Evolution, not a fact??????
- Thread starter john smith
- Start date
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
GeoffP said:
Geoff,
I don't have an alternative scientific hypothesis, as most evolutionists would know. In fact I don't believe in macro evolution so I don't actually need one. AlphaWolf showed me a link that he/she said proved macro evolution and I have asked him/her a question regarding it, this is otherwise known as debating.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
KennyJC said:
I have not claimed any such thing. I have said I believe the Bible is almost 100% fact.
I guess that is why you will never be satisfied by evidence of evolution. You believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and that Adam lived for 930 years. You believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You believe everything it says.
If you believe all that then why should anyone bother trying to have a debate with you about scientific concepts?
If you believe all that then why should anyone bother trying to have a debate with you about scientific concepts?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
KennyJC,
I guess that is why you will never be satisfied by evidence of evolution.
Funnily enough I am satisfied with some of the evidence for evolution, just not macro evolution.
You believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and that Adam lived for 930 years. You believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You believe everything it says.
This is almost correct, I am undecided about the age of the earth.
If you believe all that then why should anyone bother trying to have a debate with you about scientific concepts?
Because science is not religion so there should be no conflict in discussing it.
I guess that is why you will never be satisfied by evidence of evolution.
Funnily enough I am satisfied with some of the evidence for evolution, just not macro evolution.
You believe Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth and that Adam lived for 930 years. You believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You believe everything it says.
This is almost correct, I am undecided about the age of the earth.
If you believe all that then why should anyone bother trying to have a debate with you about scientific concepts?
Because science is not religion so there should be no conflict in discussing it.
If evolution were true there would be more evidence and transitory species. More evidence of one species. We would see a very linear development in life-forms.
It should also be purposed that we are at a peak in evolutionary development because of the lack of obvious change. Humans are destroying the earth building houses, developing. I've see no evidence of "evolution" in how species are changing and adapting.
Evolution is a nice idea but at the end of the day, it's just a big crock of steamy crap.
It should also be purposed that we are at a peak in evolutionary development because of the lack of obvious change. Humans are destroying the earth building houses, developing. I've see no evidence of "evolution" in how species are changing and adapting.
Evolution is a nice idea but at the end of the day, it's just a big crock of steamy crap.
You are not satisfied by macro evolution because that directly contradicts that of Adam and Eve. This is what makes you unsuitable for scientific debate as science is all about going by the best facts available to us and constantly changing ideas that perhaps we believed to be true in the past. Your religion (and believing the bible to be 100% true) makes you unable to do this.
If evolution was challenged by people who are not religious (especially educated people) then they should be listened to. But when you have yourself, Jan and Nisus spouting uninformed bile then that isn't going to result in many people paying attention.
If evolution was challenged by people who are not religious (especially educated people) then they should be listened to. But when you have yourself, Jan and Nisus spouting uninformed bile then that isn't going to result in many people paying attention.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
KennyJC said:
What facts are you talking about? And by the way, what bile did I spout?
davewhite04 said:
Personal rudeness aside, unless you have some alternative explanation for the strange phenomenon known as "species", you aren't really debating. Merely not "believing in" macroevolution isn't terribly instructive, as it leaves you wondering where species came from. So, in essence, you're gainsaying. If you have some more acceptable scenario, then by all means present it and support it.
I rather suspect the "just-so" hypothesis isn't going to carry much water, however.
:m:
Geoff
Nisus said:
Regrets, Nisus, but it's not.
There are abundant transitory forms in the fossil record. There is abundant evidence of phylogenetic grouping in extant species. Macroevolution, whatever the cause, is not really in question.
And if you can't see evolution in the present era, you should look harder. Evolution is, classically, defined as a change in gene frequencies with time. Nothing more, nothing less. There is ABUNDANT evidence for this.
:m:
Geoff
davewhite04 said:
Please start here.
It's sort of an evolution for dummies sort of thing. Do try and read all the way through it at least.
But ultimately, since you are easily persuaded by philisophical musings by men thousands of years ago, and yet not by things which are (if not fact) our best currently available data for explaining the world around us, then I am wasting my time.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
GeoffP said:
Geoff,
I'm not here to present a theory that replaces macro evolution, I simply asked AlphaWolf a question regarding the evidence he/she presented for macro evolution. That's all I want to discuss in this thread.
I'm asking a question and it seems all I'm getting back is questions.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
KennyJC said:
Since you seem to have everything sorted out, maybe you can answer the question I asked AlphaWolf?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Cris said:
Nope.
I'm off to watch a flick, hopefully we can talk about this later.
davewhite04 said:
OK, I'll answer Dave's question:
Can't say.
Seriously, what I can tell from looking at the teeny-tiny skull pictures on the jpg is that they are skulls, They generally do seem to go from small cranium-large jaw to large cranium-small jaw, they generally seem to have less brow and a rounder braincase as you go from A-N and the ones on the right seem happier than the ones on the left because they're nearer to seeing Pamela Anderson.
But are they chronological ancestors? I don't think so, not all at any rate. I'm no anthropologist/human biologist, but as I recall Neanderthals aren't assumed to be lineal descendants of H. h. sapiens any more anyway. The site could be - horror of horrors! - in error.
That, however, does not help.
Frankly, the fact that we've found more non-ancestrals (and, let's be honest, most of them in there probably are) than ancestrals is frankly to be expected. Think about it: just how many extinct lineages are there compared to extant (them whuts still livin') groups? So, frankly, you expect more "dead ends" (pardon the pun) in the record than direct ancestors. That said, the transitory forms and even more importantly the RANGE of transitory forms we have is remarkable.
Now, "Geoff," you say, "What do you mean RANGE of transitory forms?" Well now, that's simple, with a capital S and that means "Scopes". Well, not really. Anyway, the high ranges of homologous and paralogous development of limbs and jawbones (any one of which could kill a thousand Philistines, no doubt) and tails and feathers and not-feathers and so forth around any transitional period suggests a WIDE range of developmental alterations that could become - given chance and general selective advantage - speciative functions and lead to novel taxonomic groups. So if the general complaint is that one group of dinosaurs didn't quiiiiite lead to birds because they didn't have the right kind of holes in their heads or the derivation of their fingers is wrong, well take a big step back mother-may-I because high variation around these transitory points (only a dozen million years or so, give or take) means that there were a large number of taxa with similar modifications which might have been successful themselves. Again, we have trends derived from skeletal modifications. We don't have everything - that would be a neat trick, but we'd probably have to tear up the appropriate geographic layer over something like - oh, I don't know - THE ENTIRE FACE OF THE DRY EARTH in order to find the one freaky-do transitional that wouldn't take permeable membranous skin for an answer and decided to do something about it.
So consider: just how narrow a transitional band are we looking at here? And where did it emerge? Probably ONE place. Is that place under water, presently? Then kiss it goodbye, because we can't get at it. Given what we're left with, and how much of the fossil record we actually know about (1%), we're doing pretty damn well.
Ask us again at 10%.
:m:
Geoff