25 Jun 05
1 edit
Let's shed a tear for poor dj, starts a thread to crunch evolution and gets crunched himself, hoisted with his own petard, shot, peed-upon and hung out to dry, left behind in the scheme of things, wilfully ignorant, blind, foolish and inchoate, led by fanatics, brainwashed with his six-shooter firmly aimed at his own foot.
Now that's ad hominem!
25 Jun 05
Originally posted by MetamorphosisI do not understand this claim of yours:
In my opinion the religious perspective is correct in assuming a higher principle or a higher order of reality that science has not yet come to terms with, but it is mistaken in dismissing the valid insights and realizations of science. I also think that the scientific view is mistaken in dismissing orders of reality beyond what it is able to ascertain ...[text shortened]... od, but it is correct in utilizing critical thought to cut through mere adherence to doctrine.
I also think that the scientific view is mistaken in dismissing orders of reality beyond what it is able to ascertain via the scientific method...
What orders of reality are indiscernable via the scientific method? Even those orders of reality that cannot serve as the objects of propositional knowledge; those orders of reality to which we can only have direct, experiential access, are discernable via the scientific method. The relevant experiments will be personal and laborious, of course, but they are repeatable and verifiable by others.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckertry gaining some word comprehension skills and then read my posts, it's pretty clear what I said. I can only guess youre trying some grandstanding tactic. Nor do I see that you can separate the two.
Still waiting for your answer.
Are you refering to macroevolution or microevolution?
Since the two are one in the same your question is invalid.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompMacroevolution are microevolution are not the same thing. If you cannot understand the difference then I understand why you still believe in evolution....
try gaining some word comprehension skills and then read my posts, it's pretty clear what I said. I can only guess youre trying some grandstanding tactic. Nor do I see that you can separate the two.
Since the two are one in the same your question is invalid.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompContrary to press reports, the new standards actually require students to know more about evolution than the old ones did; biologist Jonathan Wells points out that they increase the space devoted to the subject fivefold. However, they omit mention of “macroevolution” and shift the emphasis to the “micro” kind. Both terms refer to change by natural selection, but microevolution means change within species, while macroevolution means change from one species to another.
It's evolution , period.
The reason for the shift is that although microevolution is not controversial, macroevolution is. Everyone agrees that natural selection can turn short finch beaks into long ones; not everyone agrees with Darwin that it can turn fish into frogs. The fossil record shows only when frogs appeared, not where they came from.
http://www.trueorigin.org/kansas8.asp
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerMicroevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Contrary to press reports, the new standards actually require students to know more about evolution than the old ones did; biologist Jonathan Wells points out that they increase the space devoted to the subject fivefold. However, they omit mention of “macroevolution” and shift the emphasis to the “micro” kind. Both terms refer to change by natural select ...[text shortened]... ows only when frogs appeared, not where they came from.
http://www.trueorigin.org/kansas8.asp
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.
Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.
There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
we got all your junk science covered
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompI am afraid you are posting junk science.
Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some cre ...[text shortened]... ://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
we got all your junk science covered
You have NO evidence for macroevolution. PERIOD.
The only evidence you muster together is WILD IMAGINATION. That is not science. It is your religion. You worship evolution.
If you disagree, then give me the evidence for macroevolution.
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerGive me scientific evidence god did it.
I am afraid you are posting junk science.
You have NO evidence for macroevolution. PERIOD.
The only evidence you muster together is WILD IMAGINATION. That is not science. It is your religion. You worship evolution.
If you disagree, then give me the evidence for macroevolution.
and dont confuse your sickness with being a Christian.
You are not God's messenger ,,Christ was ,but you steadfastly refuse to discard the junk religion of the stone age god that had nothing that distinguished it from any of the other false gods men invented during the stone age: except maybe a greater bloodlust..
And I have told you where you can stuff your punk attempts at verbal turn around.
You aint emotionally mature enuff to hear my religion and you probably never will be.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
27 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompIf you want to discuss God, do it on the God forum.
Give me scientific evidence god did it.
and dont confuse your sickness with being a Christian.
You are not God's messenger ,,Christ was ,but you steadfastly refuse to discard the junk religion of the stone age god that had nothing that distinguished it from any of the other false gods men invented ...[text shortened]... aint emotionally mature enuff to hear my religion and you probably never will be.
You are just like a spiteful kid. When you are put into a corner you start hurling insults at other people and go totally off the topic.
Now kindly admit that there is no proof for macroevolution and appollogize for lying about evolution being a fact. If you insist that it is a fact then please provide the proof and stop trying to evade the issue by hurling insults and changing the topic of discussion.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerJeez, you're pathetic. You aint deceiving anybody.
If you want to discuss God, do it on the God forum.
You are just like a spiteful kid. When you are put into a corner you start hurling insults at other people and go totally off the topic.
Now kindly admit that there is no proof for macroevolution and appollogize for lying about evolution being a fact. If you insist that it is a fact then please pro ...[text shortened]... and stop trying to evade the issue by hurling insults and changing the topic of discussion.
Try going to a real school and learn something about the world.
You are a very deluded person dj, your parents ought to be proud of what they done to their childs mind.
Now go and read Joshua to the Zulus
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're right there is no evidence for macroevolution. At least there isn't if you refuse to acknowledge all the fossil evidence that has been posted time and time again.
I am afraid you are posting junk science.
You have NO evidence for macroevolution. PERIOD.
The only evidence you muster together is WILD IMAGINATION. That is not science. It is your religion. You worship evolution.
If you disagree, then give me the evidence for macroevolution.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZPlease define macroevolution and then tell me what the fossil records show. Do they show a change in species?
You're right there is no evidence for macroevolution. At least there isn't if you refuse to acknowledge all the fossil evidence that has been posted time and time again.