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 Sept 26, 2022 14:33:51 GMT
Hey, it's your graph not mine. But it has little bearing on the facts since if fails to show any macro-evolution, just "POOF! Here's some mammals!". Not sure exactly what you're expecting...what should we see represented in the fossil record? In our DNA? I'm expecting proof of every limb on your graph or label it fiction until you've got it. It's a graph of guesses not reflected in the fossil record. As far as DNA, we share a high percentage with a banana, but I didn't see that banana limb on your graph. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 26, 2022 18:13:39 GMT
Not sure exactly what you're expecting...what should we see represented in the fossil record? In our DNA? Yeah, it's "almost" as if pale con didn't know the first thing about how a graph works... "Almost"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2022 19:45:50 GMT
Yeah, it's "almost" as if pale con didn't know the first thing about how a graph works... "Almost"?
I put it between quotes for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Sept 26, 2022 20:27:12 GMT
Not sure exactly what you're expecting...what should we see represented in the fossil record? In our DNA? I'm expecting proof of every limb on your graph or label it fiction until you've got it. It's a graph of guesses not reflected in the fossil record. As far as DNA, we share a high percentage with a banana, but I didn't see that banana limb on your graph. In other words, nothing reasonable will satisfy you...and you have no alternative explanation for evolution. Is that correct? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2022 21:15:10 GMT
I'm expecting proof of every limb on your graph or label it fiction until you've got it. It's a graph of guesses not reflected in the fossil record. As far as DNA, we share a high percentage with a banana, but I didn't see that banana limb on your graph. In other words, nothing reasonable will satisfy you...and you have no alternative explanation for evolution. Is that correct? It's more basic than that. He doesn't even understand the answer. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 27, 2022 1:45:44 GMT
I put it between quotes for a reason.
Kindly explain the reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 5:08:18 GMT
I put it between quotes for a reason.
Kindly explain the reason.
Because it's not almost, it's exactly what it is. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 27, 2022 8:16:18 GMT
Kindly explain the reason.
Because it's not almost, it's exactly what it is.
I see.
So what you meant was the Paleo doesn't understand graphic representations.
Right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2022 8:33:13 GMT
Because it's not almost, it's exactly what it is.
I see.
So what you meant was the Paleo doesn't understand graphic representations.
Right?
Precisely. |
|
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 Oct 23, 2022 14:27:21 GMT
I'm expecting proof of every limb on your graph or label it fiction until you've got it. It's a graph of guesses not reflected in the fossil record. As far as DNA, we share a high percentage with a banana, but I didn't see that banana limb on your graph. In other words, nothing reasonable will satisfy you...and you have no alternative explanation for evolution. Is that correct? Proof is reasonable and will satisfy me and you have none. Without proof, we're all just guessing and I.D. is supported by the rapid, unexplained deviations and occurrences in the fossil record. We have entire TYPES of creatures that just appear out of nowhere in the record.
Macro evolution is not proven within the current data and fossil record. If macro evolution is a sound theory, the findings since Darwin's time should have reinforced it, yet the opposite has happened. It's a theory that is doubted even more, spawned other theories like P.E. to fill in the gaps.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Oct 23, 2022 21:56:15 GMT
Back to the topic.
I like this analysis. The whole micro vs. macro evolution thing seems like it is a SCAM, courtesy the people we used to call Jesus Freaks.
"On the internet, the terms macroevolution and microevolution (especially together) are usually used primarily in creationist rhetoric. As such, it is usually best to avoid them, especially when talking to non-scientists. The main mistake creationist perpetuate when thinking about micro-vs-macro evolution, is that the two are somehow different and distinct physical processes. This is simply not the case, they are both just evolution. The scientific distinction between the terms, comes not from the physical world around us, but from how we choose to talk about it. When a biologist says “microevolution” or “macroevolution” they are actually signaling what kind of questions they are interested in asking, or what sort of tools they plan on using.
"In verbal and empirical theories, the micro-macro distinction is usually one of timescales. A person in the macroevolutionary paradigm, usually asks questions above the level of individual species, as Evolution 101 writes (emphasis mine):
"Instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
"Empirically, macroevolutionary answers to these sort of questions are usually ones that don’t have access to detailed evolutionary histories or direct experiment. Instead, the method tends to be ones that use geology, fossils, and back-inferences from broad differences/similarities of existing species. As such, most macroevolutionary theories tend to be descriptive, instead of predictive. Most of paleontology can be classified under the macroevolutionary paradigm."
...
|
|
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 Oct 24, 2022 1:16:18 GMT
Back to the topic.
I like this analysis. The whole micro vs. macro evolution thing seems like it is a SCAM, courtesy the people we used to call Jesus Freaks.
"On the internet, the terms macroevolution and microevolution (especially together) are usually used primarily in creationist rhetoric. As such, it is usually best to avoid them, especially when talking to non-scientists. The main mistake creationist perpetuate when thinking about micro-vs-macro evolution, is that the two are somehow different and distinct physical processes. This is simply not the case, they are both just evolution. The scientific distinction between the terms, comes not from the physical world around us, but from how we choose to talk about it. When a biologist says “microevolution” or “macroevolution” they are actually signaling what kind of questions they are interested in asking, or what sort of tools they plan on using.
"In verbal and empirical theories, the micro-macro distinction is usually one of timescales. A person in the macroevolutionary paradigm, usually asks questions above the level of individual species, as Evolution 101 writes (emphasis mine):
"Instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
"Empirically, macroevolutionary answers to these sort of questions are usually ones that don’t have access to detailed evolutionary histories or direct experiment. Instead, the method tends to be ones that use geology, fossils, and back-inferences from broad differences/similarities of existing species. As such, most macroevolutionary theories tend to be descriptive, instead of predictive. Most of paleontology can be classified under the macroevolutionary paradigm."
...
Wow. Did you get this stupid on purpose or was it a terrible accident? What you just posted is the scam, a whiny "we don't want to talk about it" shtick from those who can't defend their failed evolutionary theories.
No, micro evolution and macro evolution are not the same. Micro evolution consists of changes but the TYPE of creature remains the same. Macro evolution is the fiction that creatures morph from one creature type to the other and macro evolution is unproven and not supported by the fossil records.
It's the atheist filth that can't stand that their theories have failed, even getting more uncertain and muddled as Darwin's guesses have fallen apart.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Oct 24, 2022 2:22:00 GMT
Typical creationist bullshit.
Big surprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Oct 25, 2022 0:05:59 GMT
In other words, nothing reasonable will satisfy you...and you have no alternative explanation for evolution. Is that correct? Proof is reasonable and will satisfy me and you have none. Without proof, we're all just guessing and I.D. is supported by the rapid, unexplained deviations and occurrences in the fossil record. We have entire TYPES of creatures that just appear out of nowhere in the record.
Macro evolution is not proven within the current data and fossil record. If macro evolution is a sound theory, the findings since Darwin's time should have reinforced it, yet the opposite has happened. It's a theory that is doubted even more, spawned other theories like P.E. to fill in the gaps.
What proof will convince you? You might have answered, but it's been a while. "Transitional species"? All species are transitional. We have entire types of creatures that just "appear out of nowhere" in the record. Do we? How do you think that happened? And what happened to the simpler creatures that seem to be in older portions of the record? Where did they go? |
|
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 Oct 26, 2022 13:39:42 GMT
Proof is reasonable and will satisfy me and you have none. Without proof, we're all just guessing and I.D. is supported by the rapid, unexplained deviations and occurrences in the fossil record. We have entire TYPES of creatures that just appear out of nowhere in the record.
Macro evolution is not proven within the current data and fossil record. If macro evolution is a sound theory, the findings since Darwin's time should have reinforced it, yet the opposite has happened. It's a theory that is doubted even more, spawned other theories like P.E. to fill in the gaps.
What proof will convince you? You might have answered, but it's been a while. "Transitional species"? All species are transitional. We have entire types of creatures that just "appear out of nowhere" in the record. Do we? How do you think that happened? And what happened to the simpler creatures that seem to be in older portions of the record? Where did they go? No, we only have "transitional" fossils that align with micro evolution, not "transitional" fossils that show iterations between creature types. And yes, we do have fully formed creatures that just appear in the record, rather than the iterative steps that would be expected and needed to provide anywhere close to proof of macro evolution.
Show me proof that there was crossover of creature types and that's the proof that I need. A hundred and sixty years of research based on Darwin has yielded nothing and has actually debunked his theory. Evolutionists are slipping backwards with every new discovery.
|
|
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 Oct 26, 2022 13:44:15 GMT
In other words, nothing reasonable will satisfy you...and you have no alternative explanation for evolution. Is that correct? It's more basic than that. He doesn't even understand the answer. Oh, no, I understand. Evolutionists, like perverted liberals, when challenged to provide proof, demand that we must shut up and that they will tell us what to think.
Like most lemmings, you choose not to think for yourself and to defer to "experts" with an agenda to remain experts that get paid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Oct 26, 2022 15:19:54 GMT
What proof will convince you? You might have answered, but it's been a while. "Transitional species"? All species are transitional. We have entire types of creatures that just "appear out of nowhere" in the record. Do we? How do you think that happened? And what happened to the simpler creatures that seem to be in older portions of the record? Where did they go? No, we only have "transitional" fossils that align with micro evolution, not "transitional" fossils that show iterations between creature types. And yes, we do have fully formed creatures that just appear in the record, rather than the iterative steps that would be expected and needed to provide anywhere close to proof of macro evolution.
Show me proof that there was crossover of creature types and that's the proof that I need. A hundred and sixty years of research based on Darwin has yielded nothing and has actually debunked his theory. Evolutionists are slipping backwards with every new discovery.
Again, we have a whole lot of animals that resemble both "older" animals and "newer" animals...more than the "older" animals resemble those "newer" animals. Almost like they "showed up in between" time wise. You're suggesting the the "older" animals appeared, then disappeared when the "intermediate" animals just...showed up. And then those animals just "disappeared" when the "newer" animals just...showed up. If these species are not "transitional," then that seems to be the only explanation. Which doesn't seem reasonable to me. |
|
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 Nov 15, 2022 23:17:13 GMT
No, we only have "transitional" fossils that align with micro evolution, not "transitional" fossils that show iterations between creature types. And yes, we do have fully formed creatures that just appear in the record, rather than the iterative steps that would be expected and needed to provide anywhere close to proof of macro evolution.
Show me proof that there was crossover of creature types and that's the proof that I need. A hundred and sixty years of research based on Darwin has yielded nothing and has actually debunked his theory. Evolutionists are slipping backwards with every new discovery.
Again, we have a whole lot of animals that resemble both "older" animals and "newer" animals...more than the "older" animals resemble those "newer" animals. Almost like they "showed up in between" time wise. You're suggesting the the "older" animals appeared, then disappeared when the "intermediate" animals just...showed up. And then those animals just "disappeared" when the "newer" animals just...showed up. If these species are not "transitional," then that seems to be the only explanation. Which doesn't seem reasonable to me. Still all in a straight line, just like the fact that we have wolves and poodles in the world. Both are the same type of creature, with neither turning into any other type of creature.
Still micro evolution. Feel free to post examples instead of the generic "older" and "newer" animals.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Nov 15, 2022 23:32:13 GMT
Yet more creationist BS.
Perhaps a huge meteor will strike earth and relieve us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 16, 2022 2:13:16 GMT
Again, we have a whole lot of animals that resemble both "older" animals and "newer" animals...more than the "older" animals resemble those "newer" animals. Almost like they "showed up in between" time wise. You're suggesting the the "older" animals appeared, then disappeared when the "intermediate" animals just...showed up. And then those animals just "disappeared" when the "newer" animals just...showed up. If these species are not "transitional," then that seems to be the only explanation. Which doesn't seem reasonable to me. Still all in a straight line, just like the fact that we have wolves and poodles in the world. Both are the same type of creature, with neither turning into any other type of creature.
Still micro evolution. Feel free to post examples instead of the generic "older" and "newer" animals.
You have more skepticism for this evidence than an atheist does for the existence of God. |
|
