Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:12 PM
159 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 155 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 16 of 108 (81695)
01-30-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
01-29-2004 11:22 PM


I'm sure you meant geographic separation, rather than geologic separation.

How embarrassing . I didn't even notice that I did that. I think I'm generally a bit more literate than that.

To Ned:

I did read the origin too but forgot that

Well, there's this one example that he used that I was hesitant to mention, but it made the point unforgettable to me. You know, the one about "If a European were to join a tribe in Africa, he would obviously quickly become chief because of his superior traits, but as the generations went by, his superior traits would be lost as he interbred with the natives."

Hard to forget he said that. Sigh, we've come a long way since the 1850's...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-29-2004 11:22 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 02-02-2004 4:11 AM truthlover has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2141 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 108 (82077)
02-02-2004 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by truthlover
01-30-2004 4:40 PM


Careful what you say, Syamsu will be in here next thing critiquing the comparison of european and african and showing how it demonstrates Darwinism's fundamental complicity in eugenics and racism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 01-30-2004 4:40 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by truthlover, posted 02-02-2004 9:01 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 18 of 108 (82346)
02-02-2004 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Wounded King
02-02-2004 4:11 AM


Then I'll watch what I say. I have to admit that after about the first two, I never read another of Syamsu's posts, and I avoided every thread where people were conversing mostly with him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Wounded King, posted 02-02-2004 4:11 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 108 (97764)
04-05-2004 12:04 AM


Hello.
As a Christian philosopher, I try to clear up any misconceptions.
I have attended a seminar concerning the ages of rocks and rock layers, and its incoherency with the theory of evolution is of great magnitude. Fossil records show that there are indeed layers upon layers of rocks, but these layers are falsely dated by carbon-14. Carbon-14 has been used to date recent objects such as potato chips, and have found them to be some 1,000 years old. Coincidence? I think not. Furthermore, if the earth were even 250,000 years old, the moon would be embedded in the earth's crust. And for all those who believe in the Big Bang theory...Draw a picture of nothing, and then draw it EXPLODING. Some theory.
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-05-2004 12:14 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Cthulhu, posted 05-30-2004 2:43 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 20 of 108 (97768)
04-05-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheNewGuy03
04-05-2004 12:04 AM


Hello NewGuy, welcome to EvC.

We do try to stay on topic here, so please keep your replies to this thread focused on macro-evolution. We have another forum full of threads on Dates and Dating and yet another focusing more on The Big Bang and Cosmology.

Find one of our many forums and either pick a thread or start a new one. If you do start a new thead in an appropriate forum, please give it a descriptive title.

Once again welcome.


AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-05-2004 12:04 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 108 (109821)
05-22-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-25-2004 9:34 PM


You brought up that you or I have never seen an irreducibly complex organism created, but also i have never seen anything macro-evolve either

the ironic part is that "irreducable complexity" is an end result actually predicted by evolutionary theory. evolutionary algorithms in computer systems routinely create irreducibly complex systems.

this may be a hard concept to fathom, but here's a good example. we'll use teh old mousetrap example. supposing that mechanics functioned by reproduction and genetics, here's how the old irreducably complex moustrap might have evolved: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Mousetraps.html

also, ic is an argument from ignorance. it's saying "i don't see how that could have evolved, therefore it must not have" which is a blatant logical fallacy. also, to assume that all knowledge is had by humans and they are always correct is to put humans in the place of god, which to a believer it blasphemy.

second, "macroevolution" is a creationist term. species and deliniations of animals are human classifications. changes in phyla and taxa are not essentially the same as speciation in that one thing "macroevolves" to another. it is the product of many, many results of speciation.

edit, also, to newguy even though it's off topic: rocks aren't dated with carbon 14.

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-22-2004 02:28 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-25-2004 9:34 PM bran_sept88 has not yet responded

  
Nic Tamzek
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 108 (110016)
05-23-2004 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-25-2004 9:34 PM


A great example of a geologically recent dramatic macroevolutionary event is the radiation of the Hawaiian silverswords into tree, bush, etc. forms, all from an unimpressive-looking herbaceous California tarweed. Start here:


Hawaiian Silversword Alliance


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-25-2004 9:34 PM bran_sept88 has not yet responded

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 108 (111499)
05-29-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bran_sept88
01-25-2004 9:34 PM


Polyploidy: Observed Macroevolution
Bran writes:

You brought up that you or I have never seen an irreducibly complex organism created, but also i have never seen anything macro-evolve either, could you please direct me to were i can read up and find out what macro-evolutionary events I am missing out on.

Edi responds: Point your browser to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Talkorigins also has another FAQ with more instances.

While macroevolution often takes a long time, it sometimes occurs quite quickly. Polyploidy is a fast evolutionary mechanism that accounts for most of the instances of observed macroevolution of which I'm aware (obligate endosymbiosis accounts for some as well). Polyploidy is the wholesale multiplication of sets of chromosomes. For example, the offspring polyploid might have 24 chromosomes from a parent specie with 12 chromosomes - or it might be the result of hybridization of two parent species, with the resulting polyploid having full (or nearly so) sets of chromosomes from both parent species.

Polyploidy results in macroevolution from one generation to the next, so we don't have to wait around for eons to see the results. Many common food plants are polyploids (e.g. bananas, wheat, potatoes). Polyploidy has also resulted in the observed macroevolution of modern species. Polyploidy is more common in plants, but it does occur in animals as well. To my knowledge, there is only one known polyploid mammal, the Red Viscach Rat - it has nearly twice the contingient of chromosomes of its close relatives - the exception is the sex chromosomes, which are not duplicates. Note that doubling of the sex chromosomes would have led to an evolutionary dead end through Natural Selection, which is probably one of the reasons polyploidy is so rare in mammals (and other organisms with similar sex chromosomes).

[revised to use little blue box quotation - thanks for the UBB pointers in Style Guides for EvC, Sylas!]

This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-30-2004 11:00 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bran_sept88, posted 01-25-2004 9:34 PM bran_sept88 has not yet responded

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 3898 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 24 of 108 (111582)
05-30-2004 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheNewGuy03
04-05-2004 12:04 AM


Your post shows that you know absolutely nothing on the subjects you talk about. Therefore, being the guy that I am, I shall correct you on each point.

C-14 dating is not used on rocks, as, amazingly, rocks are inorganic and therefore contian no carbon to date. (Contaminants aside.) As for the potato chips comment, C-14 can't date anything that young without giving a false reading.

As for the moon arguement, it's pure crap. The rate at which the moon is reciding is so small that it is almost undetectable. Also, the rate at which it is receding is not linear, it's exponential.

As for your comment of the Big Bang, you obviously have no clue as to what you're talking about. One, the Big Bang was not "nothing", it was singularity. Two, it was not an explosion. It is the expansion of space-time.


Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website

Idiot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-05-2004 12:04 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 4:32 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 25 of 108 (111586)
05-30-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cthulhu
05-30-2004 2:43 PM


quote:
As a Christian philosopher, I try to clear up any misconceptions.

Some philosopher.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cthulhu, posted 05-30-2004 2:43 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:04 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 108 (111612)
05-30-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chiroptera
05-30-2004 4:32 PM


hello
Well, the statement made concerning the dating of recently-produced objects, such as chips, was of a general nature, and is meant for things that are most commonly dated, such as rock layers. The earth is not as old as you think. The earth's magnetic field is weakening, and if the earth was billions of years old, there would be no magnetic field. The earth was a product of design, not spontaneous combustion. Where in hell did this "singularity" come from? If the Big Bang did occur, what caused it? How did the gases get there to spread out over the universe? Where can we see "macro-evolution" occurring? Don't even try to discredit my information because I say I'm a philosopher. Well, do you believe there's a God?

P.S. A fossilized object is said to have been petrified, and fossils are dated with carbon-14. The common rock is dated with such methods as strontium-rubidium, etc.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 06:12 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 4:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-30-2004 7:21 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded
 Message 29 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 7:30 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 7:50 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 108 (111613)
05-30-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:04 PM


Re: hello
Get back on the subject. If you want to discuss some of the extraneous stuff you are bringing up, there are threads available.

You mentioned

Don't even try to discredit my information because I say I'm a philosopher.

and you can be sure that no one will try to discredit your statements because you are a philosopher. They will be discredited simply because they are wrong.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:04 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:27 PM jar has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 108 (111615)
05-30-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
05-30-2004 7:21 PM


Re: hello
That statement was not for you...and what makes you say that I'm wrong? Are you right? It is along the lines of macro-evolution, but the other statements were logical information used to make a POINT, like most other people did on here. Unfortunately, there are those people who like to put out boolsheet to annoy the hell out of people. So...that's all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-30-2004 7:21 PM jar has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 108 (111616)
05-30-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheNewGuy03
05-30-2004 7:04 PM


Re: hello
TheNewGuy03

Where in hell did this "singularity" come from?

Where the hell did God come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:04 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-30-2004 7:35 PM sidelined has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 108 (111617)
05-30-2004 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by sidelined
05-30-2004 7:30 PM


Re: hello
God is outside of space and time, so he wasn't CREATED. He's there, and always was there. We have yet to comprehend infinity. (That's why everyone doesn't know where we go when we die.) That's why we humans use time to record our activity on Earth. While God may interact with nature, he doesn't have a place in nature. God is the source of all concepts, such as goodness. How could we have a standard or a concept without a source? He IS everything that exists, including the concept of existence. God isn't some religious boolsheet that someone decided to come up with. Peace

DISCLAIMER: All posts hereafter are responses to other posts.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 06:38 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 7:30 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 7:55 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019