Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,242 Year: 5,499/9,624 Month: 524/323 Week: 21/143 Day: 11/10 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 125 of 302 (319331)
06-08-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Great example
Untrue. You can see the initial 1983 paper yourself, pdf over there.
That link doesn't work for some reason...

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:56 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 126 of 302 (319336)
06-08-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 8:59 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
Before he did whales? Like trilobites were created and then died out utterly before the first modern ray-finned fish was created? That doesn't sound like "six days."
What makes you so sure that the trilobites died out before the first modern ray-finned fish existed? Proof?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 8:59 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:33 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 127 of 302 (319338)
06-08-2006 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by NosyNed
06-08-2006 9:20 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
You could say it. Want to open a thread on a comparison of the two?
We can take turns picking an item from one then the other. Offer evidence to support what we say. Saying is cheap. Backing it up is where the meat lies.
Nah, that's not what I would be interested in.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NosyNed, posted 06-08-2006 9:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:10 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 128 of 302 (319341)
06-08-2006 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 9:22 PM


Re: bump for SWC
I would say something similar, I think. To use a well-worn analogy, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 really does equal fourteen. Those little changes add up. That's why humans don't look so much like colugos: our ancestors have been undergoing tiny changes down through the several million generations since we shared a mama. And neither of us look like her, either.
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 9:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:14 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 133 of 302 (319350)
06-08-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:26 PM


So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance.
I have already said what macroevolution would be.
But, here are the major differences:
*Microevolution makes tiny variations to a certain organism, these variations stay within the kind of the organism.
*But macroevolution would require big changes which would go outside the kind, and they wouldn't be just variations, they would be huge changes to the look and substance of an organism
*Microevolution happens, it has been observed
*Macroevolution doesn't happen, has never been observed, and it can't happen
*Microevolution is what I would call "variations within a kind"
*Macroevolution is the common belief "evolution"
You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again.
So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh?
Macroevolution cannot happen, because the genetic code of an organism is preset, and it can't change with mutations to evolve or start evolving new organs or tissues or something. Because mutations are tiny changes that alter the code that is ALREADY existing.
Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed.
Willing to support this claim with proof instead of just saying it? And I mean about macroevolution, not microevolution.
Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe.
That was not meant to be an argument. I was just answering a direct question. Please check that out.
What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way.
I cannot deny that which NO ONE has showed me. No one has showed me how a feather would have evolved from other tissue. Want to try?
Does a feather need to evolve from a scale?
Well if your claim is that a bird evolved from a reptile...
I know your theory says it all happened slowly, with many changes, over many generations. But, you have yet to supply an example of macroevolution, or part of it, that would be definitely relevant and precisely showing macroevolution.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:26 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 134 of 302 (319351)
06-08-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:30 PM


Re: bump for SWC
How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.
This is what the fossil record shows.
The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly. It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:30 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 135 of 302 (319355)
06-08-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 9:41 PM


Re: Great example
Where do you observe evidence for these limits, and how do you make predictions about what variation is and is not allowed?
IN EVERY REPRODUCING ORGANISM FOR THE PAST 2,000 OR SO YEARS! No one has observed evolution for these past 2,000 years! Dogs have remained dogs. Monkeys have remained monkeys. Humans have remained humans. Fish have remained fish. ETC...
Edited by Someone who cares, : Misprint

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 9:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 140 of 302 (319361)
06-08-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Can you define "MACRO"evolution?
What kind of change, how much, ... what is your definition of "maccro"evolution?
You need to set the benchmark of what it is you want to see not just wave your hands at all the evidence.
I have already said, you keep ignoring it. I'm not going to post it hundreds of times. Please check back, I already said.
So you keep stating,but you haven't provided any evidence for HOW it cannot happen. Just repeating statements of incredulity and ignorance is NOT evidence.
Do you even know what I was talking about there? Or did you just go through and pick and choose at random without having a clue what I was talking about and to what I was replying?
Why progressive? Evolution is evolution, it is neither "progressive" nor "regressive" - it is just change in species over time.
"Progressive" is an egotistical valuation of some changes compared to others from a purely human viewpoint, a viewpoint which - like your opinion - has absolutely no effect on what happens in the natural world universe.
The total effect is progressive, a cell evolving into a human. Sure, according to your beliefs it may have gone down and up, but the total effect is what I see, and it could only have come by through serious progression, this doesn't mean it couldn't go down at times.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:50 PM RAZD has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 141 of 302 (319364)
06-08-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
06-08-2006 9:57 PM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
Another unsubstantiate assertion that is contradicted by facts.
If you want to discuss this you can take it to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Or I can start another {Age Correlations, step by step} just for you.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.
or you can try to ignore reality.
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 9:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 6:53 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 142 of 302 (319367)
06-08-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
06-08-2006 10:10 PM


Re: AIG vs TO
In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?
Enjoy.
I wasn't making any assertions. I was pointing out how I could use the same reasoning an evolutionist used to put down AIG, to put down TO. It's a claim that can be flipped around right back at the person who used it.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:10 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 5:03 AM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 143 of 302 (319369)
06-08-2006 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Great example
Hmmm. Try Philip D. Gingerich and go to
Gingerich, P. D., N. A. Wells, D. E. Russell, and S. M. I. Shah.? 1983.? Origin of whales in epicontinental remnant seas: new evidence from the early Eocene of Pakistan.? Science, 220: 403-406. PDF down in the references.
I did just like you told me to, and when I clicked on PDF, it didn't work, again. I think it's a dead link. Did it work with you?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 11:01 PM Someone who cares has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 144 of 302 (319370)
06-08-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: bump for SWC
Sure they can.
See how much fun this is, when both of us make assertions and then don't provide anything to prove them?
Hey, I provided my back up, just recently. So now you provide your's.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 146 of 302 (319374)
06-08-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by RAZD
06-08-2006 10:14 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
So you keep saying, but you have yet to present ANY evidence.
You are saying that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 does not equal 14.
Saying it does not make it so.
Until you actually present some kind of evidence for your assertion all it amounts to is your opinion stated over and over and over and over, and ... it has absolutely NO effect on the natural universe.
Enjoy.
Ok, here, you can go to my essay that I wrote, on my site, and read my essay, there I have my support for my claim about mutations not being able to do the job, as well as support for many of my other claims: Page Not Found - Webs

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 10:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:23 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2006 8:41 PM Someone who cares has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 147 of 302 (319376)
06-08-2006 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 10:31 PM


Re: bump for SWC
Sure it does. The transitional forms are the families, taxons, creatures etc that you refer to - the ones that appear suddenly.
Why wouldn't the transitional forms appear suddenly? You say those two things like they're mutually inconsistent.
Those are not the transitional forms.
Transitional forms are just that TRANSITIONAL, so they cannot just "appear." And neither can any fully developed forms, they can't just pop up from nothing, if you believe in evolution. Of course, you could deny it any day, I'll be more than happy to hear that...

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5866 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 148 of 302 (319377)
06-08-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Yet another mistake
The same thing that makes me sure that conodonts didn't live with diatoms, or eurypterids with crabs, or mososaurs with whales, or placoderms with pleisiosaurs: there's never been fossils of the first of each pair found in the same rock with one of the last of each pair. The firsts were all extinct before the seconds evolved.
Fusilinids and rudists.
Dicynodonts and crocodiles.
Dinosaurs with grass. Rugose with scleratinian corals.
A paleontologist could go on all night. This is how the Christian parson/geologists of the early 1800's figured out that the Earth is very old and that Noah's Flood wasn't. They looked at the rocks.
Have you considered that the geologic layers could have been layed down by a universal flood? Not by millions of years?

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:33 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 11:05 PM Someone who cares 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