|
|
Post by Fiddler on Dec 28, 2022 20:33:27 GMT
"Sexual selection" would cause faster changes, but it implies intelligent design rather than the slow, statistically challenged randomness of Darwin's hogwash. Dogs are sexually selected by a higher being, resulting in many rapid changes, but still no interspecies jump even with man's help. Still a canine just like their original ancestor.
Macro-evolution IS discredited, despite your denials. And no, transitional in the sense of intraspecies (which does exist) is not the same as a bridge between creature types, which is at the heart of macro-evolution fiction. There is no evidence that such a transition ever occurred, just the unsupported assumption that it did.
"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.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Pretending that all species are transitional is a stance that is not based in fact or evidence, which is exactly the point. This is not an exercise in saying that I have the answer and you don't. It's a statement that the current Darwin heavy dogma is wrong beyond the idea of micro evolution.
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles?
It's hard to believe you are this patient with someone as willfully uneducated on the subject as Paleo..
Since we know that there is ample evidence to state that Evolution is the mechanism by which life has created the diversity we see .. simply ask "What evidence would you accept as proof of Evolution?"
There are 2 possible answers..
A: "I would accept no evidence."
At which point you know you're dealing with an idiot .. cut your losses and move on..
Or. ..
B: He replies with one of the few debunked objections that we've all heard many times..
Then simply hand him the evidence..
Yes.. I know that this won't work.. Because you and I know that he isn't actually seeking education or understanding .. His satisfaction comes in the form of attempting to introduce doubt.. If he can get you to reject reality even for a moment, the two cells that make up his brain loads his crack pipe with serotonin..
Then I suppose I understand your interest in toying with him.. I've spent many enjoyable hours making ID'ers cry as well ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 29, 2022 1:28:47 GMT
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles?
It's hard to believe you are this patient with someone as willfully uneducated on the subject as Paleo..
Since we know that there is ample evidence to state that Evolution is the mechanism by which life has created the diversity we see .. simply ask "What evidence would you accept as proof of Evolution?"
There are 2 possible answers..
A: "I would accept no evidence."
At which point you know you're dealing with an idiot .. cut your losses and move on..
Or. ..
B: He replies with one of the few debunked objections that we've all heard many times..
Then simply hand him the evidence..
Yes.. I know that this won't work.. Because you and I know that he isn't actually seeking education or understanding .. His satisfaction comes in the form of attempting to introduce doubt.. If he can get you to reject reality even for a moment, the two cells that make up his brain loads his crack pipe with serotonin..
Then I suppose I understand your interest in toying with him.. I've spent many enjoyable hours making ID'ers cry as well ...
Well, I tried asking for a definition of a “transitional species” but didn’t get anything to work with… |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2022 7:52:38 GMT
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles?
It's hard to believe you are this patient with someone as willfully uneducated on the subject as Paleo..
Since we know that there is ample evidence to state that Evolution is the mechanism by which life has created the diversity we see .. simply ask "What evidence would you accept as proof of Evolution?"
There are 2 possible answers..
A: "I would accept no evidence."
At which point you know you're dealing with an idiot .. cut your losses and move on..
Or. ..
B: He replies with one of the few debunked objections that we've all heard many times..
Then simply hand him the evidence..
Yes.. I know that this won't work.. Because you and I know that he isn't actually seeking education or understanding .. His satisfaction comes in the form of attempting to introduce doubt.. If he can get you to reject reality even for a moment, the two cells that make up his brain loads his crack pipe with serotonin..
Then I suppose I understand your interest in toying with him.. I've spent many enjoyable hours making ID'ers cry as well ...
Sadly, it's the only positive you'll get from arguing with someone like pale con, otherwise it's just a waste of time, he's too far gone. |
|
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 Jan 10, 2023 0:57:34 GMT
"Sexual selection" would cause faster changes, but it implies intelligent design rather than the slow, statistically challenged randomness of Darwin's hogwash. Dogs are sexually selected by a higher being, resulting in many rapid changes, but still no interspecies jump even with man's help. Still a canine just like their original ancestor.
Macro-evolution IS discredited, despite your denials. And no, transitional in the sense of intraspecies (which does exist) is not the same as a bridge between creature types, which is at the heart of macro-evolution fiction. There is no evidence that such a transition ever occurred, just the unsupported assumption that it did.
"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.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Pretending that all species are transitional is a stance that is not based in fact or evidence, which is exactly the point. This is not an exercise in saying that I have the answer and you don't. It's a statement that the current Darwin heavy dogma is wrong beyond the idea of micro evolution.
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles? And a few problems with your post:
No, I've not expressed any notion that evolution was decisively defined by Darwin. I didn't expect you to stoop to a strawman fallacy like that, but there it is. Typically, a sound theory is built upon as time passes, with only minor corrections as new information is discovered. Darwin's drivel has been debunked instead...a foundation made of sand, yet for decades we were indoctrinated by the zealots that peddled this man as the end all to be all. I'm not the one who elevated this man to scientific sainthood. I've just enjoyed seeing him fall.
I quote Darwin often to mock him and his cult like adherents, not to praise him. You got it exactly backwards.
Macro-evolution discredited is a statement of fact based on the utter lack of evidence to support it, nothing more.
And as for strawman #2, I've given no opinion that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible. I've used the wolf to dog breeds that shows what happens when intelligent design is employed, although such selective breeding sometimes results in terrible flaws in the desired breeds.
Finally, asking for the definitions of the non existent "transitional species" is a bit like describing the targeted creature right before a snipe hunt. By the logic of macro-evolution, there should be some significant crossover between creature types, yet none has been found. While this is an extreme exaggeration to make a point, if a squirrel and a trout are related way back when, where are the twisted, perverted creatures that had characteristics of both? In the hundreds of millions of years that we've been watching, no creatures seemed to have jumped the track to become another TYPE of creature.
|
|
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 Jan 10, 2023 1:08:16 GMT
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles?
It's hard to believe you are this patient with someone as willfully uneducated on the subject as Paleo..
Since we know that there is ample evidence to state that Evolution is the mechanism by which life has created the diversity we see .. simply ask "What evidence would you accept as proof of Evolution?"
There are 2 possible answers..
A: "I would accept no evidence."
At which point you know you're dealing with an idiot .. cut your losses and move on..
Or. ..
B: He replies with one of the few debunked objections that we've all heard many times..
Then simply hand him the evidence..
Yes.. I know that this won't work.. Because you and I know that he isn't actually seeking education or understanding .. His satisfaction comes in the form of attempting to introduce doubt.. If he can get you to reject reality even for a moment, the two cells that make up his brain loads his crack pipe with serotonin..
Then I suppose I understand your interest in toying with him.. I've spent many enjoyable hours making ID'ers cry as well ... MFA, have you noticed that Fiddler takes credit for mighty victories without ever engaging anyone here? He's let you do all the heavy lifting while he plays the role of cheerleader.
His caustic fiction above is not borne out by reality. He's failed to produce evidence because he has none. Like most liberals, his toxic ideolgy cannot be defended in an open discussion; it's simply destroyed when we engage and he knows it. My boot has engaged his backside so often, they're thinking of moving in together.
Ample evidence? MFA hasn't been able to produce it and he/she is hell and gone smarter than Fiddler.
So step up, little Fids. If you think you've got the goods to make a compelling defense of evolution (macro, not micro) and if you're not afraid, I'm not going anywhere.
I'll be waiting. Your move.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 12, 2023 2:04:57 GMT
A few problems: You seem to think that evolution has been decisively defined by Darwin. That is as untrue as the idea that psychotherapy has been decisively defined by Freud. Simply stating that macro-evolution has been discredited does not make it true. To whom? Everyone? That’s obviously not true. Evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible (depending on how you define each, of course). Intelligent design requires a mechanism. What is that mechanism? Miracles? And a few problems with your post: No, I've not expressed any notion that evolution was decisively defined by Darwin. I didn't expect you to stoop to a strawman fallacy like that, but there it is.[/div Every time you bring up punctuated equilibrium as a contradiction to Darwin you imply it. Discredited by whom? And in whose eyes? Seems to me that it is still held in high regard. Even considered a de facto truth by most scientists. Nah, you're just changing the subject. I'm saying that "macro-evolution" and intelligent design are not incompatible. No, this is exactly the point. Every transitional species I bring up you would just say "it's not a transitional species." How do you know? What would the characteristics of a transitional species be so that we would know if one did qualify? What is the magic formula for one? If you simply dismiss the concept outright, you're just being close-minded and unwilling to actually consider evidence. Because you are a prior dismissing any evidence. |
|
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 Apr 10, 2023 18:18:39 GMT
Every time you bring up punctuated equilibrium as a contradiction to Darwin you imply it. Goodness, what a simplistic take from you. Pointing out two contradictory theories is not an indication that I'm implying that one or the other is not flawed. Both are flawed and each set of guesses shows us how these alleged "scientists" are flailing about looking for the next tall tale that strikes their fancy. Discredited by whom? And in whose eyes? Seems to me that it is still held in high regard. Even considered a de facto truth by most scientists. The lack of evidence discredits the theory, regardless of the number of fact-free zealots that pretend that it's real. Neither you nor this plethora of "most scientists" seems capable of anything but the "feels" relating to this theory, rather than convincing us with hard evidence. Nah, you're just changing the subject. I'm saying that "macro-evolution" and intelligent design are not incompatible. And I've said that I've never disagreed with that statement. You must be confused to imagine that I'm changing any subject. No, this is exactly the point. Every transitional species I bring up you would just say "it's not a transitional species." How do you know? What would the characteristics of a transitional species be so that we would know if one did qualify? What is the magic formula for one? If you simply dismiss the concept outright, you're just being close-minded and unwilling to actually consider evidence. Because you are a prior dismissing any evidence. First, you've brought up no transitional species that jump the creature type rails. Canines remain canines. Equine remains equine. Reptile remains reptile and avian remains avian. Mammals remain mammals. NOTHING that jumps from type to type. So don't pretend otherwise. Concerning the "magic formula" for transitional species, wouldn't there be shared characteristics between major transitions between creature types? If wolves were once primitive waterbound creatures, for example, wouldn't there be gradual iterations in the record showing fish-like/aquatic characteristics diminishing while canid-like characteristics developed. There would be countless failed versions in between that just didn't survive, or there would be some weird hybrids that still exist among us. But somehow, miraculously, NONE of that exists.
Once again, you've provided NO evidence of macro-evolution, nor has the scientific community that peddles the evolution religion. Even coincidental information is not statistically sound, nor indicative of a natural gradualism that would make any but the most micro changes.
"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.
Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 10, 2023 18:26:29 GMT
What would a "transitional species" look like? What are they criteria by which we could identify a legitimate example?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 20:47:47 GMT
This is still on!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 11, 2023 0:38:19 GMT
What would a "transitional species" look like? What are they criteria by which we could identify a legitimate example? We've come full-circle here. The problem is that the statement "there are no transitional species" is unfalsifiable (and thus, non-scientific). If you can't provide the criteria for what would fit, then you can just dismiss anything as "not fitting." That is completely circular. So what would the criteria be for identifying a "transitional species" if such a thing could exist? Would should be in the fossil record? |
|
|
|
Post by veraser on May 3, 2023 18:35:53 GMT
Yes, that is a good definition for species. The evidence for one species not being able to change into another is that it has been observed that, even when two distinct species are genetically altered or bred together in an attempt to create a hybrid species, the resulting offspring are either infertile or do not survive to become a separate, viable species. This suggests that there is a genetic barrier that prevents one species from successfully changing into another. Additionally, species tend to find their own niche environments and if they start to move away from these niches, then they are more likely to die out than become an entirely different species.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2023 18:55:02 GMT
Yes, that is a good definition for species. The evidence for one species not being able to change into another is that it has been observed that, even when two distinct species are genetically altered or bred together in an attempt to create a hybrid species, the resulting offspring are either infertile or do not survive to become a separate, viable species. This suggests that there is a genetic barrier that prevents one species from successfully changing into another. Additionally, species tend to find their own niche environments and if they start to move away from these niches, then they are more likely to die out than become an entirely different species. Always? So where do "new species" come from? |
|
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 Aug 29, 2023 21:10:50 GMT
What would a "transitional species" look like? What are they criteria by which we could identify a legitimate example? We've come full-circle here. The problem is that the statement "there are no transitional species" is unfalsifiable (and thus, non-scientific). If you can't provide the criteria for what would fit, then you can just dismiss anything as "not fitting." That is completely circular. So what would the criteria be for identifying a "transitional species" if such a thing could exist? Would should be in the fossil record? Actually, it's not circular at all. We have distinctive lines of creature types, so if Darwinian evolution actually ever occurred, their should be fossils of creatures that had shared features and functions between two existing, living species, yet none exist.
I'm not telling you how each species developed, but I am telling you that it didn't happen the way Darwin and the later evolution hacks have claimed. It's ludicrious to think that we just magically went from primordial ooze to the myriad of branches of animal types without leaving some transitional forms in the fossil record.
|
|
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 Aug 29, 2023 21:22:27 GMT
Yes, that is a good definition for species. The evidence for one species not being able to change into another is that it has been observed that, even when two distinct species are genetically altered or bred together in an attempt to create a hybrid species, the resulting offspring are either infertile or do not survive to become a separate, viable species. This suggests that there is a genetic barrier that prevents one species from successfully changing into another. Additionally, species tend to find their own niche environments and if they start to move away from these niches, then they are more likely to die out than become an entirely different species. Very good points. Why has this post been edited by Fiddler? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 29, 2023 22:35:31 GMT
We've come full-circle here. The problem is that the statement "there are no transitional species" is unfalsifiable (and thus, non-scientific). If you can't provide the criteria for what would fit, then you can just dismiss anything as "not fitting." That is completely circular. So what would the criteria be for identifying a "transitional species" if such a thing could exist? Would should be in the fossil record? Actually, it's not circular at all. We have distinctive lines of creature types, so if Darwinian evolution actually ever occurred, their should be fossils of creatures that had shared features and functions between two existing, living species, yet none exist.
Uncountable examples exist. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Aug 29, 2023 22:47:57 GMT
Either there's no such thing as a transitional species or all species are transitional. Either way "being transitional" is not a restrictive characteristic of species. All species are supposed to be a final product of adaptation to the local and current environment and so species change as does the environment, either that or they go extinct. In order for one species to evolve into two distinct ones, two groups of one species have to be separated, for a long time, typically more than a million years, except for some fast evolving flies that can create new species in only a few tens of thousands of years, the biologic equivalent to the wink of an eye. Not much has happened since humankind invented writing, let alone in living memory.
|
|
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 Aug 31, 2023 22:52:26 GMT
Actually, it's not circular at all. We have distinctive lines of creature types, so if Darwinian evolution actually ever occurred, their should be fossils of creatures that had shared features and functions between two existing, living species, yet none exist.
Uncountable examples exist. Well, then it should be a piece of cake for you to produce some of the "uncountable examples" of creatures transitioning from one type to another for us to peruse. So far, you've produced nothing, but hey, maybe you're ready to give it a try now.
|
|
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 Aug 31, 2023 22:58:46 GMT
Either there's no such thing as a transitional species or all species are transitional. Either way "being transitional" is not a restrictive characteristic of species. All species are supposed to be a final product of adaptation to the local and current environment and so species change as does the environment, either that or they go extinct. In order for one species to evolve into two distinct ones, two groups of one species have to be separated, for a long time, typically more than a million years, except for some fast evolving flies that can create new species in only a few tens of thousands of years, the biologic equivalent to the wink of an eye. Not much has happened since humankind invented writing, let alone in living memory. But those creatures still remain the same type, even after millions of years of separation. Does the fly become something other than an insect, another version of the fly (micro-evolution)? The distinctive lines of creature TYPE are not crossed in the fossil record. Just as dogs have evolved into many different shapes and sizes from the wolf, they are all still canines....but where did the first canines come from? How could a primordial puddle yield so many lines of creature types without millions of failed iterations in evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Sept 1, 2023 6:47:42 GMT
Uncountable examples exist. Well, then it should be a piece of cake for you to produce some of the "uncountable examples" of creatures transitioning from one type to another for us to peruse. So far, you've produced nothing, but hey, maybe you're ready to give it a try now.
Oops. You just changed the goalposts. You said “shared features.” There are uncountable examples: Eyes Ears Hearts Circulatory systems Toes Hair/fur Brains Hormones Livers Bones Nostrils Pancreases Need I go on? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Sept 1, 2023 6:49:19 GMT
Either there's no such thing as a transitional species or all species are transitional. Either way "being transitional" is not a restrictive characteristic of species. All species are supposed to be a final product of adaptation to the local and current environment and so species change as does the environment, either that or they go extinct. In order for one species to evolve into two distinct ones, two groups of one species have to be separated, for a long time, typically more than a million years, except for some fast evolving flies that can create new species in only a few tens of thousands of years, the biologic equivalent to the wink of an eye. Not much has happened since humankind invented writing, let alone in living memory. But those creatures still remain the same type, even after millions of years of separation. Does the fly become something other than an insect, another version of the fly (micro-evolution)? The distinctive lines of creature TYPE are not crossed in the fossil record. Just as dogs have evolved into many different shapes and sizes from the wolf, they are all still canines....but where did the first canines come from? How could a primordial puddle yield so many lines of creature types without millions of failed iterations in evidence? We’ve already done this. What are the qualifications of “transitional species such that you would be satisfied with an example? |
|
