Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

davewhite04 said:
So the formula for macro evolution is micro evolution + time = macro evolution. Fair enough. It is not fact however as it can never be tested in the lab outside of viruses mutating, which is micro evolution. The virus that mutated is still a virus.
Click to expand...

And the chimp that evolves is still a primate. He - or she - is related to the other members of the order Primates, which is also seen in broad areas of conserved genetic sequence. Primates, in turn, resemble other members of the Mammalian. Mammals resemble other tetrapods. Etc.

And that genetic similarity much reflects morphological differentiation. And so - macroevolution is inferred. Not every scientific finding comes from observable evidence. When was the last time you saw an electron, or a quark? Have you, personally, spotted a black hole?
 
GeoffP said:
Also, it sounds like the existence of any gap at all must mean that you, personally, cannot accept macroevolution.
Click to expand...
it isn't "any gap at all", these gaps are typical of the record, you know, the norm?
there is an explanation for this geoff . . . somewhere.
Perhaps it would only be acceptable to you if were able to find the exact immediate ancestor of each individual animal
Click to expand...
the thing about DNA analysis is that DNA is common to ALL lifeforms.
this, in my opinion, makes it uber easy to draw false statistical conclusions.
After all, God . . .
Click to expand...
here we go . . . :rolleyes:
 
leopold said:
it isn't "any gap at all", these gaps are typical of the record, you know, the norm?
there is an explanation for this geoff . . . somewhere.
Click to expand...

Of course: fossils form very rarely. Some taxa might make no fossils at all. It's not an easy thing. The ones we have a-plenty we certainly have for a reason: they're already solid.

the thing about DNA analysis is that DNA is common to ALL lifeforms.
this, in my opinion, makes it uber easy to draw false statistical conclusions.
Click to expand...

All organisms have length, too: so would it similarly be a huge statistical danger to collect information on length, because all organisms have length? One could draw the false statistical conclusion that a blue whale is longer at adulthood than a mouse. The relative similarity of DNA sequence in putatively related forms compared to putatively unrelated forms is what's important: a series of regressions. Morphologically closely related species should be more closely related via DNA - and are. I expect you've noticed all those popular press articles that cite limited DNA differences between, say, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals compared to that between mice and men.

here we go . . . :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I was just inferring your direction. Will it be no God then today, sir?
 
davewhite04 said:
So the formula for macro evolution is micro evolution + time = macro evolution. Fair enough. It is not fact however as it can never be tested in the lab outside of viruses mutating, which is micro evolution. The virus that mutated is still a virus.
Click to expand...
It's been done with bacteria. Also fruit flies have shown speciation under laboratory conditions. To say that "something" is still a "something" is an artifact of language only.
 
davewhite04 said:
Cris, evolution as in man evolving from a simple cell cannot be observed and can only be believed.
Click to expand...

So if you consider the evidence weak then can you provide stronger evidence that a god was involved? It seems that in a jigsaw puzzle the evolution piece would fit quite nicely to explain man, since it works perfectly for the rest of nature (huge precedent), and we have no reason to suspect man is not part of nature.

To postulate a god instead of evolution is without precedent or rational basis. If you are arguing against a weak argument then is not your position by far the weakest and most ludicrous?
 
Last edited:
GeoffP said:
And the chimp that evolves is still a primate. He - or she - is related to the other members of the order Primates, which is also seen in broad areas of conserved genetic sequence. Primates, in turn, resemble other members of the Mammalian. Mammals resemble other tetrapods. Etc.

And that genetic similarity much reflects morphological differentiation. And so - macroevolution is inferred. Not every scientific finding comes from observable evidence. When was the last time you saw an electron, or a quark? Have you, personally, spotted a black hole?
Click to expand...

The scientific method to establish a scientific theory requires observation.

But my stance is that macro evolution is true, but it might not take as long as the scientific community thinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
 
spidergoat said:
It's been done with bacteria. Also fruit flies have shown speciation under laboratory conditions. To say that "something" is still a "something" is an artifact of language only.
Click to expand...

So I've just read. Like I have just said, I firmly believe in evolution, even cosmic evolution.
 
Cris said:
So if you consider the evidence weak then can you provide stronger evidence that a god was involved? It seems that in a jigsaw puzzle the evolution piece would fit quite nicely to explain man, since it works perfectly for the rest of nature (huge precedent), and we have no reason to suspect man is not part of nature.

To postulate a god instead of evolution is without precedent or rational basis. If you are arguing against a weak argument then is not your position by far the weakest and most ludicrous?
Click to expand...

I think evolution is true Cris, I'm simply referring to the classic scientific method. I don't want my daughter brought up not questioning things like evolution. Evolution is a god to a huge number of the faithless, and I want my daughter to question that cult. After all a better explanation to how diversity occurred on this living planet might just be around the corner.
 
It's one of the most successful theories in all of science. It underpins all of biology. What more do you want? It's not a cult, it has fans, because it explains so much and has been confirmed so many times by no less than all of the evidence.
 
spidergoat said:
Observation doesn't mean you have to see the whole thing occurring in real time.
Click to expand...

Repeating the process has to be done also, shall we get the latest results in 200k years? As far as my beliefs I currently do believe in evolution, I just think it happened quicker.
 
GeoffP said:
The rarity of fossilization and the inherent similarities strongly imply connections even across these short transitional gaps.
Click to expand...
i'm sure it does, given the fact that DNA is at the heart of ALL living matter.
Otherwise why such similarity? Why such genetic relatedness? Why the gross morphological similarity?
Click to expand...
i don't know.
Related to the above, when we find the fossils occupying such gaps, will the new complaint be that we don't have the fossils from just before and just after the transitional fossil - newer, even smaller gaps?
Click to expand...
well see geoff, that's the thing.
as of 1983 they haven't found any transitional fossils
as a matter of fact, the fossil record was so incomplete that a panel of scientists concluded "accumulating small changes" is not the status quo.
now, what was you taught in school?

fraudulent horseshit if i ever seen it.
 
davewhite04 said:
Repeating the process has to be done also, shall we get the latest results in 200k years? As far as my beliefs I currently do believe in evolution, I just think it happened quicker.
Click to expand...
Repeating results just means that we make predictions about what would happen if evolution were true. It can be confirmed with multiple examples. We don't have to wait 200K years.

What do you mean by quicker?
 
leopold said:
i'm sure it does, given the fact that DNA is at the heart of ALL living matter.

i don't know.

well see geoff, that's the thing.
as of 1983 they haven't found any transitional fossils
as a matter of fact, the fossil record was so incomplete that a panel of scientists concluded "accumulating small changes" is not the status quo.
now, what was you taught in school?

fraudulent horseshit if i ever seen it.
Click to expand...
Every fossil is transitional. There are only relative periods of apparent stasis, but that only applies to physical appearance. Things evolve in multiple ways including resistance to disease and the like that aren't apparent in a fossil. Beyond that, multiple transitions have been recorded including the transition from ape to human, the evolution of whales, the evolution of horses, the evolution of birds, and many others.
 
spidergoat said:
Every fossil is transitional. There are only relative periods of apparent stasis, but that only applies to physical appearance. Things evolve in multiple ways including resistance to disease and the like that aren't apparent in a fossil. Beyond that, multiple transitions have been recorded including the transition from ape to human, the evolution of whales, the evolution of horses, the evolution of birds, and many others.
Click to expand...

How come there are apes today but no living member of some 100k year old type men about?
 
spidergoat said:
Every fossil is transitional. There are only relative periods of apparent stasis, but that only applies to physical appearance. Things evolve in multiple ways including resistance to disease and the like that aren't apparent in a fossil. Beyond that, multiple transitions have been recorded including the transition from ape to human, the evolution of whales, the evolution of horses, the evolution of birds, and many others.
Click to expand...
you know the story, for you to make an attempt like this is ludicrous.
there is no evidence that one rat can turn into a rabbit or whatever.
there is no data at all on how long this proposed process takes.

so, what gives?
we've been following sound logic, but it isn't jiving with the evidence.
think spidergoat, think.
 
leopold said:
you know the story, for you to make an attempt like this is ludicrous.
there is no evidence that one rat can turn into a rabbit or whatever.
there is no data at all on how long this proposed process takes.

so, what gives?
we've been following sound logic, but it isn't jiving with the evidence.
think spidergoat, think.
Click to expand...
I think you don't know what you're talking about. ALL of the evidence points to the fact that species turn into other species. It would be far more amazing if that didn't happen, we would have to wonder how anything survives if it can only change in minor ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top