Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
23 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,646 Year: 16,682/19,786 Month: 807/2,598 Week: 53/251 Day: 6/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 76 of 294 (845178)
12-12-2018 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Pressie
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...

He's done that before.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 6:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 10:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2310
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


(2)
Message 77 of 294 (845181)
12-12-2018 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
12-12-2018 10:03 PM


RAZD writes:

Pressie writes:

I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...


He's done that before.

Yep. When we see these repeated patterns it always makes me wonder what he expects to happen? His support for his rants is not even lackluster, he's not even trying. It's just an old-fashoned Gish Gallop of PRATTS.

I think he is a troubled young man. I hope he finds his way without anyone being hurt.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2018 10:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 78 of 294 (845182)
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


Maybe we can just wait and see if/when he comes back. Life, believe it or not, does have a tendency to happen outside this forum.

He may be trying to get laid. Hope he bathed first.


Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:07 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:13 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 79 of 294 (845187)
12-13-2018 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AZPaul3
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


Or maybe he/she's just stewing because he/she can't place the third PRATT without the second being closed...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2018 10:59 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 80 of 294 (845188)
12-13-2018 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AZPaul3
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


That's true, but him/her taking all the time by placing a second PRATT and then complaining that he/she didn't have time to participate in the first PRATT makes me wonder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2018 10:59 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 81 of 294 (845191)
12-13-2018 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tanypteryx
12-12-2018 2:11 PM


I had to look the word "incel" up. Probably male, but you never know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 2:11 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 82 of 294 (847254)
01-20-2019 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
12-04-2018 11:08 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
How does this....

demonstrate macroevolution?

Related, homologous? Sure. But how do they demonstrate the method of change?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 12-04-2018 11:08 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM WookieeB has responded
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2019 1:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 01-20-2019 1:37 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 86 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2019 3:32 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:38 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2310
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 83 of 294 (847279)
01-20-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

There is only one process. Evolution is change from generation to generation. Macroevolution is just the result of many generations of change that lead to one or more daughter species.

Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same process.

That image doesn't demonstrate anything without more explanation, except that there are some clear similarities. The images do not demonstrate what the exact hereditary relationships are between the species that are illustrated.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 84 of 294 (847287)
01-20-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

The typical creationist line is that most hominids were "100% ape" and some of then "100% human". Furthermore, you should be able to draw a line dividing hominids on that basis and, according to creationists, that line is very clear and easy to draw. Yet nobody is able to draw that line, not even professional creationists.

At http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html, Jim Foley takes six hominid skulls and surveys the writings of nine professional creationists for their judgement of which fossils are "100% ape" and which are "100% human". If the dividing line between the two groups is so clear and obvious, they should have all come to the same conclusions and be in agreement with each other. They didn't. Not only couldn't they agree with each other, but some even changed their minds from one book to another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 85 of 294 (847288)
01-20-2019 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Microwalking is walking from the living room to the mailbox. Macrowalking is walking from New York to San Francisco. The process of walking is the same in both cases.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 86 of 294 (847294)
01-20-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

They don't. What made you think they did?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 87 of 294 (847375)
01-21-2019 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tanypteryx
01-20-2019 11:56 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
There is only one process. Evolution is change from generation to generation. Macroevolution is just the result of many generations of change that lead to one or more daughter species.

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant.

Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same process.
That image doesn't demonstrate anything without more explanation, except that there are some clear similarities. The images do not demonstrate what the exact hereditary relationships are between the species that are illustrated.

From what I was asking, 'method of change' = 'same process'. So what do the skulls say as to the process, if anything?
I agree there is a similarities, and that supports some sort of relationship. But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that.

Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

I agree with the first statement. But the second statement is not necessarily true. For one thing, the 'chimp' skull should not even be in that sequence, as I understand that with Common Descent it should be some older common ancestor of the chimp and human (Homo x) that led to humans. A chimp would be on a totally separate branch and would not lead to humans.

They don't. What made you think they did?

I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.

Again, a relationship is clearly evident. The cause of that relationship is not. As for a cause, ID is just as valid a proposal as M+NS is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2019 11:21 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 11:13 AM WookieeB has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2310
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 88 of 294 (847376)
01-21-2019 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant.

NOT usually how evolution is meant, by whom? So, how is evolution usually meant?

WookieeB writes:

But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that.

Yes, that's what I just said.

WookieeB writes:

dwise1 writes:

Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

I agree with the first statement. But the second statement is not necessarily true. For one thing, the 'chimp' skull should not even be in that sequence, as I understand that with Common Descent it should be some older common ancestor of the chimp and human (Homo x) that led to humans. A chimp would be on a totally separate branch and would not lead to humans.

I did not write that.

WookieeB writes:

AZPaul3 writes:

They don't. What made you think they did?


I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.

I didn't write this one either.

WookieeB writes:

Again, a relationship is clearly evident. The cause of that relationship is not. As for a cause, ID is just as valid a proposal as M+NS is.

No it is not.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 89 of 294 (847378)
01-21-2019 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2019 8:01 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I did not write that.

Of course you didnt. The next poster(s) did.
No it is not.

And why not?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 9:12 PM WookieeB has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2310
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 90 of 294 (847379)
01-21-2019 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 8:41 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

No it is not.


And why not?

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019