Evolution Logic

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.

quote:

---

Let me add an "Or."

​

Or the author has challenged many evolutionists in several forums to provide undebatable evidence directly in support of evolution, and they couldn't. And he did MUCH research, from MANY sources, and found that the evidence is actually against evolution. Thus he came to the conclusions that he did.

---

I've looked at your essay. It's obvious that that isn't what happened. It's obvious that the author did virtually no valid research. So why even suggest otherwise ?If you don't know that eusthenopteron, icthyostega, seymouria and archaeopteryx exist - fossil species that have been widely known for decades - then how can you claim to have done much research ? If you do know that they exist then why deny it ?

LOL, it's funny to see you grab wholeheartedly onto the AiG party line, once you're made aware of it. Monkeys are another matter. Neandertals certainly weren't monkeys. I suggest that you educate yourself on these words before using them to "refute" the whole body of modern biological knowledge. I assume you're talking about the Nutall precipitation, which is a way of comparing the similarity of blood proteins. Since these proteins are ultimately based on DNA templates, it is an indirect way of looking at genetic similarity. It's a simple technique that can be used in science classes with kits you can order.However, we do not rely on Nutall precipitation tests. In fact, we now have mapped the entire genomes of both chimpanzees and humans (and other organisms, too). Again, this is referring to chimpanzees and other non-human apes, which are not monkeys. They have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and humans have 23. We now know that this is because at some point after the divergence of the human lineage, one pair of chromosomes became fused with another at the telomere (see this page, which includes literature cites that you can check out for more info). It's actually not unusual for closely related organisms to have different numbers of chromosomes, and we know a few different mechanisms by which that can happen. We don't. PLEASE educate yourself on what an ape is, and what a monkey is, and what evolutionary theory says about the history of the human lineage. Without this knowledge, you're not arguing against evolution, you're arguing against a straw man that you have built from creationist sources. Of course not. You can't sum up the entire evolutionary history of the human race in a forum post. That's why you have to take it one step at a time. When you start with unicellular organisms, a reasonable next step is to look at the origin of multicellularity. No one thinks that humans arose fully-formed directly out of a one-celled population. No. Non-random does not equal "directed, specific, and purposeful." Natural selection is not intelligently directed, or purposeful (except in the case of human cultivation), but it is not random. That's not what I said. This is ridiculous, respond to what is written in the post, not to your own misconceptions of what you think is probably meant. LMAO! This statement shows a profound ignorance of ecology, and even a lack of common sense. It's so ludicrous, I don't even know where one would begin to respond. A number of plant phylogenies have been posted, the best one by WK in Message 240. Although I applaud your effort to respond to everyone, it's still advisable to scan ahead and see if your questions have already been answered. Phylogenies don't "show evolution," they chart the relatedness of organisms, which supports the theory of common descent.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

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.

I see that RAZD tore into this, so I thought I'd try a brief clarification.To me many of RAZD's objections to your definition look like quibbles, but he does have an important point. Micro and macro evolution are not separate and independent concepts. Just as a long trip can be thought of as the sum of many very short trips, macro evolution is nothing more than the sum of much micro evolution. To deny that macro evolution is possible is similar to arguing that while you can drive from home to the convenience store, and from the convenience store to the mall, and from the mall to the gas station, and from the gas station to work, you can't drive directly from home to work.Ring species are often used as examples of macroevolution spread across geography instead of time, and the most famous example is the herring gull. The herring gulls in Great Britain can breed with the herring gulls of the eastern US. Whether anyone wants to argue they're the same species or not, there is no doubt that these gulls are closely related.The herring gull in the eastern US can breed with those of Alaska, but the Alaska herring gull is smaller with some black markings. The eastern American herring gull is clearly closely related to both the herring gull of Great Britain and the Alaskan herring gull, but the Great Britain gull and the Alaskan gull are obviously more distantly related to each otherMoving further west around the world, the Alaskan herring gull can breed with the Siberian herring gull, but it is smaller yet and has increased black markings. And continuing the circuit of the world and returning to Great Britain, the closest relative to the Siberian herring gull is the lesser black-backed gull, a completely different species from the herring gull. It doesn't breed with the herring gull at all.The accumulation of differences in this sequence of related gull species as we travel west round the world is an example of small changes gradually accumulating into larger changes to the point of crossing species boundaries. This is the same thing that happens sequentially through time, and it is clearly evidenced in the fossil record.So I think you should concentrate on RAZD's main point, which isn't so much that your definition is wrong, but that you interpret the macro evolutionary process as something distinctly different from micro evolution.In other words, macro evolution is not a different animal than micro evolution. They are just expressions of the exact same thing. Micro evolution is the amount of change you get in a short period of time like a thousand years, just like a mile is the distance you can drive in a short period of time like a minute or two. Macro evolution is the amount of change you get in a long period of time like a million years, just like a few hundred miles is the distance you can drive in a long period of time like a day.--Percy

OT, but I saw a very nice partial fossil backbone of Eryops, a cousin of Seymouria, yesterday in downtown Seymour, Texas. That's where the type specimen of Seymouria was found.But do you think their football team is named for any Permian or Carboniferous tetrapod? No such luck....

You keep on bringing up this point as if it ahd something to do with evolution, as in you need it for ToE to be right. Stop it. It's a wrong assertion (where's the math?) for disproving evolution.ANd all the evidence you see against evolution is tainted by those who have a vested interest in spreading misinformation, like the religious right in the US. THe only reason Bush supports teaching ID is becuase he is pandering to the religious right in his party, and they will spread any amount of lies in order to be taught.Science, on the other hand, has no vested interest in spreading minsinformation. Every hoax that has been perpetrated is dropped as soon as its found to be a hoax. The creationists, however, hang on to them to say--"look at these fools, trying to spread lies cause they know their theory is wrong"--as if their cries will disrove evolution.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

There are three lines of evidence for macroevolution. One is the record of living species on this planet. Even before Darwin the hierarchical relatedness of species was obvious, something which is a key identifier of an evolutionary process at work.Another line of evidence is the fossil record, a record of change over long periods of time. That it also represents hierarchical relatedness and is congruent with modern classification is more confirming evidence.The third line of evidence is genetic. The same hierarchical pattern we see in living animals and in the fossil record is reflected in genetic patterns.Thus we have three converging lines of evidence confirming evolutionary change on a macro scale above the species level.--Percy

Where is this essay?

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.

I don't disagree with a thing you're saying. I just think it makes sense to approach each discussion at a level of detail that the other side has a prayer of understanding. The history of creationists comprehending the finer distinctions of evolution is not a good one. There was a similar example in another recent thread concerning PE. Making the most pertinent points may not have as much value as making points the other side can understand.The sophistication with which creationists approach debate can differ appreciably from our own. Even what constitutes "scoring a point" in debate is often viewed differently by creationists. Many creationists seem to believe that mountains of evidence are effectively overcome by simple expressing incredulity. We've all heard effective evidence-based arguments dismissed with a (for example) "I just can't believe that something as complex as life could arise naturally". It's a real puzzle how creationists think they're scoring debate points with such arguments.It's almost like playing a sport where your opponent misunderstands the rules and thinks he winning. Imagine the ease with which you would defeat an opponent in golf who thought the object was to score the most strokes. But you'd suffer the frustration of your opponent thinking he was blowing you away. He'd be bragging to all his friends, who misunderstand the rules in the same way, how he bested you 153-75. Clear victories like Dover (in other words, victories where both sides understand who won and who lost) are rare.--Percy

percy, read some stuff like what the di has to say about dover and tell me again it's a clear victory.they will never agree to a defeat. ever. anything we consider a defeat, they consider confirmation of their conspiracist world-view.

---

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.