|
Author
|
Topic: Best Evidence Macro-Evolution
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4664 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
Message 61 of 164 (654560)
03-02-2012 4:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by dwise1
03-02-2012 4:07 AM
|
|
Re: Evidence to Settle the Debate
Uh, what the frackin' frik? That was my first one! Read it! Think about it! You're just yet another clueless stupid creationist that we have dealt with so too many times before. You have absolutely no idea what's going on. You are completely and utterly clueless and will be blown completely away by the truth. Unless you are able to insulate yourself from the truth, in which case we should never ever hear from you again. Here's something I witnessed. Circa 1990 in Orange, Calif, at The City (a mall in Orange, Calif, which since then has been razed and converted into "The Block") there was a creationist-run fossil store, "In The Beginning", owned by Alex Scott. Alex Scott organized some "creation/evolution amateur nights" in the mall's community center. I participated in those, though I also made that fact available to other "evolutionists". In one of those open debates, a young creationist got up and announced that he had some "very recent scientific evidence" that would "blow the evolutionists away". The speed of light has been slowing down! Immediately, half the audience burst out in laughter and all at once tried to explain to that poor witless creationist why that claim was completely and utterly false. That young creationist stood there clearly in complete shock. OK, here's the situation. P.J. Barnum formulated Barnum's Law: There's a sucker born every minute. That is what the creationist movement operates on. All creationist claims have been proposed. They have all been refuted. New creationists are never informed of those simple facts. What? Edited by idscience, : No reason given. Edited by idscience, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by dwise1, posted 03-02-2012 4:07 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 62 of 164 (654561)
03-02-2012 4:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by idscience
03-02-2012 3:36 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
idscience writes: That is interesting. I can give you an example of gravity working without you defining it. I can also give evidence of magnetism, or friction without you defining it.
No, you can't. Go ahead, demonstrate it to me, without me first explaining to you what I mean by "gravity", "magnetism" or "friction". I'll just go "Nope, that's not gravirty, sorry, you failed to demonstrate it to me". You see, without you knowing what I mean by those terms, all I have to do is deny you demonstrated it to me. Which is precisely what you are doing in this thread. We have provided you with examples of what we think is macro-evolution, and you go "no, those lice are still lice" etc. That's why we need you to define macro-evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:36 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Kairyu
Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined: 06-23-2010
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 63 of 164 (654563)
03-02-2012 5:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by idscience
03-02-2012 4:29 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
From RAZD, message 29:
quote:
For instance, I'll define microevolution (seeing as you agree completely with this process): Microevolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
As you can see, it already had been done a while back. If this definition is not yours, correct it. If it's yours, debunk the concept. Please make sure you read everything, even if you don't agree with it, or you dislike the poster. This is the mark of a good debater.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 4:29 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 5:24 AM | | Kairyu has not replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4664 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
|
Message 64 of 164 (654565)
03-02-2012 5:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Kairyu
03-02-2012 5:13 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Microevolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. We are in agreement on this point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Kairyu, posted 03-02-2012 5:13 AM | | Kairyu has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 65 of 164 (654567)
03-02-2012 5:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by idscience
03-02-2012 4:29 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
It is ridiculous an evolution forum can't come up with a definition. Really, you don' t know what it is? Now that's not what I said and you know it. We can give you hundreds of examples of what people have claimed macroevolution is. For example, one poster demanded an example of a fish, an individual fish, turning into a bird and this event had to have been seen happening. Others have said they will accept one species becoming another species. What we're trying to find out is what you would accept as macroevolution and to do that we need to know what you mean by macroevolution. I'm giving you the courtesy of allowing you to define macroevolution as you see it, in the face of utter boorishness on your part. Wind in your neck and think about what I've said. We're not here to play a guessing game to determine what you think - only you know what you think. Do you expect us to keep trying different definitions while you say "Nope, that's not what I think"? Cut to the chase and tell us what definition you're using and then we can move on.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 4:29 AM | | idscience has replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 66 of 164 (654568)
03-02-2012 5:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:04 AM
|
|
Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
There is nothing in the title about me defending my position. Well done! Stick it to those evos!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:04 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4664 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
|
Message 67 of 164 (654569)
03-02-2012 6:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Trixie
03-02-2012 5:43 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
macro evolution has to be able to produce novel morphology. A wing has to be built from a limb, a leg from a fin. Macro-evolution has to demonstrate how the increase of information occurred. Something more than "a long time did it". Where did the new information come from to build entirely novel structures, like photoreceptor cells complex. That simple first eye. Photoreceptor cells are blind to selection unless there is transmission, reception and translation of the signals. Otherwise the organism has no advantage. Macro-E has to demonstrate how a sensory system like this can be built randomly without knowledge of purpose. flagellum motor? How does macro-E build these systems one piece at a time if they are blind to selection until they are built and working? Edited by idscience, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Trixie, posted 03-02-2012 5:43 AM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9583 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 6.5
|
|
|
Message 68 of 164 (654571)
03-02-2012 6:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by idscience
03-02-2012 6:13 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
idscience writes:
photoreceptor cells complex. That simple first eye. Photoreceptor cells are blind to selection unless there is transmission, reception and translation of the signals. Otherwise the organism has no advantage. Macro-E has to demonstrate how a sensory system like this can be built randomly without knowledge of purpose. flagellum motor? How does macro-E build these systems one piece at a time if they are blind to selection until they are built and working? As these are standard ID arguments - in fact the eye 'problem' was posed by Darwin himself - that have been answered many times, I assume you are looking for something additional to the answers you will have already read (assuming that you have read beyond what only creationist publish). Perhaps if you pick one and say why it doesn't satisfy you and we can have a go at that for you.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 6:13 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:47 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3972 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 69 of 164 (654573)
03-02-2012 6:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by idscience
03-02-2012 6:13 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
idscience writes: macro evolution has to be able to produce novel morphology.
Most creationists think that macro-evolution is the production of novel morphology. But that would mean that you are saying: quote:
The production of novel morphology (macro-evolution) has to be able to produce novel morphology.
...which would be a pointless thing to say.
idscience writes: flagellum motor? How does macro-E build these systems one piece at a time if they are blind to selection until they are built and working?
What do you think macro-evolution is? Provide a definition and then we can answer your questions. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 6:13 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:51 PM | | Panda has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 70 of 164 (654575)
03-02-2012 7:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by idscience
03-02-2012 6:13 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
idscience writes: Where did the new information come from to build entirely novel structures...
Mutations.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 6:13 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:56 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Kairyu
Member Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined: 06-23-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 71 of 164 (654576)
03-02-2012 7:22 AM
|
|
|
micro-macro mixup
I discovered that in error, I mixed the terms up. However, I think this definition goes for macro-evolution as well. They are the same to science, hence why a misreading earlier caused me to assume he quoted macro- evolution in error. This only demonstrates how vague the line between them is. Can you define the limits of micro-evolution,where it changes in your ''macro-evolution''. To science, macro evolution is just the same as micro, only scaled up in time, so the results vary more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they share the same definition as a result. So, how is macro-evolution different?
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 72 of 164 (654577)
03-02-2012 7:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by idscience
03-02-2012 3:36 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Hi idscience, Still no definition of macroevolution.
Let's look at it like this. think of me like someone who doesn't know what macro-evolution is, and I am very interested in what it is, and give me a couple examples of it. Curiously (a) I do think of you as someone who doesn't know what macroevolution is, but I also think that (b) you think you do or you would not have posted what you did in Message 1:
I am interested in hard evidence that moves macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory? Evidence of the same standard that is demanded from intelligent design science. I look forward to the responses. If you new the definition for macroevolution that scientists use you would not say that it was an hypothesis. So what do you think the definition for macroevolution is? Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:36 AM | | idscience has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1665 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 73 of 164 (654579)
03-02-2012 7:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by idscience
03-02-2012 4:29 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Hi again idscience, still unable to answer a simple question?
It is ridiculous an evolution forum can't come up with a definition. Really, you don' t know what it is? Scientists don't use the term anymore because bringing everything under one roof "evolution" enables you to use terms like "overwhelming evidence" and "evolution is a fact" when what your talking about is variation.
I knew no one would step up and spell it out. It's ridiculous for you to pretend to know about and intelligently discuss something you can't define. I can define it and present citations to show that my definition is used by actual scientists, even in today's world. Again you show your ignorance.
let's narrow it down a bit. Evidence showing increased information producing novel structures or novel complex systems? And once again we have a problem - what's information? Define it in a way that we can test to see if it increases. Note that scientists do not use this term in evolutionary biology.
All that is ever talked about is speciation. ... Close -- of course we have plenty of evidence of speciation.
... If a finch grows a longer beak that is macro-evolution. ... No, that is not macroevolution. You obviously are clueless about what macroevolution truly is.
... Convenient, but not enough to take a dinosaur to a bird or a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic one. AND neither is THAT a definition of macroevolution. All it amounts to is your desperate opinion. Opinions have been shown to be unable to alter reality.
Unlike most here, I need a little more than given enough time anything is possible. If you can't supply anything of greater change then a longer beak, or different colored moths, I guess I have my answer. Its faith in time. Nope that's not it either. Do you need a little help? Or can you define macroevolution all by yourself? Let's see if you can. Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 4:29 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 74 of 164 (654580)
03-02-2012 7:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by idscience
03-02-2012 6:13 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Since EVOLUTION is random mutation AND natural selection together, you can't just demand that macro-EVOLUTION provide a mechanism which leaves out selection! That's macro-MIRACLE and we have NO evidence of macro-MIRACLES. No-one has ever claimed there is evidence for macro-MIRACLES and the ToE certainly doesn't invoke them. So why would a lack of micro-MIRACLE examples disprove the ToE which explicitly excludes them in the first place? So far, all you've demonstrated is an unwillingness to discuss your demand, an unwillingness to define what you're asking for and now in your latest post, complete ignorance of what evolution actually is and what the ToE actualy says. Now do you see why we kept asking for your definition? Your idea of what macro-EVOLUTION should produce is contradicted by the ToE itself, therefore there are no examples to be found. So maybe you have to reconsider what macro-EVOLUTION means when used by those claiming no evidence for it. See, that wasn't difficult, was it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 6:13 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 6.9
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 75 of 164 (654581)
03-02-2012 7:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM
|
|
Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Hi IDScience, About the best evidence for macroevolution, many believers in ID share evolution's view about the phylogenetic tree and macroevolution. Michael Behe, one of the founders of the ID movement, believes that while random mutation and natural selection are sufficient for some things, they're inadequate for others. He believes that a designer steps in to make the necessary microbiological changes to help evolution over particularly difficult adaptational hurdles. He accepts the phylogenetic tree and macroevolution, he just thinks that a designer played a key role in their history. You seem to have a different view, that the designer steps in and creates entire organs and limbs all at once within a single generation. Is that correct? If so, how do you reconcile your views with Behe's, especially since your view is contradicted by the evidence, for example, for the gradual evolution of modern limbs from the fins of ancient fish. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 4:23 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2