|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 11, 2022 13:29:38 GMT
Macro evolution says that all biological life shared ancestors, even though that life has diverged into countless distinct species.
Micro evolution says that adaption occurs within species, but that one species never changes into another species.
What is the evidence that one species cannot change into another species?
It might be helpful to define "species" here. Not sure of the technical definition, but I believe we could all agree on something like: a species is a group of animals defined by the ability to interbreed and produce viable (i.e., able to breed) offspring. Does that work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 11, 2022 13:36:20 GMT
Secondly, given apparent complexity of life in the fossil record, why should we doubt that one species changes into another over time?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 11, 2022 14:38:00 GMT
Macro evolution says that all biological life shared ancestors, even though that life has diverged into countless distinct species. Micro evolution says that adaption occurs within species, but that one species never changes into another species. What is the evidence that one species cannot change into another species?It might be helpful to define "species" here. Not sure of the technical definition, but I believe we could all agree on something like: a species is a group of animals defined by the ability to interbreed and produce viable (i.e., able to breed) offspring. Does that work? Interesting way to ask the question. Logic and the avoidance of logical fallacies says that we should reverse it into this: what is the evidence that one species CAN change into another species? The fact is that there is no fossil or other evidence that one species has changed into another. Biologically, we have not identified any way that complex species would be able to transform into another species regardless of the time frame.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
We have to be careful as well in our definition of "species". Birds and dogs are a familiar example. Many say that the transition from wolf to teacup poodle is "macro", and technically because of size, a teacup poodle female cannot have viable offspring with a wolf, they are still both canines with shared features. That's micro-evolution. We have quite a few branches on that wolf tree (Great Pyrenees down to a tiny Pomeranian), but still all of them are the same TYPE of animal, the canine. With birds, the evolution fanatics say "Look! A dinosaur turned into a bird! Macro-evolution!" but that's not true. That creature had birdlike features that micro-evolved into birds with dinosaur like features. Still the same TYPE of creature.
And one more clarification. I am not a believer in Creationism, nor a Young Earth. Nor will I be using religion in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 11, 2022 15:28:35 GMT
But the fossil record is literally full of "intermediate varieties." That's the whole point. Seems to me willful blindness to say "look at all these extinct species none of which are 'transitionary.'"
If you are not a believer in Creationism, then what would inform your dismissal of the fossil record as "non-transitionary"? Like, why would you come to that conclusion? What mechanism would exist by which the diversity of life is present in the world today that doesn't seem to have been as diverse in the past?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 11, 2022 16:37:25 GMT
... What is the evidence that one species cannot change into another species? ...
Easy.
If a species "changed into another species", then it would be a new species.
Any more questions?
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 11, 2022 16:40:12 GMT
But the fossil record is literally full of "intermediate varieties." That's the whole point. Seems to me willful blindness to say "look at all these extinct species none of which are 'transitionary.'" If you are not a believer in Creationism, then what would inform your dismissal of the fossil record as "non-transitionary"? Like, why would you come to that conclusion? What mechanism would exist by which the diversity of life is present in the world today that doesn't seem to have been as diverse in the past? "Intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 16:48:30 GMT
But the fossil record is literally full of "intermediate varieties." That's the whole point. Seems to me willful blindness to say "look at all these extinct species none of which are 'transitionary.'" If you are not a believer in Creationism, then what would inform your dismissal of the fossil record as "non-transitionary"? Like, why would you come to that conclusion? What mechanism would exist by which the diversity of life is present in the world today that doesn't seem to have been as diverse in the past? ...an existing animal species type transforming into another type... What do you mean? Like a bat turning into an octopus, or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 11, 2022 16:50:37 GMT
But the fossil record is literally full of "intermediate varieties." That's the whole point. Seems to me willful blindness to say "look at all these extinct species none of which are 'transitionary.'" If you are not a believer in Creationism, then what would inform your dismissal of the fossil record as "non-transitionary"? Like, why would you come to that conclusion? What mechanism would exist by which the diversity of life is present in the world today that doesn't seem to have been as diverse in the past? "Intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard. If "intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all, then how would you recognize one if you found one? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 11, 2022 22:14:19 GMT
"Intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard. If "intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all, then how would you recognize one if you found one? Any macro evolution would result in characteristics that are not intra-species normal, and show up in many transitional fossils. Unless of course, the alleged magic of evolution results in complete species forma suddenly appearing in the fossil record as if someone had designed that creature. Prehistoric dogs looked somewhat different but was still a dog, not a bird or a snake or a fish. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 22:35:15 GMT
If "intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all, then how would you recognize one if you found one? Any macro evolution would result in characteristics that are not intra-species normal, and show up in many transitional fossils. Unless of course, the alleged magic of evolution results in complete species forma suddenly appearing in the fossil record as if someone had designed that creature. Prehistoric dogs looked somewhat different but was still a dog, not a bird or a snake or a fish. First of all, there was no such thing as a prehistoric dog, you nitwit. Dogs never existed in nature. They're the result of millenia of selective breeding, starting with wolves. Dogs are a hundred percent domestic in origin. Wild dogs are the descendants of domestic dogs gone wild. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 11, 2022 23:19:28 GMT
Any macro evolution would result in characteristics that are not intra-species normal, and show up in many transitional fossils. Unless of course, the alleged magic of evolution results in complete species forma suddenly appearing in the fossil record as if someone had designed that creature. Prehistoric dogs looked somewhat different but was still a dog, not a bird or a snake or a fish. First of all, there was no such thing as a prehistoric dog, you nitwit. Dogs never existed in nature. They're the result of millenia of selective breeding, starting with wolves. Dogs are a hundred percent domestic in origin. Wild dogs are the descendants of domestic dogs gone wild. Yep, you really do get more stupid every day, Stinking Toady.
The Paleolithic dog was a Late Pleistocene canine. They were directly associated with human hunting camps in Europe over 30,000 years ago and it is proposed that these were domesticated. They are further proposed to be either a proto-dog and the ancestor of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 12, 2022 0:20:37 GMT
If "intermediate varieties" found are inter-species and show no change to a new species at all, then how would you recognize one if you found one? Any macro evolution would result in characteristics that are not intra-species normal, and show up in many transitional fossils. Unless of course, the alleged magic of evolution results in complete species forma suddenly appearing in the fossil record as if someone had designed that creature. Prehistoric dogs looked somewhat different but was still a dog, not a bird or a snake or a fish. Define "suddenly." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 4:44:04 GMT
First of all, there was no such thing as a prehistoric dog, you nitwit. Dogs never existed in nature. They're the result of millenia of selective breeding, starting with wolves. Dogs are a hundred percent domestic in origin. Wild dogs are the descendants of domestic dogs gone wild. Yep, you really do get more stupid every day, Stinking Toady. The Paleolithic dog was a Late Pleistocene canine. They were directly associated with human hunting camps in Europe over 30,000 years ago and it is proposed that these were domesticated. They are further proposed to be either a proto-dog and the ancestor of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.
From your link, imbecile: There was no dog in nature, stupid, the selective breeding of wolves created the dog, IE a completely human creation. Your skull is harder than granite. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 6:02:19 GMT
But the fossil record is literally full of "intermediate varieties." That's the whole point. Seems to me willful blindness to say "look at all these extinct species none of which are 'transitionary.'" If you are not a believer in Creationism, then what would inform your dismissal of the fossil record as "non-transitionary"? Like, why would you come to that conclusion? What mechanism would exist by which the diversity of life is present in the world today that doesn't seem to have been as diverse in the past? ...Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard. Darwin discredited, huh? On which planet, stupid? Not on Earth at any rate, idiot! |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 12, 2022 13:50:40 GMT
Yep, you really do get more stupid every day, Stinking Toady. The Paleolithic dog was a Late Pleistocene canine. They were directly associated with human hunting camps in Europe over 30,000 years ago and it is proposed that these were domesticated. They are further proposed to be either a proto-dog and the ancestor of the domestic dog or an extinct, morphologically and genetically divergent wolf population.
From your link, imbecile: There was no dog in nature, stupid, the selective breeding of wolves created the dog, IE a completely human creation. Your skull is harder than granite. You are singularly the most stupid poster that I've encountered on these kind of forums. No one is disputing that dogs came for wolves, but you idiotically and falsely claimed that there were no prehistoric dogs, and your stupidity is debunked by the fact that this Paleolithic animal in the article is designated as a dog because of its differences from the wolf. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 12, 2022 14:15:22 GMT
...Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard. Darwin discredited, huh? On which planet, stupid? Not on Earth at any rate, idiot! Yep, you're one stupid frog. Do you ever check before opening that nasty French piehole of yours?
Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.
The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.
Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 14:16:33 GMT
From your link, imbecile: There was no dog in nature, stupid, the selective breeding of wolves created the dog, IE a completely human creation. Your skull is harder than granite. You are singularly the most stupid poster that I've encountered on these kind of forums. No one is disputing that dogs came for wolves, but you idiotically and falsely claimed that there were no prehistoric dogs, and your stupidity is debunked by the fact that this Paleolithic animal in the article is designated as a dog because of its differences from the wolf. Prehistoric in the sense of prehistoric animal, you moron. Of course there were dogs in the neolithic it took about thousand of millenia to create the dog from the wolf by selective breeding. You didn't even read what I wrote you focused on one word like the fucking retard that you are. No wonder you're full of shit. You listed the dog among animals that existed in the wild as if the dog had anything to do with them. While they're the product of natural selection, the dog is the product of selective breeding a completely different process but you idiot, listed them together. You must be the stupidest poster that has ever disgraced this forum with his presence and that's counting monterfuck and shitbag. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 14:24:34 GMT
Darwin discredited, huh? On which planet, stupid? Not on Earth at any rate, idiot! Yep, you're one stupid frog. Do you ever check before opening that nasty French piehole of yours?
Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.
The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions; and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.
Faced with such evidence, any other scientific theory would probably have been abandoned long ago. Judged by the normal criteria of empirical science, Darwinism is false. Its persists in spite of the evidence, and the eagerness of Darwin and his followers to defend it with theological arguments about creation and design suggests that its persistence has nothing to do with science at all.
You're quoting the article of a proponent of intelligent design, asshole. Intelligent design has been completely discredited by the scientific community at large. So in order to prove that Darwin has been discredited you link to the article of someone ho's "field of study" is not even considered as science by the real scientists Nice move, bozo! |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 12, 2022 19:12:32 GMT
You are singularly the most stupid poster that I've encountered on these kind of forums. No one is disputing that dogs came for wolves, but you idiotically and falsely claimed that there were no prehistoric dogs, and your stupidity is debunked by the fact that this Paleolithic animal in the article is designated as a dog because of its differences from the wolf. Prehistoric in the sense of prehistoric animal, you moron. Of course there were dogs in the neolithic it took about thousand of millenia to create the dog from the wolf by selective breeding. You didn't even read what I wrote you focused on one word like the fucking retard that you are. No wonder you're full of shit. You listed the dog among animals that existed in the wild as if the dog had anything to do with them. While they're the product of natural selection, the dog is the product of selective breeding a completely different process but you idiot, listed them together. You must be the stupidest poster that has ever disgraced this forum with his presence and that's counting monterfuck and shitbag. You really are a flaming dumbass to a level that I've not seen before. I'm glad you're in France with the rest of the Frog morons. Show me where 30,000 years ago, this dog (and yes, it's prehistoric and it's a dog, thus kicking your stupid ass) was a product of selective breeding and not natural micro-evolution.
Seriously, how did you get this f*cking stupid? Deprived of oxygen on the way out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 19:26:45 GMT
Prehistoric in the sense of prehistoric animal, you moron. Of course there were dogs in the neolithic it took about thousand of millenia to create the dog from the wolf by selective breeding. You didn't even read what I wrote you focused on one word like the fucking retard that you are. No wonder you're full of shit. You listed the dog among animals that existed in the wild as if the dog had anything to do with them. While they're the product of natural selection, the dog is the product of selective breeding a completely different process but you idiot, listed them together. You must be the stupidest poster that has ever disgraced this forum with his presence and that's counting monterfuck and shitbag. You really are a flaming dumbass to a level that I've not seen before. I'm glad you're in France with the rest of the Frog morons. Show me where 30,000 years ago, this dog (and yes, it's prehistoric and it's a dog, thus kicking your stupid ass) was a product of selective breeding and not natural micro-evolution.
Seriously, how did you get this f*cking stupid? Deprived of oxygen on the way out?
It isn't micro-evolution, you stupid fuck, it's selective breeding, that is men selecting dogs that they'll breed to accentuate certain characteristics over others, thus creating new breeds of dogs. That's how over the millennia from the same animal (the wolf) , we got breeds as different in appearance as a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua. That has nothing to do with natural selection. These dogs didn't develop because they were the best at survival, they did because their appearance, physical/behavioral characteristics pleased their breeder. It's still on-going today as new breeds are bred even now. Morality: You are a fucking moron. It would help our species if you abstained from breeding. |
|
