|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Great Post!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I'm not sure what sort of definition you want for "kind". It is a very difficult thing to classify every organism on earth no matter what system you use. There is no one single trait that you can look at to identify the "kind" just the same as there is no one single trait that classifies a "species" or a "genus". Often times "kind" matches up with the biological classification of "Family" (as in: Species, Genus, Family). So house cats, lions, tigers, etc. would all be "cat kind". But I'm sure I could find exceptions without much trouble. Unless you find a good definition for kind, your whole point about microevolution versus macrevolution goes down the drain, which is just as well since that distinction is completely artificial and meaningess to begin with. Human beings are more closely related to chimps then cats are to lions. Would you put humans and chimps in the same kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I'll give you one evidence from genetics. Different life forms do share many genes. Those genes are not exactly identical though. There are some variation from species to species. Most of this variation seam to have little physiological consequence (They are neutral variations, not benefical or detrimental). Now comes the interesting part. Species believed to be closely related like humans and chimps happen to have more similar forms of a given gene then species believed to be less closely related like mice and cows. that is genetic (therefore biological) evidence for the theory of evolution.
Edited by fallacycop, : fix typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I think that MOST visible biological evidence (visible, observable, evidence that we could personally watch or test) for evolution is all affirmed by creationists, so is basically irrelevant to this debate. That makes no sense. The acceptance of any evidence by any of the parties of a debate makes that evidence more relevant.
All primates came from a common ancestor. Fine. Creationists have been saying that for eons too. Why are these things all of a sudden evidence for evolution? You sure don't mean to say that. you're confused.
So this was my original question. Does anyone have this kind of evidence.... something that shows evolution BEYOND genus, family, or order? I pointed out that there is genetic evidence. would you care to respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
You may have to spell out what kind of evidence you are looking for. Please do that without using the word kind or, (even better) define the word kind in a consistent way and then go ahead and use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
And, I suppose if you're name is "John," you magically become "Juan" when you step over the Mexican border, too. I think you are wrong about that. There are many cities around the world that do not carry their original pronounciation into english. I cannot see any reason why Beijin could not be one of them. Quick question: how do you pronounce 'Rio de Janeiro'?
"Beijing" is a Chinese word, and "evolution" is a scientific word. Let the in-group decide what the rules are, not foreigners and laymen!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
To me, correctness is universal, not amenable to the audience.
Is it then incorrect to pronunce the 's' at the end of the word Paris when speak english? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
I'm not sure about what you mean by 'higher primtes'. Assuming you mean apes, then you are telling me that creationists accept the biological evidence that chimps and gorillas have a common ancestor but deny that humans also share a common ancestor with them. How do you explain then that chimps are genetically more similar to humans then they are to gorillas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for. Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process. That's not true. There are plenty of examples where mutations have been shown to take place and be benefical as well. I notice that you have at first asked for biological evidence for evolution, but once that evidence was given to you, you did not give any responce to that evidence. Instead, you are starting an entirely different line of attack. you are claiming that mutations could not have lead to evolution beyond your undefined 'kinds'. I think that is really bad form. I want to know what you think about the evidence that was given to you before moving the goalpost. Edited by fallacycop, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
so you cant name it then.Its actually relevant to a beginner like myself because if i was the sceptical sort i could possibly think you have arrived at a conclusion without providing any evidence whatsoever.Since we are going to make things up i have made a name off the top of my head for this organism that you cant provide proof for.Ill call it "magic yeast to human" or M.Y.T.H.What say you? Can you name all your great-great-great-great-great-granparents? If not, does that mean they did not exist? Since we are going to make things up, I'll make up a little pet name for you. I'll call you Slightly-Amusing-and-Deluded or SAD. What say you? Edited by fallacycop, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Hi SAD (sorry for the typo in my last message. I did not mean to call you MAD).
Can you answer how many differing transitional forms it took from the single celled organism to us please?
Since the human evolution was a slow gradual process, Your question makes no sense. Can you tell me how many transitional forms you have had since you were a baby? Hint: my question makes as much sense as yours
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
sure can i went from baby to child to preteen to teen to young adult to adult while remaining human Those are artificial subdivisions. I want to know the real transitional forms.
So you admit theres no proof in the fossil record to plot mankinds rise from single celled organism?. The evidence is overwhelming
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
ive basically been me fallacycop.Just grown up.Now im confused as to how this supports the gradual change from single celled to humans spanning over billions? of years.Im glad you assert theres overwhelming proof in the fossil record.We werent human all the time tho were we?We were something else and before that we were something else and before that we were something else.So identifying us tracking backwards should be real easy.Or have i got that wrong?
That question didn't make any sense before. It still makes no sense. You are asking us to count the number of transitionals of a gradual process. It makes no sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
So, do you accept that your question makes no sense?
Edited by fallacycop, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
However, I could claim that every photo you presented opened up the need for more missing link photos, and continue to say that, as if demanding a non-stop movie of your life as proof that you were once that creature with very little hair and no teeth.
A movie is nothing more then sequence of stills at the rate of 2 or 3 dozen stills per second. that would only open billions of missing links. You would only make things worse that way.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024