does evolution exsist

[leopold]

oh, and this:

The species changes very rapidly over a few generations, then settles down again to a period of little change.

http://www.necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/grad+punct/evolution_grad+punct.html

so much for your "millions of years".

 

[spidergoat]

In this case the innate variation or ability to adapt is a trait that evolved over millions of years. We can see a species change from year to year, especially in birds, but the great genetic diversity that enables them to do this did not evolve overnight.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

or read this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html

certainly the speed of evolutionary change that is recorded in the fossil record can be variable; occasionaly very fast (when measuring in geological timescales), occasionally slow and steady - but once again this doesn't change the central theme of PE which is to contrast the (general) rate of evolutionary change with geological timescales, nor does it challenge the overall theory of evolution ............ and neither does your mined quote.

so again, and as usual, your argument is a non-starter.

 

[leopold]

certainly the speed of evolutionary change that is recorded in the fossil record can be variable; occasionaly very fast (when measuring in geological timescales), occasionally slow and steady - but once again this doesn't change the central theme of PE which is to contrast the (general) rate of evolutionary change with geological timescales, nor does it challenge the overall theory of evolution ............ and neither does your mined quote.

so again, and as usual, your argument is a non-starter.

i provided the link.
you calling it "mined" is a lie SP and you know it.
i even provide 2 separate sources.

so again, you stating "millions of years" which, BTW, you can't prove is, well, i can't say.
i will not be drawn into personal attacks like this.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Then tell me exactly what you think that article from Science is saying?

it is apparently saying the mechanisms of microevolution cannot be applied to macroevolution…..it seems to refute the aggregate changes of microevolution leads to macroevoltion.

“Apparantly…..”

“Seems….”

This sums up your understanding of the article nicely.

FYI, the article does not say that. You don’t even have to read the entire article to realise that; all you have to do is look at the in-context quotation of the misleading out-of-context quotation that you supplied as part of your quote mining.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally uncoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.
-- Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

(my emphasis added)

The article does not refute the existence of macroevolution, and does not refute that microevolution leads to macroevolution. It plainly acknowledges the existance of both. All it is saying is that long periods of microevolution cannot always fully explain macroevolution.

So, there are two possibilities:

1) You didn’t read the article and merely parroted the quotation box from the front page that seemed to support your view,

2) You did read the article but don’t have the knowledge and education in evolutionary science to understand what it said.

Either way, you are showing a gross lack of integrity by quote mining in support of stuff you know you don’t understand.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

i provided the link.
you calling it "mined" is a lie SP and you know it.
i even provide 2 separate sources.

You are trying to use quotes from passages that fully support evolution in a context that attempts to argue (badly and fruitlessly) against it.
That fits pretty well in the definition of a quote-mine as I see it.
If you have a problem with it ask a mod and get them to adjudicate on your behalf.

But what is with this phoney outrage anyway? you have blatantly been caught lying and posting fake quotes in this thread on several occasions - for which we have never received a proper and honest retraction or apology despite being requested to do so - so don't expect to get a gold fucking star if it turns out that on this occasion it is ruled that you haven't quote-mined sonny - FYI that was what is expected of you in an honest discussion in the first place!

so again, you stating "millions of years" which, BTW, you can't prove is, well, i can't say.
i will not be drawn into personal attacks like this.

nowhere have I stated that anything takes "millions of years"

 

[leopold]

i still haven't seen the links that science has demonstrated macroevolution.
care to provide them HR?

same for you SP.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

i still haven't seen the links that science has demonstrated macroevolution.
care to provide them HR?

same for you SP.

define macroevolution

 

[leopold]

define macroevolution

amazingly perfect! unbelievable.

 

[drumbeat]

That makes no sense.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

That makes no sense.

you just got here I take it?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

amazingly perfect! unbelievable.

No seriously - define it - with absolute clarity

you see the problem with the raveningly insane and dangerous religious fanatic types who support creationism, is that people who aren't mad, stupid, ignorant, or consumed with Islamist-style religious fanaticism, can give them examples of macro evolution all day - but because said raveningly insane and dangerous religious fanatic types never pin themselves to a clear definition of what macro-evolution actually means (and by that I mean "what it means on Planet Crazy" not what it REALLY means), it allows them to contuinue to deny (to themselves almost solely) that it takes place.

so seriously

define it

amazingly perfect! unbelievable.

alternatively ..... there you go - macro-evolution proved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FCNyrYC7E8

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

i still haven't seen the links that science has demonstrated macroevolution.
care to provide them HR?

same for you SP.

A pathetic see-through strawman offered in an attempt to avoid addressing the fact that you’ve been caught quote mining from sources you don’t understand.

The science of evolution is readily available on the internet and from printed literature. It is the most studied theory in all of science. Find the links yourself. Your specious request merely reinforces your reputation as a troll.

 

[leopold]

yes, the written word is everywhere.
the demonstrated facts are nowhere to be found or you would have posted them.

prove me wrong on the following statements:
science has never witnessed one lifeform changing into another such as a dog changing into a cat.
likewise, science has never demonstrated life coming from nonlife.
the fact of the matter is science simply has not performed the demonstrations.
those are the facts my dear friends.
i patiently await the documented results.
i can hear you now, or better yet i probably won't.

 

[drumbeat]

This is getting fucking ridiculous now.

You don't listen to the replies. You keep repeating the same post. It's pathetic. I can't believe I spent time answering you properly.
Go away.

 

[leopold]

This is getting fucking ridiculous now.

You don't listen to the replies. You keep repeating the same post. It's pathetic. I can't believe I spent time answering you properly.
Go away.

show me the post or posts in this thread were science has demonstrated macroevolution in the lab.

 

[leopold]

This is getting fucking ridiculous now.

this is usually what is said when someone is asked to provide nonexistent facts.

 

[leopold]

this is EXACTLY what i am saying, there is no, none, nada, zip, nil, demonstrated test which proves evolution.

Strictly speaking that is true.

glad you agree with me billy.

 

[superstring01]

science has never witnessed one lifeform changing into another such as a dog changing into a cat.

You are correct. No person has ever witnessed such an event because it takes millions of years.

likewise, science has never demonstrated life coming from nonlife.

Who cares? Evolution doesn't really care where it all started (though, it would be interesting to know). It's only concerned with how it evolved.

the fact of the matter is science simply has not performed the demonstrations.

What are the alternatives? Some guy with a long white beard conjured up the world in seven days?


Let's face it, you're not going to be satisfied with the fossilized records that are presented, because you are a theist. You're not going to convince anybody here to start believing in the bible, so just give up and go away.

~String

 

[leopold]

You are correct. No person has ever witnessed such an event because it takes millions of years.

and a theory that can't be tested is called what?

Let's face it, you're not going to be satisfied with the fossilized records that are presented, because you are a theist.

whatever gave you the impression i'm a theist?

You're not going to convince anybody here to start believing in the bible, so just give up and go away.

~String

it isn't my intention of convincing anyone of anything.
my intention is pointing out the fraudulent bullshit paraded as the truth.

to say science knows evolution is a fact is nothing short of a lie.