay that I wrote, on my site, and read my essay, there I have my support for my claim about mutations not being able to do the job, as well as support for many of my other claims: Page Not Found - Webs

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:23 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:41 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 147 of 302 (319376)
06-08-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:31 PM


Re: bump for SWC
Sure it does. The transitional forms are the families, taxons, creatures etc that you refer to - the ones that appear suddenly.
Why wouldn't the transitional forms appear suddenly? You say those two things like they're mutually inconsistent.
Those are not the transitional forms.
Transitional forms are just that TRANSITIONAL, so they cannot just "appear." And neither can any fully developed forms, they can't just pop up from nothing, if you believe in evolution. Of course, you could deny it any day, I'll be more than happy to hear that...

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5860 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 148 of 302 (319377)
06-08-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
The same thing that makes me sure that conodonts didn't live with diatoms, or eurypterids with crabs, or mososaurs with whales, or placoderms with pleisiosaurs: there's never been fossils of the first of each pair found in the same rock with one of the last of each pair. The firsts were all extinct before the seconds evolved.
Fusilinids and rudists.
Dicynodonts and crocodiles.
Dinosaurs with grass. Rugose with scleratinian corals.
A paleontologist could go on all night. This is how the Christian parson/geologists of the early 1800's figured out that the Earth is very old and that Noah's Flood wasn't. They looked at the rocks.
Have you considered that the geologic layers could have been layed down by a universal flood? Not by millions of years?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:33 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 11:05 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 149 of 302 (319378)
06-08-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Great example
I think it's a dead link. Did it work with you?
Yup. I try to always check. Must be one o' them "different 'puter" things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:47 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 150 of 302 (319381)
06-08-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:58 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
Have you considered that the geologic layers could have been layed down by a universal flood? Not by millions of years?
Yes, I have, as did those geologists. Not just the fossils, but the nature of the rocks themselves, are incompatible with Fluds and short timespans.
We can take this to the Geology and the Great Flood forum if you want to learn more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:58 PM Someone who cares 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