Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 1:36 PM
147 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,429 Year: 3,466/19,786 Month: 461/1,087 Week: 51/212 Day: 12/39 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
Coyote
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 181 of 238 (591132)
11-11-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Micro Macro
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice.

But they are still mice.

Wrong! Absolutely wrong!

"Mouse" and "mice" are generic terms, not scientific ones.

In a scientific argument they mean nothing!

I've told you this before, but you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anything which, for religious reasons, you might disagree with.

If that's the case you have absolutely no business discussing science, or presenting opinions dealing with science. You are simply not qualified.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 182 of 238 (591136)
11-11-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ICANT
11-11-2010 4:45 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 4:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Ken Fabos
Member (Idle past 329 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 05-09-2010


Message 183 of 238 (591138)
11-11-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Semantics and jargon a blueprint for misunderstanding
JRTjr, you seem to be making far too much of the popular terminology rather than the actual processes; 'blueprint' and 'set of instructions' are a kind of shorthand for something entirely different to a set of instructions or a blueprint. The actual processes are biochemical reactions that don't need or embody any intelligence to occur and DNA doesn't actually code information - 'coding information' being a human constructed analogy for processes that have nothing to do with codes or information. Arguments based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of terminology won't prove anything, least of all that evolution can't result in speciation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 184 of 238 (591140)
11-11-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:15 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Actually knowing each and every step would be science.

Anything else is either religion or belief in some system.

What a wonderful answer! Thank you.

Now, give me one example of any area of science where they have all the answers.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 185 of 238 (591148)
11-12-2010 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
11-11-2010 2:51 PM


Re: DNA
Not one verifiable instance of 'Macro-Evolution' has not been shown to have occured.

In fact no good argumentation has been presented to support such a position.

Circumstantial evidence along with assertions and bull headed conclusions has been presented in this thread as evidence of verifiable instances of 'Macro-Evolution' having occured.

The problem is none of those are verifiable instances of
'Macro-Evolution'.

God Bless,

I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater.

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 2:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 2:26 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 187 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 4:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Theodoric, posted 11-12-2010 10:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2010 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 186 of 238 (591149)
11-12-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 2:12 AM


Re: DNA
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 2:12 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 8:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 187 of 238 (591151)
11-12-2010 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 2:12 AM


Re: DNA
I have read the entire thread up to 184, excellent display of logic, ICANT, you can see them squirming. Outstanding. I know we have our disagreements on Baptism, but you are an outstanding debater.

Yea the 2 mice are a different species but they are still mice.

They are no longer House mice, they look diferent, act different, their gens are diferent they are now called Xxx yyyy, and no ammount of change will ever make them cese to be mice. Ift hey grow horns they will be mice whit horns, if they grow a rabbits tail they will be mice whit horns and rabbids tails, if they start eating bark, they will be horned mice whit rabbits tails that eat bark, If they evolve shorter mouths and a diferent digestive syistem because they are eating bark, they will be horned mice whit rabbit tails that eat bark have different jaws and different digestive syistems, If they evolve ........

No amount of change would convince him that they are no longer mice

AN exelent display of logic that disproves macro evolution no matter what happens just denie that macro has ever happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 2:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 188 of 238 (591153)
11-12-2010 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:15 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by olivortex, posted 11-12-2010 7:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 2851 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 189 of 238 (591158)
11-12-2010 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 5:00 AM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
In other words, we can't know everything right away. This wouldn't be science.

It seems strange to me that some people demand that science brings all the answers. Actually it's the difference between, for instance, a holy scripture and science. One is supposed to contain everything needed, while the other is continuously unfolding mysteries. No science manual is holy.

Sometimes I wonder if lack of self-confidence is not the main reason why creationists won't open their minds. We have to trust our own intelligence, without overestimating it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 5:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 8:22 AM olivortex has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 190 of 238 (591163)
11-12-2010 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by olivortex
11-12-2010 7:51 AM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by olivortex, posted 11-12-2010 7:51 AM olivortex has not yet responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 191 of 238 (591165)
11-12-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 2:26 AM


Re: DNA
You guys should really learn the difference between things you can see and things that you can imagine.

While I could argue the silliness of your above point very easily,
my intention here was not t enter the discussion, 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

I think I read in the rules or preface somewhere on this site that some things get published. IMV, this should be one of them

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.

His participation here is one of those excellent displays of knowledge

I think it is worthy of publication.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 2:26 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-12-2010 8:55 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 2179 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 192 of 238 (591166)
11-12-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 8:47 AM


Re: DNA
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

By continually denying the evidence presented to him and by ignoring a vitally important question that has been posited 5 or 6 times now doesn't display, to me, a level of logical ability that is truly noteworthy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 8:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 193 of 238 (591172)
11-12-2010 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dawn Bertot
11-12-2010 8:47 AM


Re: DNA
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 8:47 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 9:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-12-2010 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 194 of 238 (591174)
11-12-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 9:30 AM


Re: DNA
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.

Ive already demonstrated to many times now, it is actually you that does not understand the difference between the two, as your inability to reason correctly, usually demonstrates. Its why why when you and I are discussing points, you choose to bow out and have nothing really to offer but jibes and insults

You aggravation is being displayed now because ICANT has taken you to task on the subject and you have no way to demonstrate what you claim happened, Macro Evo

Feel free to clown around, I would however, suggest that you spend your time meeting his demand, which you have to this point NOT demonstrated

All you need is the evidence, that should be simple enough

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by frako, posted 11-12-2010 10:25 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 346 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 195 of 238 (591175)
11-12-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2010 9:30 AM


Re: DNA
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?

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

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 12:10 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019