Originally posted by dj2beckerMacroevolution really is just a fanciful word we use to describe a lot of microevolutions. Macroevolution is consequnce of microevolution. Can you prove how this is not so?
[b]Can you please explain how a single celled organism cannot evolve (you used the word 'mutate' but this can be confusing) into the "diversity of life"?
The burden of proof lies with you, since you made the claim that it is possible.
If you cannot reproduce this action in the lab, then it is not scientific at all. It is merely wishful thinking.[/b]
Since creationists create these words (i.e. macroevolution; which hardly receive mention in science journals), can you justify why a single celled organism cannot evolve into the current diveristy of life?
Most scienitists would agree that it is possible and indeed plausible in explaining life.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayEvolution is not a system of belief. It is a theory (and a highly convincing one too). The burden is on you to demonstrate what problems there are (and not with prejudice) in evolution (i.e. single celled organism--> elephant) since no [credible] scientists dispute it.
You have the belief that it occurs, I said nothing that I have ever
read or seen has shown me any reason to believe 'your beliefs'
on the matter are true. You need to show me how small mutations
turned something called simple into the 'diversity of life' here today
in all of lifes systems, over coming all odds against it.
It isn't up to me to prove your beliefs.
Kelly[/b]
[EDIT]
You need to show me how small mutations
turned something called simple into the 'diversity of life' here today
in all of lifes systems, over coming all odds against it.
It isn't up to me to prove your beliefs.
What odds are against it? Surely you mean the odds that were against it? The former has a probability of 1 (since it has already happened) while the probability of the latter is dubious (and irrelevant).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Conrau KMacroevolution really is just a fanciful word we use to describe a lot of microevolutions. Macroevolution is consequence of microevolution. Can you prove how this is not so?
Macroevolution really is just a fanciful word we use to describe a lot of microevolutions. Macroevolution is consequnce of microevolution. Can you prove how this is not so?
Since creationists create these words (i.e. macroevolution; which hardly receive mention in science journals), can you justify why a single celled organism cannot evolve into the cur ...[text shortened]... e?
Most scienitists would agree that it is possible and indeed plausible in explaining life.
I have to do no such thing. As you are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence to back up the claim that a lot of microevolutions can indeed produce what is known as 'macroevolution'.
If you cannot reproduce this in the lab then it cannot be classified as hard science, and thus cannot be considered a hard scientific fact.
Since creationists create these words (i.e. macroevolution; which hardly receive mention in science journals), can you justify why a single celled organism cannot evolve into the current diversity of life?
The burden of proof is yours. Can you produce reproducible evidence that this is possible as is required by the scientific method?
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThere are people here who 'believe' evolution occurred in the distant
Uh uh, wrong!
Assigning a name and meaning behind something you witness to make it fit your THEORY not belief! Were it a belief, we couldn't change it as you so eloquently (or maybe notso eloquently) demonstrate.
In science we use the term THEORY because it can change if evidence or experimental data arises that does not fit the THEORY.
In religion you use the term FAITH because it doesn't matter what evidence shows - the FAITH remains.
past, and did so as that theory suggests it did. That takes it to a level
of faith, they honestly think it happened that way, they order their
lives to fit the truth as the 'theory suggests it should be according to
their understanding. The world view of everyone who accepts that
theory does so, because they believe it to be true.
I'm not arguing that it is a theory; I'm saying that what occurs within
those that shape their world views around the belief in that theory do
so, because they believe it to be true, they do so even though no one
has seen evolution to that magnitude and level, they just assume it
is so. You may call something a theory it doesn't change anything as
far as it if is believable or not, if it is rational or not, if it true or not.
The fact that some even want to stop calling it a theory, and just call
it fact should tell you the power of that belief within human society
at this time. That alone should tell you that a statement of faith they
are making has left scientific theory, and has run into a belief system
that is grounded within faith, because that theory has never been at
any time within the lab or the wild seen or recorded at the macro
level.
I'm sure that within religion and science what you said about FAITH
is true, not because what you seem to imply as a slam against
religion, but because people will behave that way. They accept what
they want, they reject what they want so evidence for one is just
hogwash to another.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZIt doesn't matter if it was predicted or not, that does not change the
If someone found the background radiation and then decided to call it the echo of the Big Bang perhaps you'd have an argument.
That's not what happened though, the existance of the echo was predicted and certain things were estimated about it. Then it was observed and shown to correspond to the estimations (Actually while one group was searching for th ...[text shortened]... ground radiation they expected to be there, a seperate group was struggling to get rid of it).
truth in what I said. You can predict an event or an object for reasons
that has nothing to do with the true nature of either event or object
and get it right. Observations may cause us to be able to predict a
new turn in a shape or pattern that we are only seeing a part of at one
moment, but that does not mean that our correct predictions of what is
to come means that we know why we think said pattern or
shape is there, the why or cause may have nothing to do with our
conclusions based on our observations.
Kelly
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have to do no such thing. As you are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence to back up the claim that a lot of microevolutions can indeed produce what is known as 'macroevolution'.
[b]Macroevolution really is just a fanciful word we use to describe a lot of microevolutions. Macroevolution is consequence of microevolution. Can you prove how this is not so?
I have to do no such thing. As you are making the claim, you have to provide the evidence to back up the claim that a lot of microevolutions can indeed produce what is known ...[text shortened]... u produce reproducible evidence that this is possible as is required by the scientific method?[/b]
If you cannot reproduce this in the lab then it cannot be classified as hard science, and thus cannot be considered a hard scientific fact.
What? There is no reason to think that macroevolution is invalid. one would think it a logical consequence of microevolution. If you are thus, objecting to macroevolution YOU must prove how it untenable AGAINST the evidence which says that macroevolution is correct.
Oh, I guess [according to your logic] we should abandon astronomy since the inception of the sun cannot be reproduced in a lab. 🙄
I have said it before deej, scientists do not have to see their thoeries in action to prove them, they can infer (and generally this is more compelling).
The burden of proof is yours. Can you produce reproducible evidence that this is possible as is required by the scientific method?
If you are the one creating terms such as 'macroevolution' it is YOUR responsibility. It is not the scientists onus to respond to every theists warped complaint about evolution and prove how they are right. The theist must first demonstrate their point.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo I'm not meaning to imply a slam against religion - just stating how it is. Religion is what it is. It's not science. Nor is science religion.
There are people here who 'believe' evolution occurred in the distant
past, and did so as that theory suggests it did. That takes it to a level
of faith, they honestly think it happened that way, they order their
lives to fit the truth as the 'theory suggests it should be according to
their understanding. The world view of everyone who accepts that
the ...[text shortened]... want, they reject what they want so evidence for one is just
hogwash to another.
Kelly
You're right, some people view science in the way some religious people view religion - as an article of faith. It isn't.
THEORY in science doesn't mean what I think you think it means - which is to say, I think you think theory means that this is one of a number of best guesses about how something works. In Science a THEORY is fact - until proven otherwise.
And finally let's just clear up this macro/micro crap right now.
Macroevolution has - yes I'll repeat that HAS - been observed in both the wild and in the lab.
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, we do not need to observe evolution to be assured of its correctness. We can deduce it.
There are people here who 'believe' evolution occurred in the distant
past, and did so as that theory suggests it did. That takes it to a level
of faith, they honestly think it happened that way, they order their
lives to fit the truth as the 'theory suggests it should be according to
their understanding. The world view of everyone who accepts that
the ...[text shortened]... want, they reject what they want so evidence for one is just
hogwash to another.
Kelly
It is not faith. If there is only ONE scientific explanation then there is only ONE explanation. Evolution is the only theory available to explain life diversity (there are of course problems with applying evolution to periods of time that extend so far into the past- but these gaps must be resolved by scientific inquiry). ID is not validly scientific. What the hell do you expect scientists to do?
Oh, and who wants to call evolution a fact? Scientists? No?
Originally posted by amannionMacroevolution has - yes I'll repeat that HAS - been observed in both the wild and in the lab.
No I'm not meaning to imply a slam against religion - just stating how it is. Religion is what it is. It's not science. Nor is science religion.
You're right, some people view science in the way some religious people view religion - as an article of faith. It isn't.
THEORY in science doesn't mean what I think you think it means - which is to say, I th ...[text shortened]... evolution has - yes I'll repeat that HAS - been observed in both the wild and in the lab.
Define it, and then give your examples.
Originally posted by HalitoseDefine it? This is a purely creationist (anti evolution) term (scientists dont even use it). If mannion provides evidence of macroevolution no doubt you scientists in disguise 😉 will change the definition.
Define it, and then give your examples.
It is your obligation to define it, since you [creationists/fundamentalists/etc] are the only ones that use it.
Originally posted by Conrau Khttp://www.answers.com/macroevolution 🙄
Define it? This is a purely creationist (anti evolution) term (scientists dont even use it). If mannion provides evidence of macroevolution no doubt you scientists in disguise 😉 will change the definition.
It is your obligation to define it, since you [creationists/fundamentalists/etc] are the only ones that use it.
Originally posted by Conrau KJust because a concept is not well defined does not mean it isn't important in a said discussion. If ammion wants to post his great proof, then he can gladly tailor the definition to suite.
Taxanomic groups are nebulously define. Could you define that as well (inevitably this will com up).
Originally posted by HalitoseThats great but we need to know what you mean by taxnomical classes and so on to know what macroevolution is. And i doubt mannion has a proof (its not even what he had said), he said macroevolution had been observed and if we define macroevolution by taxanomic groups (the way I would define them)- he's right.
Just because a concept is not well defined does not mean it isn't important in a said discussion. If ammion wants to post his great proof, then he can gladly tailor the definition to suite.