Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,086 Year: 967/14,231 Month: 967/1,514 Week: 0/234 Day: 0/36 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
Junior Member (Idle past 5601 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007

Message 91 of 121 (407209)
06-25-2007 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
06-24-2007 5:10 PM

Re: Move forward.
YOU GOT OWNED Raz - razzeled-dazzeled

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2007 5:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 6:56 AM shiloh has replied

Junior Member (Idle past 5601 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007

Message 93 of 121 (407292)
06-25-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
06-25-2007 6:56 AM

Re: Do you want to debate something?
No, I was waiting for you to arise out of your primordial goo of obfuscation and debate Merky Waters. And since you failed, in my est. to do so - you got owened. But here is my contribution.
RAZD said:
"...the theory of evolution is the change in species over time."
To quote Michael Behe:
"Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean somthing as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community." Preface of Darwins Black Box.
Why not change OF species over time - at least you would be getting closer to the truth.
Lets see YOUR theory:
Prediction - Change in species over time
Observation - Darwins finches beaks changed over time
Conculsion - MY theory of evolution is established.
WOW thanks for the obvious.
If this is your definition there is no need to debate.
And the word "obfuscation" was used intentionally seeing you have have muddied the waters with that definition.
Creationist believe in micro-evoulution - you are the one who needs to move forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 6:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 4:09 PM shiloh has replied

Junior Member (Idle past 5601 days)
Posts: 28
Joined: 06-21-2007

Message 95 of 121 (407388)
06-26-2007 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
06-25-2007 4:09 PM

Re: Do you want to debate something?
I would hope this debate goes further but honestly I dont have the time, which is why I wanted to sit back and read what both of you had to say.
Obviously, I think your going to try and est. microevolution as a mechanism for the occurence of macroevolution.
I wish I new what your full position is - like:
From what did microeveloution begin and how did it arrive. If you want to use microevolution as a means of macroevolution; what is the foundation of microevolution?
Do you hold to a common ancestor of all life?
How do you define species? - I ask not to quibble about another word but that term is really arbitrary in that it does not reflect nature adequately - seeing that hybridyzation occures among different species and even above that category. The range of micreoevolution is not known unless we have absolutely est. the range of what is a species, as well as the totality of the different genomes. Also, even if microevolution can increase genetic info that info is of a certain type and will be constrained by those genomes and the category to which they belong. Hence, your not going to get the info for a "wing" if the genome never had any type of wing to begin with and if the genome had info for a wing the info increase would code for another type of wing - a wing that needed more information, but that would fall within the catergory of genomes that are allowed to interact with each other - where that line is we have yet to establish. And I dont think any amount of microevolution will cross that boundary.
I do not say these things as a rebutal nor to furhter the debate - I honestly do not have the time or the effort to engage in it.
Sorry, I do not quite understand where you are coming from. Just wanted to know.
I will read your material and links - I am enjoying what I am able to get to - Hope some will cont. the deabte though.
Thanks for your replies, and best wishes to you and your family at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2007 4:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2007 9:39 AM shiloh has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023