- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou don't get the point do you?
You have no idea.
Spaghetti IS fact, we can show it exists. Quite whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not is subject to debate. The existance of spaghetti is not evidence of a spaghetti monster, but a spaghetti monster would be evidence of spaghetti.
No wonder you're so confused about everything.
[edit; at least learn how to spell.]
MACROEVOLUTION has NEVER been observed. The only EVIDENCE you have is MICROEVOLUTION. As you so aptly stated, SPAGHETTI is a fact in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is a fact. SPAGHETTI is not evidence of the SPAGHETTI MONSTER in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is not evidence for MACROEVOLUTION.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're right. I don't get your point.
You don't get the point do you?
MACROEVOLUTION has NEVER been observed. The only EVIDENCE you have is MICROEVOLUTION. As you so aptly stated, SPAGHETTI is a fact in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is a fact. SPAGHETTI is not evidence of the SPAGHETTI MONSTER in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is not evidence for MACROEVOLUTION.
If there were evidence that spaghetti could become animate and fly then I would join the most parsimonious dots to allow that to happen, based upon mechanisms that we KNOW actually exist.
So, no, deej, I fail to get your point.
[edit; btw, I AM glad you are at least taking one lesson from me]
Originally posted by dj2beckerOh, and you may want to debate with Wiki whether Evidence is fact or opinion, as you seem to think it is...
[b]Evidence is FACT.
WRONG. "Spagetti" can be used as evidence of a "Spagetti Monster" but that does not make it a FACT!
Evidence needs to be interpreted. Two people can look at the same evidence and reach two totally different conclusions! They way they enterpret the evidence depends on their worldview.
I base my judgements of what is rea ...[text shortened]... r not based on fact, nothing to do with any beliefs.
No wonder you are so confused.😛[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzJoining the dots would be WISHFUL THINKING, until you actually found the spaghetti monster.
You're right. I don't get your point.
If there were evidence that spaghetti could become animate and fly then I would join the most parsimonious dots to allow that to happen, based upon mechanisms that we KNOW actually exist.
So, no, deej, I fail to get your point.
[edit; btw, I AM glad you are at least taking one lesson from me]
Especially if your mechanisms should allow for millions of spaghetti monsters.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut we HAVE intermediates in evolutionary biology! You just refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't fit with your fairy stories. Unbelievable! Doctors don't get to ignore symptoms if it doesn't fit with their preferred diagnosis. As a scientist, I don't get to ignore evidence if it doesn't fit with my ideas. If I do that, I get crapped upon when someone else re-interprets my work. You'd be surprised how often people DO reanalyse others data to search for errors in science. Sometimes they are found quickly and exposed (and rightly so, we have nothing to hide), sometimes it takes longer. Eventually we'll get em all.
Joining the dots would be WISHFUL THINKING, until you actually found the spaghetti monster.
Especially if your mechanisms should allow for millions of spaghetti monsters.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI actually didnt know the difference between Macroevolution and Microevolution so I looked it up here:
MACROEVOLUTION has NEVER been observed. The only EVIDENCE you have is MICROEVOLUTION. As you so aptly stated, SPAGHETTI is a fact in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is a fact. SPAGHETTI is not evidence of the SPAGHETTI MONSTER in the same way as MICROEVOLUTION is not evidence for MACROEVOLUTION.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
If thier definition disagrees with yours please let me know or it will just confuse the debate.
As I understand it there is no real distinction but only a vague man-made distinction for classification and understanding purposes similar to the definition of species. In fact as the difference according to the website quoted above is reliant almost entirely on the definition of species it has to be a man-made distinction.
As such I would personally argue that macroevolution has been observed, though I still strongly disagree with you on the definition of the word "observed".
Your whole spaghetti comparison is invalid. Its like saying that water is evidence for the flood. Even you dont claim that I hope.
What we are discussing here is not whether evolution is the only possible explanation for the evidence but whether it is the most rational or most likely explanation.
Thanks twhitehead,
I was thinking about this coming back from the midnight check of the experiment I'm running (I don't get paid extra for this, so the "ooo, aren't scientists a noble bunch" lot can sod right off now). We have the precursor, we have the product. The mechanism is characterised and proven. What IS there to debate?
God-squad, go look up "parsimony".
Originally posted by sonhouseThere's no eternal plan here. I'm merely a skeptic of an unproven theory.
May I ask you what eternal plan will be derailed if Macroevolution turns out to be true? Can you start planning now what you will say if it is ever proven to be true? Kind of like what the moon hoaxers are going to have to say when the footprints are photographed from one foot away. I am not necessarily saying that macroevolution is a done deal, just wonder ...[text shortened]... are yourself for the eventual proof that may very well be forthcoming in the next decade or two.
Originally posted by scottishinnzEvolution isn't some sort of steam train, forced to travel along pre-determined rails, as you seem to believe. Evolution is only differential selection based upon a certain pressure. If that pressure is alleviated, then differential selection will not take place - the species will not evolve.
You are more than earning your moniker at the moment Hal,
Evolution isn't some sort of steam train, forced to travel along pre-determined rails, as you seem to believe. Evolution is only differential selection based upon a certain pressure. If that pressure is alleviated, then differential selection will not take place - the species will not evolve ...[text shortened]... or hot springs are good candidates too (essentially because sulphur can preserve the sample).
And you are telling me there has been no selective pressure on some species for five-hundred million years? To what would you describe this anomaly?
I can even tell you the conditions required to fossilise a creature.
Yes. That is how it works in theory. Of course since it takes thousands if not millions of years to form, this is once again conjecture, not verifiable fact -- even though I agree with you in this case, I was merely using that to make a point earlier to our “fact” trumpeting friend.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo selection pressure.
[b]Evolution isn't some sort of steam train, forced to travel along pre-determined rails, as you seem to believe. Evolution is only differential selection based upon a certain pressure. If that pressure is alleviated, then differential selection will not take place - the species will not evolve.
And you are telling me there has been no selective pr ...[text shortened]... in this case, I was merely using that to make a point earlier to our “fact” trumpeting friend.[/b]
Quite possibly. A small population, living in a niche that may be energy poor, for example, or has some other limitation that means there is little competition. I told you this many times before, the majority of changes will occur when the conditions are right for diversification of species, not stasis. Life is generally quite boring on earth (which is a good thing or complex life could never evolve).
Fossilisation.
Normally takes a long time, but not always. You can easily get a possum 'fossilised' in the tar on the road when they're run over. It just requires time. Maybe that's not verification of the fossilisation process, but how would you explain the presence of fossils otherwise? A devious god? How's about explaining peat bog men? You just need the right conditions, which are a whole lot more ubiquitous than you'd think.
Originally posted by Conrau KI told you it was deductively factual (as opposed to inductively). I'll demonstrate:
No, no, no no, no! My "fact" does not rely on fossil evidence. I told you it was deductively factual (as opposed to inductively). I'll demonstrate:
1) Given something that will vary (i.e. an organism)
2) Given a selective pressure which can determine which variation is best (i.e. natural selection)
3) From 1) and 2) macroevolution will occur.
Ma ...[text shortened]... n if he wasn't aware of evolution at the time? How did he escapte this circular argument?
1) Given something that will vary (i.e. an organism)
2) Given a selective pressure which can determine which variation is best (i.e. natural selection)
3) From 1) and 2) macroevolution will occur.
At this point my balloon analogy pops your factual bubble.
Let me demonstrate.
1) Given a balloon will expand when blown in.
2) Given Conrau K is willing and able to blow in it for infinite time.
3) From 1) and 2) the balloon will expand infinitely.
Your reasoning above is as scant and oversimplified as mine.
Your observation is hardly compelling since, there may be no "selective pressure" for any macro-variations in the fruit flies (and most of the microevolutions that have been recorded were not to the flies reproductive benefit).
What do you mean? The scientists doing the breeding have been applying selective pressure merely by breeding them. They select the suitable ones and reproduce those with the aim of producing different species and hopefully creatures. Are you implying that evolution only works when it's blind, unintelligent selection?
In rejecting macroevolution you just ignorantly propound a distorted creationist argument (albeit a weak one). Even ID'ers accepted evolution. They just objected to the improbability.
In rejecting my balloon analogy, you are ignorantly propounding a distorted view on my beliefs.
Seriously though, most if not all reputable evolutionary scientists turn to fossil evidence to prove the TOE. Your hapless attempt at deduction is a poor reflection on reality in trying to explain an organic and profoundly huge process.
Oh by the way, how did Darwin interpret fossil evolution according to evolution if he wasn't aware of evolution at the time? How did he escapte[sic] this circular argument?
If I recall correctly Chuck claimed in "The Origin" that (I'm paraphrasing) if his theory was correct, there should be numerous transitional fossils.
He didn't consider them proof, merely evidence to support of his theory.
Unfortunately this transitional fossil problem has baffled the evolutionary stalwarts such as S.J. Gould to the point of evolving the theory into the process of punctuated equilibrium; an ad hoc to explain why the fossil evidence is so inconclusive, if not downright in contradiction with the TOE.