Evolution Logic

The only time i've heard of anyone claiming that brain size effects intellegence on adverage seems to be white nationalists claiming the size of black peoples brains makes them stupid
brain size may differ between groups on adverage but no one seems to be able to equate intellence and brain size with evidence
i guess WN's like to conflate the difference to sway the ignorent

Let's start with an example of simple speciation at a very basic level eh? One that I included in the post you replied to but didn't answer on: Is this any different than the variation we see in say dog varieties? No one can keep you from denying evidence that is true. But what I was refering to specifically was you claim That has been refuted, whether you think so or not. Repeating this claim without providing any evidence that the previous appearance of fossils makes the claim invalid is not going to make you point any more valid, just more careless.The other half that was quoted: Depends on you presenting a definition of "macro"evolution, which you have failed as yet to provide. Of course you are free to deny any evidence that does not fit your definition when you fail to provide a definition to work from. This is not 50 questions, it's science, so there is either evidence for your hypothesis or it is a groundless assertion of opinion. Again. But there are also fossil records of cradual change in species over time so not ALL species appear suddenly as you claimed. I showed you one.You are wrong, admit it and be honest.You have also been told why we don't expect to see all transitions between species, that doesn't mean that there are NO examples of transitions between species, especially when that has been observed first hand.Evolution happens. It is change in species over time. It has been observed. What is it? I can easily repeat and repeat that "evolution is the change in species over time" so you can easily debate my definition of evolution. Take the example of Pelycodus above -- they get bigger and bigger and bigger and then one group reverts back to the original size while another keeps getting bigger, the two groups separate, become different species.You agree that this is what you call "micro"evolution yes? Fact: I directed you to a thread to discuss this matter at, so I am NOT trying to move this offtopic. Fact: you claim you have evidence but so far have failed to produce any. Fact: you have failed several times to subtantiate assertions you have made where the evidence is against you. Stop whining. How does it defy logic? Present the arguments, present the evidence. present SOMETHING other than bald repeated assertions.And, btw, this " A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, ..." is a strawman logical fallacy, so you are on the wrong side of a logical argument at the start.The rest of the paragraph is an argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy.To show that evolution is not logical you have to avoid logical fallacies or your argument is invalid before you even reach a conclusion. Like your "essay" is invalid because it is based on false information. Sorry, but until you actually show that this is the case it is nothing BUT an assertion. Ned offered to go one for one on it with you and you declined. AIG is unreliable because it has several errors on it's site, just as your "essay" is unreliable because of the many errors you have carelessly included. This is called the arguement from authority, another logical fallacy. Certainly you know the quote that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose eh?But more to the point you can pad your bibliography with as many scientific papers and documents as you please, the arguement YOU make from them is still invalid if all you base it on is your personal incredulity, misunderstanding and ignorance.Your first paragraph sets the tone of careless error and careless attention to detail.So far you have not said one thing that is substantially different from your first few posts, and those were full of errors.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Variations can compile, I mean, look at the wolf and the poodle, they do look very different, but they're still the "dog" kind. Variations can compile, but they cannot produce different kinds! "Might have?" But can we see proof that this happened? Notice I said SOME, not all. I think at least two of them are faked. But those transitions were supposed to happen slowly, bit by bit, right? So where are the fossils to show the slow transitions leading to archaeopteryx, and coming from it? Oh? So you say that scales didn't slowly evolve into feathers? Instead they just jumped suddenly from one to the other, from reptile covering to bird covering? That's not how your theory goes. And no, "less advanced" feathers won't do. But why would non avian dinosaurs have air sacs? Would it benefit them in any way? Why "must?" I mean, say, what if the climate and atmosphere during dinosaurs was different than todays?

---

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

You couldn't open the pdf of the 1983 paper, IIRC, but it said:
"Anatomically, Pakicetus is the best known genus, being represented by the posterior portion of an exceptionally well preserved cranium, two dentaries, and isolated upper and lower cheek teeth."More than "two skull fragments." And it was compared with another species in the same genus.

Well, you know what? If you do indeed believe it is a false statement, then why don't you talk about it with the source of that statement? Because you see, I just gathered the information from many sources, and put it together. I was not the one digging the finds or recording them or making those statements. So, I suggest, you send a letter or email or make a phone call, or something, directly to the source: Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83. Ok? If they decide to change their books and change the statement, then I will have to change my essay. But if not, then you can just accept the fact that I used that source, and any problems you have with their information, should be directed to them, not me. Or, you could just do nothing about it. Your choice. I put a number after that statement in my essay, which tells you which source that information was from, so, problems would have to be directed to that source, not me. I didn't make up that statement. Actually, you are the one who should be doing that, not me. If your information is correct, then I can say, that the two species came about by variation within the kind. This is acceptable in my theory. As long as it is WITHIN the kind. Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.

---

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

No, one kind doesn't give rise to other kinds. I have yet to see a dog evolving into a cat, or something to the sort, it hasn't been observed.

---

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

I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?

---

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

Whatever that pesky "kind" is. Most of us here will sign up immediately if "kind" encompasses "life on Earth." That's called evolution.

Yes, thank you, not hydrogen molecules, WATER molecules. I will fix that. Really? Could you show me a plant evolution chart with all of the plant types in it? I haven't come across one yet.

---

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

What? LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ALL the plant types? It would be hard to fit everything on one chart. If you haven't come across a plant phylogeny, you haven't looked. Folks talk about animals in these debates more because they are easier to relate to, I suppose (or perhaps animal evolution is more threatening to creationists). Try doing a google image search on "plant phylogeny." Here are some that I found within a few minutes:Phylogeny showing some major groups and relatedness to other kingdoms: Charophytes to Seed Plants: Vascular Plants another one for bryophytes and vascular plants, includes more detail of angiosperm and gymnosperm clades: These are, of course, very general. You can find finer detail of pretty much any group you wish; it is extensively studied.

In other words you admit to being careless in your assembling of information, and didn't bother to check the truth of the statements, but used the ones you liked. Because that is YOUR job when you are using the information to make sure it is valid. It is also relatively easy to look at the actual evidence of what the claims made by the scientists were and see that "Galloping" Gish is (once again) an invalid source of information.You are making the claim that your essay conveys the truth, so it is YOUR job to ensure that all statements in it are as factual as you can possibly determine. Obviously, by your own admission no less, you have not done that. That shows a careless disregard for the truth.Go to the thread {Lucy - fact or fraud?}
http://EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud? -->EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?Look at the picture of the knee on message 15
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?and look the picture of the Lucy skeleton on message 6
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?Do you see the knee on the skeleton? Can you find a single scientific paper that describes it as being a part of the Lucy fossil? That does not absolve you of the need to ensure that the source is valid information. That you "didn't make up the statement" is no excuse for repeating it.What is the difference between making up a lie and repeating a lie as if it were true? Especially when your whole thesis is about telling the truth? ROFLOL. You don't have any. Thanks for admitting it. Now we can move on to the next item. Yes or no, stop equivocating. Can't you tell that from the evidence? They came from the same species: how can the NOT be "within the kind" eh? Or are you saying it is only evidence as long as they stay "within the kind" but if they change to be outside "the kind" it suddenly is no longer evidence? That would be a ridiculous logical howler eh?The evidence is there, it is not fictional, but a real record of fossil evidence. This is what the fossil record shows, a gradual transition from one species into two similar related species that share the characteristics of their ancestors. The two end species are descendants of Pelycodus ralstoni based on the fossil evidence, they evolved from the same parent species.Do you agree that this is an example of "micro"evloution:? Yes or no?ps -- if you use {peek mode} for your replies you can copy the text with the formating for italics etcetera.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Let me share jars amusement:
The length of the genome is from the listing of all the base pairs of all the DNA. The genome IS the content.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you have not given a good reason why not. you say variations can compile, but then say there's a limit -- one you have neither defined, nor given a reason for. i already showed you a reptile with hair. based on what, exactly? obviously not in the books you're reading. i'll give you a hint, i already posted one of them, microraptor. some other fun examples include (but are not limited to) sinornis, claudipteryx, protarchaeopteryx, sinornithosaurus, and sinosauropteryx on the dinosaur side, and a whole range birds like the enantiornethes and icthyornithes on the bird side.do you seriously think we have only ONE feathered dinosaur/early bird? no. one more time:reptilian scales did not evolve into bird feathers.period. at all. ever. didn't happen. because you totally reject the idea of evolution in general, i know. so you discard the evidence completely out of hand. because of the point you bring up next. air sacs in birds today are what allows high-altitude flight. they are perfectly adapted for thinner air. one particular theory (not guess -- it's supported by evidence) regards the oxygen content of mesozoic air.besides that, they also aid in respiration, acting like our diaphragms in some capacity. because those are the rules. cold-blooded animals are incapable of maintaining body temperature, and so they stick close to things that are warm. like the ground.

---

I'm not sure if thisThe Green Tree of Life - Hyperbolic Treeis the sort of thing you are looking for, it is a hyperbolic phylogenetic tree, it doesn't give any timescale information though. The different nodes also offer links to the Tree of life website which is a fantastic resource if you are interested in phylogenies.TTFN,WK