Evolution Logic

I doubt it. So far you have run from any discussion of actual evidence for anything. And that when others provide the evidence -- your record of substantiating any assertion you have made is zero.Why no response on my suggestion to talk about simple speciation with an example?You do agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes?I've suggested we start with a simple example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:

(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.Or are you afraid of what the evidence will show?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.

And protraying evolution as being common descent is making a strawman out of a molehill of incredulity eh?

Let's start with an example of simple speciation at a very basic level eh? One that I included in the post you replied to but didn't answer on: Is this any different than the variation we see in say dog varieties? No one can keep you from denying evidence that is true. But what I was refering to specifically was you claim That has been refuted, whether you think so or not. Repeating this claim without providing any evidence that the previous appearance of fossils makes the claim invalid is not going to make you point any more valid, just more careless.The other half that was quoted: Depends on you presenting a definition of "macro"evolution, which you have failed as yet to provide. Of course you are free to deny any evidence that does not fit your definition when you fail to provide a definition to work from. This is not 50 questions, it's science, so there is either evidence for your hypothesis or it is a groundless assertion of opinion. Again. But there are also fossil records of cradual change in species over time so not ALL species appear suddenly as you claimed. I showed you one.You are wrong, admit it and be honest.You have also been told why we don't expect to see all transitions between species, that doesn't mean that there are NO examples of transitions between species, especially when that has been observed first hand.Evolution happens. It is change in species over time. It has been observed. What is it? I can easily repeat and repeat that "evolution is the change in species over time" so you can easily debate my definition of evolution. Take the example of Pelycodus above -- they get bigger and bigger and bigger and then one group reverts back to the original size while another keeps getting bigger, the two groups separate, become different species.You agree that this is what you call "micro"evolution yes? Fact: I directed you to a thread to discuss this matter at, so I am NOT trying to move this offtopic. Fact: you claim you have evidence but so far have failed to produce any. Fact: you have failed several times to subtantiate assertions you have made where the evidence is against you. Stop whining. How does it defy logic? Present the arguments, present the evidence. present SOMETHING other than bald repeated assertions.And, btw, this " A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, ..." is a strawman logical fallacy, so you are on the wrong side of a logical argument at the start.The rest of the paragraph is an argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy.To show that evolution is not logical you have to avoid logical fallacies or your argument is invalid before you even reach a conclusion. Like your "essay" is invalid because it is based on false information. Sorry, but until you actually show that this is the case it is nothing BUT an assertion. Ned offered to go one for one on it with you and you declined. AIG is unreliable because it has several errors on it's site, just as your "essay" is unreliable because of the many errors you have carelessly included. This is called the arguement from authority, another logical fallacy. Certainly you know the quote that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose eh?But more to the point you can pad your bibliography with as many scientific papers and documents as you please, the arguement YOU make from them is still invalid if all you base it on is your personal incredulity, misunderstanding and ignorance.Your first paragraph sets the tone of careless error and careless attention to detail.So far you have not said one thing that is substantially different from your first few posts, and those were full of errors.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.

In other words you admit to being careless in your assembling of information, and didn't bother to check the truth of the statements, but used the ones you liked. Because that is YOUR job when you are using the information to make sure it is valid. It is also relatively easy to look at the actual evidence of what the claims made by the scientists were and see that "Galloping" Gish is (once again) an invalid source of information.You are making the claim that your essay conveys the truth, so it is YOUR job to ensure that all statements in it are as factual as you can possibly determine. Obviously, by your own admission no less, you have not done that. That shows a careless disregard for the truth.Go to the thread {Lucy - fact or fraud?}
http://EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud? -->EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?Look at the picture of the knee on message 15
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?and look the picture of the Lucy skeleton on message 6
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?Do you see the knee on the skeleton? Can you find a single scientific paper that describes it as being a part of the Lucy fossil? That does not absolve you of the need to ensure that the source is valid information. That you "didn't make up the statement" is no excuse for repeating it.What is the difference between making up a lie and repeating a lie as if it were true? Especially when your whole thesis is about telling the truth? ROFLOL. You don't have any. Thanks for admitting it. Now we can move on to the next item. Yes or no, stop equivocating. Can't you tell that from the evidence? They came from the same species: how can the NOT be "within the kind" eh? Or are you saying it is only evidence as long as they stay "within the kind" but if they change to be outside "the kind" it suddenly is no longer evidence? That would be a ridiculous logical howler eh?The evidence is there, it is not fictional, but a real record of fossil evidence. This is what the fossil record shows, a gradual transition from one species into two similar related species that share the characteristics of their ancestors. The two end species are descendants of Pelycodus ralstoni based on the fossil evidence, they evolved from the same parent species.Do you agree that this is an example of "micro"evloution:? Yes or no?ps -- if you use {peek mode} for your replies you can copy the text with the formating for italics etcetera.

---

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.

Let me share jars amusement:
The length of the genome is from the listing of all the base pairs of all the DNA. The genome IS the content.

---

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.

cool tree. click on any branch and it expands. shows the bush characteristic rather than old fashioned tree trunks and branches.

Evolution is not a belief, and it is not common descent.So it's wrong on both counts. It's careless wording that misses the real definition of evolution.Evolution is the change in species over time.Common descent is a prediction of the theory, but it is not the theory. We see common descent happen, therefore the theory of species change over time is {tested\validated\corroborated}.You word your essay as if you are an authority on the subject, but you get the definition of evolution wrong and you are careless about the truth of the facts that you use. You are not an expert, you use logical fallacies and incorrect information to reach invalid conclusions.I assume you do it out of careless ignorance instead of intent, as if it was intentional then you would be a fraud and a liar, instead of just careless ignorance. I give you the benefit of the doubt on intent, but I expect you to learn that you have made some mistakes (several) and take the steps to correct them.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.

Go to {Proposed New Topics}
http://EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics -->EvC Forum: Proposed New TopicsClick on the {New Topic} button, put in a title and paste your essay as the topic.You can choose either {Coffeehouse} forum or {Is It Science} forum as a location for it.{Is It Science} is closer to your claims for its {validity\content} but you will be expected to provide substantiating evidence there{Coffeehouse} doesn't have the science threads requirements for substantiating evidence so you can make any number of unsubstantiated assertions you want there and ignore the fact that you don't have evidence to back them up.Your call. Based on what level of authority on your part? You don't define evolution correctly and you describe it falsely as a belief instead of a science, and you are careless about the truth of statments that you incorporated from your sources. You are wrong. You can call it belief or religion if YOU want to, but that does not make it so, and that does not make the statements TRUE. You can deny the evidence and write about your denials, but that does not make the evidence go away or miraculously change and it does not make your statements TRUE.You CLAIM to be writing about the thruth on this issue, when you are careless with definitions and meanings and evidence and logic. PRATT. Impossible? Please read {the old improbable probability problem} thread
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problemEspecially message 23
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problemYou can provide whatever you think is substantiation for this latest assertion of yours on that thread. Because that is not the case. You have been given evidence that you deny, and you have not been exhaustive in your research, nor did you check the validity of the sources you used. The conclusions are based on false premises and logical fallacies and thus are not valid.This is just another way of saying 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.

I have looked and looked. All I see is argument from incredulity and ignorance and assertions following assertions. (1) Look at the time stamps on the posts.mine that you are replying to:
Message 216 of 256
06*10*2006 06:53 PMyours that first "replied" to this question:
Message 218 of 256
06*10*2006 07:28 PMI'm not prescient.(2) You didn't really answer the question but equivocated on it. It's a yes or no question.Enjoy.ps -- also see Message 260 on your lack of definition and Message 237 on you equivocating on the answer.Note that threads are generally cut off at 300 posts, so we may need to take Pelycodus to a new thread if that happens.Edited by RAZD, : added "first"Edited by RAZD, : added ps

---

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.

To answer your complaint that you have posted a definition and I am ignoring it: Why this is NOT a definition of "macro"evolution:(1) Evolution is the change in species over time. (2) Taxons ... (3) Different {levels} of differences between {groups} of {subgroups} are predicted by evolution in the same way that common descent is predicted by evolution. To recap: This is explained by plain vanilla evolution as observed, no "macro" distinction is needed to develop this pattern, so this lacks any valid useable descriptive meaning as a distinction within evolution.A "definition" that lacks meaning is not a definition.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added first line

---

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.

Page Not Found - WebsEnjoy.

Not to quibble but .... (quibble quibble quibble )You are making a distinction in your definitions that SWC has not made:"micro"evolution is the individual changes in species over time (and space), each change is a separate "micro"evolutionary event. This represents short term trends and fluctuations (larger beaks or smaller beaks etc), the change that occurs before speciation takes place."macro"evolution is the accumulation of changes over long periods of time, thus "macro"evolution is not the {change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection} but the {accumulation of changes incorporated into species by "micro"evolution ... and natural selection}. This represents long term trends - the change that continues (by continued "micro" changes) to occur once speciation has been achieved.By this measure the dividing line is speciation, and thus once we have observed changes beyond a single speciation event -- say a second speciation event -- then we would have observed "macro"evolution.This definition provides a means to determine whether it has occurred or not.Thanks.

---

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.

and any judge who disagrees is an activist judge because they "overreach" to disagree Paranoid delusions are like that eh?

---

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.

To say nothing about the fact that if you are making a living selling shinola, you don't tell your marks that you are selling shinola. It's not just politics, it's a scam preying (heh) on the gullible.

---

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.

I dispair of making things so simple that they don't mean anything anymore. There has to be an element of education involved for all those who are ignorant of the facts, and part of education is stretching people. "Comfort education" is watching TV ... too much so in america anyway.I've been thinking about those definitions I threw out above in response to your comments: The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it's more than that, it's also the difference between application at different levels:(1) the individual level -- each individual is conceived with it's basic kit of mutations and the fitness of the individual is tested to survive to live and breed, those with non-lethal mutations live, those without disabling mutations survive and grow, those without disadvantageous mutations - and maybe a bit of luck - breed. This is where continued mutation and adaptation occur.(2) the population level -- the population is made up of individuals with a wide variety of mutations, adaptations and abilities, and the dynamics of interactions of the members of the population in reaction to the environmental pressures is where change versus stasis tendencies are selected, this is where the dynamics of the different adaptations and abilities come into play, whether for survival or for breeding. It can only act on the basis of the net accumulation of mutations that are available.Of course with this definition of "macro"evolution we have many many samples of transitions, not just in fossils but in recent past -- certainly there have been records of sequential speciation events in the last couple of years to say nothing of in the last 2000.Certainly my example of Pelycodus above would qualify as "macro"evolution by this definition, as there are several speciation transitions in that section of the record before they even come to the separation of species into two distinct branches - that while very similar at that time - become the founding species of two different genus categories, the next level up from species in the taxonomic classification system.From A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (the article):


(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

The other aspect I see in this distinction is that "micro"evolutionary changes do not of themselves prevent breeding so they are all incorporated into the pool of the population where they spread or not depending on their dynamics within the population, while "macro"evolutionary changes are those that {separate\differentiate} populations by their {ability\interest} to breed (or not), and that once two (or more) populations do not mix to breed there is no barrier to the gradual accumulation of change over time such that they can become significantly (to us) different.We can liken this to groups of rubber duckies:
Scientists track rubber toys ... As long as they are in a container their locations will remain very similar, but as soon as they are no longer constrained by the container small differences in wind and wave and current can cause populations to diverge to opposite ends of the earth.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.