Originally posted by Conrau KIts a logical consequence of microevolution.
Macroevolution doesn't need to be observed (the old inductive argument fallacy). Its a logical consequence of microevolution. Just to let you know, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution had pervaded philosophies before Darwin ever noticed mass extinction and proliferation. What becomes controversial is when we apply the theory of evolution to the pas ...[text shortened]... then macro).
A creationist is a moron if he denies macroevolution but not microevolution.,
And a balloon expanding infinitely is the logical consequence of your blowing in it. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of limitations.
blah blah blah...evolution is fact... blah blah blah ...moron...
Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Originally posted by amannionIt's a special talent. It does not require thought. Just (... not even?) a willing audience. 😉
You're right, but unfortunately the creationists have been entirely successful in creating (!) a debate where there should've been none.
Originally posted by some twit
Religion is not reasonable or logical, it is based on faith
Debate imples that someone is listening. Other more appropriate terms: Lecture? Rant? 🙄
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzOkay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
Genetic barrier? Ha!
Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.
Is this not evidence of intelligent design? Besides, you are surely using some form of intellgence to do this are you not? Besides, you have not 'created' a totally new specie...
You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation of one species into another. First I'd say this is absurd. Archaeopteryx is a fine example, so is 'Lucy'.
Archaeopteryx and Lucy... You for one should know better than this.
No evidence of something happening is not evidence that it didn't happen.
What?? I thought you said you had evidence? Now you are changing your tune...
Just don't call is Science, as Science is based on the observable.
Evolution can be tested - a single bunny rabbit in the pre-Cambrian strata will show it to be false. In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.
What???
You should get out more.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDNA transfer between microbes.
[b]Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
Is this not evidence of intelligent design? Besides, you are surely using some form of intellgence to do this are you not? Besides, you have not ...[text shortened]... ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.[/b]
What???
You should get out more.[/b]
Happens all the time in nature. No intelligence needed. Even non-living virus do it. The point that I can transform bacteria is only to show that the "species barrier" is far from immutable.
Archaeopteryx/Lucy
Both Archaeopteryx and Lucy are fine examples of intermediary species. Got a problem? Better appeal to that God of yours for making them to fool us dumbass scientists.
Evidence / Non-evidence.
I did not make the claim that since speciation has never been directly observed (it has) that automatically means that evolution is false. That was your side. I simply pointed out that even where it true that there was no direct evidence of speciation that doesn't make it false. No-one has ever directly seen gravity, or the nucleus of an atom, does that make them false too?
Testability of evolutionary theory.
Well, evolutionary theory is testable. Neither ID or Creationism are. They cannot, therefore, be entertained as any type of scientific explanation of the way the world is.
Finally, deej, perhaps I should get out more, but you should really go out, give your brain some air, read a book, go to an art gallery - anything that might stimulate an original thought.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe micro/macro distinction is well accepted even in evolutionary circles.
Genetic barrier? Ha!
Okay then, what about things which happen at the very small scale then? There is heaps of evidence of DNA transfer between microbes of different species - it's real easy to do - done it myself in fact.
You point out that there is no evidence that what you guys call macroevolution, the rest of us call evolution, the muatation In 150 years of looking, no-one has ever been able to disprove Mr. Darwins ideas.
Evolution can be tested - a single bunny rabbit in the pre-Cambrian strata will show it to be false.
Oh there is a bunny; only it's still alive. I've brought it up several times previously in our discussions in the hope that a critical thinker such as yourself would actually examine it on its own merits without me spelling it out for you:
Latimeria chalumnae, commonly known as the Coelacanth disappeared from the geologic column at the end of Mesozoic era. It became extinct, according to the accepted interpretation of the fossil record, sixty-five million years ago. Unfortunately for Chuck and his followers, a living Coelacanth was caught off the coast of South Africa in 1938, having existed through the entire Cainozoic era without leaving a trace on the fossil record. This is only one of many supposed "living fossils" -- most having been considered extinct for tens of millions of years.
Perhaps most notably amongst these “living fossils” is the brachiopod Lingula: considered to have gone extinct five hundred million years ago, this creature disappeared from the fossil record just after the Cambrian period. Still alive today, it has existed through practically the whole of the Paleozoic, the whole of the Mesozoic and the whole of the Cainozoic.
These creatures show no trace of having evolved in the supposed eons of time and are strong evidence that the popular uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column (which exists only in textbooks in its complete form) is unacceptable.
Archaeopteryx is a fine example, so is 'Lucy'.
According to Chuck, we should expect myriads of these missing links. Once again I challenge your logic here, this is obfuscation of the highest degree. You expect me to believe:
1)A virus has been observed to mutate into a virus
2)Fruit flies have been observed to mutate into 3/4 winged variants of themselves
3)There are many observations similar to 1) and 2), commonly known as “microevolution”
4)A fossil of a feathered creature with clawed wings and teeth has been discovered.
5) Assertion 4) is irrefutable proof that reptiles evolved into birds
6)This follows directly from 3), 4) and 5) that all living creatures evolved from one living organism – macroevolution.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat jaundiced, baseless assertions. Religion and more specifically theology may be axiomatically unprovable by the natural sciences, but it still follows reason and logic like all the rest of the philosophies. You're making those sweeping statements again; I hope you realise they are quite damaging on your reputation as a reputable master debater.
Religion is not reasonable or logical, it is based on faith.
I am not aware of science requiring "observable" proof by your definition of the word. In fact that would invalidate almost all science. No one has ever really "observed" gravity, quarks, electrons, atoms, stars etc etc etc, or proved thier existance. However I claim to have observed evolutio ...[text shortened]... orous, methodical, and verifiable. Proof is for us mathematicians not scientists in general.
Science (and I'm referring to the natural sciences) depends on observable proof. You jumped incorrectly to the hilarious conclusion that this cannot imply indirect observation. Gravity cannot be seen, but its effects can be measured and calculated. For the theory of gravity to be a valid scientific theory, it had to be testable and rigorously repeatable. How, pray, can you postulate a scientific theory that can neither be proven, tested or verified and have the scientific community accept it? This is ludicrous.
Originally posted by HalitoseScience is the religion of the 21st century......
What jaundiced, baseless assertions. Religion and more specifically theology may be axiomatically unprovable by the natural sciences, but it still follows reason and logic like all the rest of the philosophies. You're making those sweeping statements again; I hope you realise they are quite damaging on your reputation as a reputable master debater.
Scie ...[text shortened]... be proven, tested or verified and have the scientific community accept it? This is ludicrous.
And todays scientific truth is tommorrows scientific lie....
Originally posted by amannionSo we've travelled faster than the speed of light and come back from that journey with less personal time passing than the time that passed on planet Earth?!!!
Not sure what you're question is here.
Eisntein's theory has been tested and proved a hundred times over ... and more.
Wow there's me thinking we've only been to the moon 😉
Originally posted by Vladamir no1Wow, is that what you think the special theory of relativity is? That's one small aspect of a much larger theory.
So we've travelled faster than the speed of light and come back from that journey with less personal time passing than the time that passed on planet Earth?!!!
Wow there's me thinking we've only been to the moon 😉
Just to correct you, what you're talking about doesn't rely on travlleing faster than light, which of course we couldn't do, but instead simply relies on travelling faster than everyone else - which we could and have done.
Some experiments with synchronised atomic clocks have shown that if you put 1 clock of a perfectly synchronised pair on board a fast aircraft, fly it around for a while, and then match it back up with its partner, the stationary clock will read a later time than the mocving clock - in other words, the moving clock has run more slowly, or if you like time has slowed down for it.
It's not hard to prove or demonstrate, as is much science.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI stand corrected and more knowledgeable 🙂 Thx
Wow, is that what you think the special theory of relativity is? That's one small aspect of a much larger theory.
Just to correct you, what you're talking about doesn't rely on travlleing faster than light, which of course we couldn't do, but instead simply relies on travelling faster than everyone else - which we could and have done.
Some experiments wit ...[text shortened]... ke time has slowed down for it.
It's not hard to prove or demonstrate, as is much science.
P.S Im more of a soft science than hard science type of guy.........