|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4332 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In other words I am not disputing ‘variations in species’ {known as microevolution}, I am saying the evidence does not support microbes becoming multi-celled organisms; multi-celled organisms becoming fish; fish becoming amphibians; amphibians becoming mammals; etc. And if saying things had power to change reality, then the incantations of creationists would be much more effective.
Also, I believe, the evidence will show that ‘Life’ could not have come into existence without an intelligent agent involved. In other words ‘Life’ could not have started on its own, by purely natural means. And if believing things had the power to change reality ...
If one walks by a piece of wood that has ‘Help’ written on it they come to the logical conclusion that someone wrote that message. And when one looks at the genome of (for example) a tiger, which one knows perfectly well was produced by reproduction, recombination, and mutation, one does not look for the invisible writer of the tiger genome with a magic genome pen unless one happens to be a darn fool.
Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} Ah, the Great Big Creationist Petitio Principii. I must have missed where you demonstrated that. Oh, wait, you didn't. You assumed that. Which requires you to assume that genomes did not evolve. Which is the very thing that you're meant to be proving. But you're just assuming it instead. And if assuming things had the power to change reality ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And in terms of common ancestry DNA is about the worst evidence you could bring to the table ... Now you're being unjust to the unique genius of Kirk Cameron.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well I can find no verifiable, repoducible evidence there that proves 'Macro-Evolution has occured. OK, next question. Do you have health insurance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just because things had a common origin does not mean they produced each other. No,it means that they had a common origin. You have made 3,815 posts on this forum and you can still write a sentence like that ... One would think that what with all this talking with intelligent educated people some of it would have rubbed off on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There are no eyes in single-cell life forms ... Fascinatingly, this is untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What are we talking here? Chlamydomonas and Euglena eye spots? Or bacteriorhodopsin? Why is this an either-or question? All of them. There is also an organism I've read about but can't presently find a reference for. It actually has a lens. And it has one photoreceptor on the end of a stalk. It waves the stalk about, and the lens is just the right shape ... Interestingly, the first Mars missions used a camera with a similar design, I don't know why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thanks. That may well be what I was thinking of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I could also make the argument that the wide spans of time with no changes raised questions as to the process taking place. And you could argue that long periods when I stay in one place raise questions as to whether I've ever moved. But that would be stupid.
I could argue that the absence of transitional forms raises doubts as to the process. But first you'd be well advised to go around smashing all the intermediate forms with a hammer, shooting everyone who's seen them, and burning the relevant scientific literature.
I could raise the question of the three toes to one as presented concerning the process, raising questions as the South American story is from one toe to three toes. It is not clear what you're trying to be wrong about or why.
If you will enlarge my avatar you will see a animal the size of the Hyracotherium. Since the only pictures we have of the Hyracotherium is an artist rendition of what somebody thought the Hyracotherium looked like they could be the same animal except for the feet and teeth. Since all those modifications could be and was made by microevolution where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? Now say the same about humans and apes, which are even more similar.
Since all those modifications could be and was made by microevolution where is the 'Macro-Evolution'? Since everybody here screams they are different critters when they can't breed I would like to put forth my avatar animals as evidence that is a false assertion and assumption. Er ... but they are different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see how the big stallion and the little mare in my avatar can breed and produce an offspring. They are both classified as horses. So where is the difference other than size? The difference other than the very obvious difference? Well, if they can't breed, the other difference is species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. You guys should really learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine.
Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater. I guess your rival sects agree on one error. And apparently you're willing to applaud anyone who commits it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Actually knowing each and every step would be science. Anything else is either religion or belief in some system. No, it's more science. Suppose you see two guys tossing a ball back and forth, only most of the flightpath of the ball is blocked from your view by a screen. Now, if you wanted, there is nothing in your observations as such that would lead you to discount the hypothesis that as it passes behind the screen, an angel makes it vanish, waits an appropriate length of time, and then poofs into existence a different but identical ball traveling with just the speed and direction that it would have if it had in fact continued in its parabolic arc. But science tells us that in the absence of evidence for angels, the default explanation for why it looks like the laws of physics continued trundling along behind the screen as normal is that they did; and obliges us to deduce that the ball really did move in a parabola.
Science requires us to accept this, at least until and unless there is contrary evidence; and does so even though you couldn't see most or even all of the flight of the ball.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In other words, we can't know everything right away. This wouldn't be science. No, that's really my point. My point is that sciece often tells us, very insistently, how we ought to fill in the gaps where there are things that we don't directly observe. To do so is scientific. To ignore this insistence is possible, but it is unscientific. To take another example, if I see an apple in a supermarket, science insists that I conclude that it grew on an apple tree, since our accumulated experience of how the world works tells us that that's how apples happen. Now, since I didn't watch it all the way from the flower to the supermarket shelf, it is possible for me to believe that God created it on the shelf ex nihilo when no-one was looking. It is theoretically possible that this is the right explanation. But it would be unscientific to conclude that that was what happened. And in the absence of any contrary evidence, we are obliged to go with the scientific explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While I could argue the silliness of your above point very easily ... If, on another thread, you would like to argue that you shouldn't learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine, then I for one could use the laugh. I can well believe that such an argument would come very easily to you.
... my intention here was not t enter the discussion ... Then your ability to not enter discussions apears to be on a par with your other talents.
I think ICANT is doing a wonderful job. I was simply pointing out that he displays a level of knowledge and the logical ability to employ it to the point that it is very impressive Which is like one tone-deaf man admiring the singing voice of another. I will do him the justice to admit that he's better at it than you are. But then, so is yeast.
ICANT is both an enigma and paradox at times. Sometimes he doesnt seem to understand the simplest points, at others times he displays an understanding that is simply impressive. Let me guess. He "doesn't understand the simplest points" when he's disagreeing with one of your religious dogmas, and his understanding is "simply impressive" when he's concurring with your doctrine. Am I close?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It really bothers you when someone disagrees with A position, even when you are not being addressed directly, doesnt it? Beign wrong on any position is really not an option for you is it? Perhaps some anger management classes or courses would be appropriate for such tantrums Just a suggestion however Better let you get back to your task, have fun That was incoherent, but I believe you intended to be insulting. You're not very good at that, either, are you? I wonder what you are good at? I suppose with the right armature a taxidermist might make you into a passable hatstand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Fortunately Ive been discussing issues like these much longer than yourself . Part of that experience is learning when a person actually has answers to questions and can formulate rational responses, neither of which, seem to be a part of you abilities or your agendas When you get backed against the wall, you start to cry fowl, in the hopes people will get distracted by the real fact, that you are not acting responsible and cannot act or respond in any real fashion DA, your wasting valuable time that should be invested in rebutals that make sense Remember DA, your audience is watching your behavior I assume you are actually older than say, 20 years of age, so you should have learned this simple mature point by now. Perhaps I am wrong and you are still a teenage testosterone fueled boy. Are you still just a boy DA? I'd mock you some more, but the challenge is gone.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024