Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,436 Year: 3,693/9,624 Month: 564/974 Week: 177/276 Day: 17/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best Evidence Macro-Evolution
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(4)
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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(3)
Message 117 of 164 (654699)
03-02-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by idscience
03-02-2012 3:56 PM


Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
idscience writes:
Really? that is your answer?
Uhm yes. Why? Are you saying mutations do not alter the genome?
When I posted here, you guys were all over me about citing sources. With all the jibber jabber that has gone on since, only one dude has offered a paper for me to look at.
Actually, two guys have. Coyote has provided you with a whole list of papers, which you said you would read, and Crashfrog provided you with a very specific example.
Since there are a hundred of you shooting from the hip and only one of me, I am only going to respond to relevant replies with sources to back up any rebuts. I can't spend the day here.
There aren't "hundreds", but sure if you feel overwhelmed, I will step out, and this will be my last post to you.
My purpose was to give evolution a fair shake on my site with the best evidence it has to offer. I was hoping I could have got that here, but it seems like your more interested in slagging ID, that sharing specific reasons why you believe what you believe.
If you want the best evidence for macro evolution, all you had to do was go to google scholar and type in "macro evolution" in the search box.
Since you seem to like links so much: here you go, enough evidence to last you a lifetime.
As I said, I will now bow out. Unless you've got some specific questions. I'd be more than willing to answer them.
Thanks for the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 3:56 PM idscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Big_Al35, posted 03-05-2012 7:53 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024