- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the extent that a entirely new species or sub-species is "created". This is purely theoretical with no scientific backup or viable mechanism.
I there anybody out there who would like to take on the claim that a belief in 'Macroevolution' is based solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAn atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: (1) presence in adult stages of life, (2) absence in parents or recent ancestors, and (3) extreme rarity in a population.
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the exte ...[text shortened]... f in 'Macroevolution' is based solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
More than 100 cases of humans born with tails have been reported in the medical literature.
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrMore than 100 cases of humans born with tails have been reported in the medical literature.
An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character. Atavisms have several essential features: ...[text shortened]... .83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
Are you saying that humans are evolving into monkeys? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.😉
PS: See http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp for a refutation of your little theory.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerhttp://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26083&page=13
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the exte ...[text shortened]... f in 'Macroevolution' is based solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
posted by Halitose
"I think brainwashed is a little harsh. Prejudiced is not. Let me just explain the difference so we all have a point to work from and can agree to disagree
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This process in nature is scientific and completely observable.
Macroevolution: A culmination of microevolution to the extent that a entirely new species or sub-species is "created". This is purely theoretical with no scientific backup or viable mechanism.
If you claim not to be prejudiced, surely all this stands or falls on the evidence. "
and this is the response I gave to your partner then and will repeat it here for you now:
you mis-state the definition of macro-evolution since it's only the process of intra-specie evolution, so of course it don't explain speciation , It's not intended to.
The Theory of Evolution is not limited to the creationist attempts to partition it . There are reasons that science uses the two terms ,mostly based of which branch of science is most suited to do the data collection. For example you don't expect a a geologist to be very proficient at micro-biology.And that by itself is enough to put that strawman you raised from the dead-pile back in it's well deserved position at the bottom of the dungheap of history.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstomp
and this is the response I gave to your partner then and will repeat it here for you now:
you mis-state the definition of macro-evolution since it's only the process of intra-specie evolution, so of course it don't explain speciation , It's not intended to.
The Theory of Evolution is not limited to the creationist attempts to partition it . There are reasons that science uses the two terms ,mostly based of which branch of science is most suited to do the data collection. For example you don't expect a a geologist to be very proficient at micro-biology.And that by itself is enough to put that strawman you raised from the dead-pile back in it's well deserved position at the bottom of the dungheap of history.
And this is the response my partner gave you to which you have not yet responded. So I will repeat it here for you now:
The intra-specie evolution is as I stated above "Microevolution". Surely you would need evolution to be taken beyond a certain specie to get nature to the point it is.
Since you have so eliquently dispelled my proposed definition for extra-specie evolution, would you be so kind as to propose an alternative hypothesis or term...
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI hope you're joking about you think evolution says man evolved from monkeys.
[b]More than 100 cases of humans born with tails have been reported in the medical literature.
Are you saying that humans are evolving into monkeys? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.😉
PS: See http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp for a refutation of your little theory.[/b]
for a fact , frogs are born with tails.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompfor a fact , frogs are born with tails.
I hope you're joking about you think evolution says man evolved from monkeys.
for a fact , frogs are born with tails.
Yea, Sure. And your point is?
Frogs are still frogs. It seems you like frogs, Frogstomp. But frogs are still that, frogs.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe key sentence in that statement is the last one... lol
[[Since you have so eliquently dispelled my proposed definition for extra-specie evolution, would you be so kind as to propose an alternative hypothesis or term...
[/b]
btw I aint a biology teacher.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompstill know more about it than your silly creation scientists.
still know more about it than your silly creation scientists.
I'll stop as soon as you stop pretending you're a Christian.
It seems that the best you can do is just make the claim.
I'll stop as soon as you stop pretending you're a Christian.
Do you know what a Christian is?
15 Jul 05
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour statement makes it clear that you have read neither article. Humans born with tails reflect our common heritage with other mammals (as well as, perhaps, other classes that have tails). Tails reveal neither that we have evolved from monkeys, nor that we are evolving into such--it certainly confers no evolutionary advantage to be born such, despite the rare cases when it has been passed down through as many as three generations. Tails reveal our kinship with other species, thus supporting the contention that we have a common ancestor.
[b]More than 100 cases of humans born with tails have been reported in the medical literature.
Are you saying that humans are evolving into monkeys? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.😉
PS: See http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp for a refutation of your little theory.[/b]
Ashby Camp (in the link you present) does not address the issue of tails and atavism, except for one passing reference, which I quote here:
"There are various ways in which existing organisms could descend from a common ancestor and not exhibit a nested hierarchy. Anagenesis, loss of characters, replacement of characters, transposition of characters, atavism (masking and unmasking), and convergence all work against a hierarchical pattern, and the bare hypothesis of universal common ancestry says nothing about the rate or prevalence of those processes."
Douglas Theobald (author of the article I cited) has addressed Camp's particular claims here, so I quote it as well:
"Camp does not provide us with an example of a non-nested pattern produced by common descent. He reiterates the claim that various processes 'work against' a nested pattern, when in fact those very processes create a nested pattern. These processes cannot be 'invoked in whatever blend is necessary to explain whatever pattern is found.' Yes, 'bare' common descent may not state anything specifically about these processes, but universal common descent is constrained by gradualism, as has been explained many times over. We know empirically the maximum rates of anagenesis, character loss, and character replacement—such processes can be used in scientific explanations, of course, but there are limits on what rates can be used."
Since Camp has failed to address the substance of the argument that atavism offers evidence of common descent, your assertion that my original reply has been refuted is drivel. Slobber somewhere else if you wish your questions to be regarded as genuine, rather than weak and misguided fundamentalist apologetics.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrNone of this explains the "creation" of new species.
Your statement makes it clear that you have read neither article. Humans born with tails reflect our common heritage with other mammals (as well as, perhaps, other classes that have tails). Tails reveal neither that we have evolved from monkeys, nor that we are evolving into such--it certainly confers no evolutionary advantage to be born such, despite the ra ...[text shortened]... questions to be regarded as genuine, rather than weak and misguided fundamentalist apologetics.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerHave any of you given a formal scientific definition of a "kind" right? If you haven't, then your unorthodox definition of microevolution is useless. Also how does a "kind" differ from the word "species" that you use in your definition of macroevolution?
I am using these definitions from the "Confused about evolution" thread:
Microevolution: Variations within a kind, a phenomenon that Darwin witnessed and extensively documented from which he postulated his theory of evolution. This p ...[text shortened]... ed solely on theory with no scientific backup or viable mechanism?
Edit: I also see that you still have not learned what a "theory" means in scientific terms or else you wouldn't write that last sentence. It contains a contradiction of terms.
Honestly, I don't know why people waste so much time with the willfully ignorant creationists (This should be contrasted with the unwillingly ignorant creationists.)