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 22, 2022 19:33:27 GMT
“Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.” (Mayr, E. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138.)
“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82.)
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24.)
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? No, that's what the PALEONTOLOGISTS mean by "suddenly". Stephen Gould even called that time frame "minuscule".
|
|
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 22, 2022 19:34:32 GMT
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? Suddenly... Pale is only half the man he used to be... Half man half ape. You've never evolved from the asshole stage of development.
|
|
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 22, 2022 19:47:21 GMT
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? You are a very patient person.. But why? Well, Fids, if you think Mercy is too slow, why don't you step up and let's see what you've got? I'm glad that he's not devolved into the childish name calling that you and little Davy seem to adore.
The subject is evolution, and yes, in the scheme of gradualism and from a statistical standpoint for species development, a few million years is a tiny fraction of time which qualifies as "suddenly".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2022 20:33:15 GMT
Suddenly... Pale is only half the man he used to be... Half man half ape. You've never evolved from the asshole stage of development. Ok, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you believe that at some point there were only protozoa as the most evolved form of life on Earth, yes or no?
|
|
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 22, 2022 21:11:11 GMT
You've never evolved from the asshole stage of development. Ok, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you believe that at some point there were only protozoa as the most evolved form of life on Earth, yes or no? Likely that was the case, based on the evidence. But there's also no evidence that such protozoa evolved into the other life forms on Earth. The evidence says that many forms just appeared in the fossil record after a long period whereas the protozoa remained relatively static in their development (micro-evolution).
And no, we're not saying man was here since the beginning of the earth, only that his appearance was once again abrupt, not gradual.
Once again, the astronomical number of simultaneous, positive evolutionary iterations that would have been required to take even one step up for a species is statistically unlikely, near to the point of being impossible. Nature just doesn't work that way. Mutations can easily destroy a species rather than building on it. If a species dies out, there is not second chance. Isolation gives some reprieve, and micro-evolution is acknowledged as fact, but it takes miracles to get inter species changes.
Evolutionists have been reduced to the "Poof! We're Here!" theory of species development because they just cannot find proof of the transitional forms in the fossil record. I'm not calling that I.D. or God, but I am saying that the theory of macro-evolution is a fairy tale without a basis in the evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2022 21:33:50 GMT
Ok, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you believe that at some point there were only protozoa as the most evolved form of life on Earth, yes or no? Likely that was the case, based on the evidence. But there's also no evidence that such protozoa evolved into the other life forms on Earth. The evidence says that many forms just appeared in the fossil record after a long period whereas the protozoa remained relatively static in their development (micro-evolution).
And no, we're not saying man was here since the beginning of the earth, only that his appearance was once again abrupt, not gradual.
Once again, the astronomical number of simultaneous, positive evolutionary iterations that would have been required to take even one step up for a species is statistically unlikely, near to the point of being impossible. Nature just doesn't work that way. Mutations can easily destroy a species rather than building on it. If a species dies out, there is not second chance. Isolation gives some reprieve, and micro-evolution is acknowledged as fact, but it takes miracles to get inter species changes.
Evolutionists have been reduced to the "Poof! We're Here!" theory of species development because they just cannot find proof of the transitional forms in the fossil record. I'm not calling that I.D. or God, but I am saying that the theory of macro-evolution is a fairy tale without a basis in the evidence.
You know that more than eight million species have been catalogued today, don't you? Species that didn't exist in the beginning of life on Earth. How do we know that? Because the first forms of life didn't use oxygen, so any oxygen breathing species came well AFTER the beginning of life, QED. You know that don't you?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 22, 2022 22:11:58 GMT
I guess I'm sort of old school when it comes to evolution, before "micro" and "macro" became evolutionary concepts.
So I had to google the issue.
Here is one of the hits. It looks as good as any:
None of this micro vs. macro stuff changes the overall validity of Darwin's original concept. Which I suppose some here continue to struggle with, God knows why. Maybe it's a brain defect? If so, let's hope it gets winnowed out by the usual evolutionary processes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2022 8:49:06 GMT
I guess I'm sort of old school when it comes to evolution, before "micro" and "macro" became evolutionary concepts.
So I had to google the issue.
Here is one of the hits. It looks as good as any:
None of this micro vs. macro stuff changes the overall validity of Darwin's original concept. Which I suppose some here continue to struggle with, God knows why. Maybe it's a brain defect? If so, let's hope it gets winnowed out by the usual evolutionary processes.
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 23, 2022 9:12:57 GMT
I guess I'm sort of old school when it comes to evolution, before "micro" and "macro" became evolutionary concepts.
So I had to google the issue.
Here is one of the hits. It looks as good as any:
None of this micro vs. macro stuff changes the overall validity of Darwin's original concept. Which I suppose some here continue to struggle with, God knows why. Maybe it's a brain defect? If so, let's hope it gets winnowed out by the usual evolutionary processes.
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science.
OK, Thanks!!!
That sort of explains why I had never heard of the "micro/macro evolution" theory.
I did a little googling on it, and the best description I can find is that micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing.
Here's an enlightening discussion:
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 23, 2022 14:57:23 GMT
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? No, that's what the PALEONTOLOGISTS mean by "suddenly". Stephen Gould even called that time frame "minuscule". Yeah, but it's still a really long time by our standards. Consider the diversity of domesticated dogs. Dogs have been bred (read: pressured to select) by people who barely knew what they were doing over the course of, what, 10,000 years? Now consider that only one million years is one hundred times that long. Then consider what a few million years would be. So...given "natural selection," you have pressure to survive...species are being killed off...a few survive. Those that survive do so based on unique characteristics. All punctuated equilibrium is saying is that without pressure to adapt, animals don't adapt. But given the pressure, they will adapt "relatively quickly." And "relatively quickly" might be "as short as a few million years." To me, that's not unreasonable. Now consider how infrequently fossils would be laid down. Generally speaking, it's pretty unlikely. Conditions would be rare. So given the general unlikelihood of seeing any fossils at all, the only reason we see any is because of an incredibly long span of time. And what do we see? We see what looks like a progression from simplicity to complexity over the long haul.
|
|
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 24, 2022 15:43:27 GMT
I guess I'm sort of old school when it comes to evolution, before "micro" and "macro" became evolutionary concepts.
So I had to google the issue.
Here is one of the hits. It looks as good as any:
None of this micro vs. macro stuff changes the overall validity of Darwin's original concept. Which I suppose some here continue to struggle with, God knows why. Maybe it's a brain defect? If so, let's hope it gets winnowed out by the usual evolutionary processes.
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science. No, the evolution zealots don't want to talk about the reality of their false religion so they pretend that evolution from one species to another is settled rather than debunked. Once again, these leftist moron abandon reality and stick to the narrative while intolerantly ranting at anyone who dares to disagree. Macro and micro evolution show us huge holes in Darwin's theory, to the point that Darwin is largely abandoned by modern paleontologists.
Dave's problem is the atheist's conundrum.....if evolution can't explain where new species came from, now what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2022 16:11:33 GMT
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science. No, the evolution zealots don't want to talk about the reality of their false religion so they pretend that evolution from one species to another is settled rather than debunked. Once again, these leftist moron abandon reality and stick to the narrative while intolerantly ranting at anyone who dares to disagree. Macro and micro evolution show us huge holes in Darwin's theory, to the point that Darwin is largely abandoned by modern paleontologists.
Dave's problem is the atheist's conundrum.....if evolution can't explain where new species came from, now what?
So what is your theory? There were no elephants and all of sudden a couple of adult elephants appeared out of nowhere and against genetic laws intensely inbred their descendance (brothers with sisters for several generations) with no problem? That's not just stupid, that's fairy tale stupid. That's retarded stupid.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 24, 2022 18:29:31 GMT
No, the evolution zealots don't want to talk about the reality of their false religion so they pretend that evolution from one species to another is settled rather than debunked. Once again, these leftist moron abandon reality and stick to the narrative while intolerantly ranting at anyone who dares to disagree. Macro and micro evolution show us huge holes in Darwin's theory, to the point that Darwin is largely abandoned by modern paleontologists.
Dave's problem is the atheist's conundrum.....if evolution can't explain where new species came from, now what?
So what is your theory? There were no elephants and all of sudden a couple of adult elephants appeared out of nowhere and against genetic laws intensely inbred their descendance (brothers with sisters for several generations) with no problem? That's not just stupid, that's fairy tale stupid. That's retarded stupid.
When it comes to science, posters like Poopycuck are subhuman.
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 25, 2022 8:43:43 GMT
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science. No, the evolution zealots don't want to talk about the reality of their false religion so they pretend that evolution from one species to another is settled rather than debunked. Once again, these leftist moron abandon reality and stick to the narrative while intolerantly ranting at anyone who dares to disagree. Macro and micro evolution show us huge holes in Darwin's theory, to the point that Darwin is largely abandoned by modern paleontologists.
Dave's problem is the atheist's conundrum.....if evolution can't explain where new species came from, now what?
Where is the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution?
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jul 25, 2022 13:51:50 GMT
No, the evolution zealots don't want to talk about the reality of their false religion so they pretend that evolution from one species to another is settled rather than debunked. Once again, these leftist moron abandon reality and stick to the narrative while intolerantly ranting at anyone who dares to disagree. Macro and micro evolution show us huge holes in Darwin's theory, to the point that Darwin is largely abandoned by modern paleontologists.
Dave's problem is the atheist's conundrum.....if evolution can't explain where new species came from, now what?
Where is the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution? Change in species. A dog might be bred over thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier, but it is still a dog.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jul 25, 2022 13:55:57 GMT
I guess I'm sort of old school when it comes to evolution, before "micro" and "macro" became evolutionary concepts.
So I had to google the issue.
Here is one of the hits. It looks as good as any:
None of this micro vs. macro stuff changes the overall validity of Darwin's original concept. Which I suppose some here continue to struggle with, God knows why. Maybe it's a brain defect? If so, let's hope it gets winnowed out by the usual evolutionary processes.
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science. There certainly is. I guess those folks at Berkeley are a bunch of evolutions deniers. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-at-different-scales-micro-to-macro/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 14:31:17 GMT
There're no such things as "macro" and "micro" in the theory of evolution. These are inventions by evolution deniers, mostly ID clowns but also creationists and who knows what other garbage that tries and fails to pass itself as science. There certainly is. I guess those folks at Berkeley are a bunch of evolutions deniers. evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-at-different-scales-micro-to-macro/Ok, however, the distinction is essentially practical and educational. It's not necessary like for example the quantum mechanics scale and the general relativity scale. It's like saying that there are tall people and short people. IOW, it's not nomenclatural and is essentially arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jul 25, 2022 14:36:02 GMT
Ok, however, the distinction is essentially practical and educational. It's not necessary like for example the quantum mechanics scale and the general relativity scale. It's like saying that there are tall people and short people. IOW, it's not nomenclatural and is essentially arbitrary. Seems to me that a change to a new species is not arbitrary. A difference in height is not a difference in species.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 14:43:53 GMT
Ok, however, the distinction is essentially practical and educational. It's not necessary like for example the quantum mechanics scale and the general relativity scale. It's like saying that there are tall people and short people. IOW, it's not nomenclatural and is essentially arbitrary. Seems to me that a change to a new species is not arbitrary. A difference in height is not a difference in species. A change in species is not as clear cut as you seem to think for one thing and for another, a simple change in species may be still be part of what is called "microevolution". Next time get better prepared before you make an objection. cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/new-species-evolve-in-just-two-generations/#:~:text=A%20team%20of%20researchers%20led,ground%20finch%20(Geospiz%20fortis).
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jul 25, 2022 15:06:20 GMT
Well, sure, of course. When you want to define a change in species as they did here... still a finch. I am quite prepared, and I am not the simpleton who tried to deny Micro vs Macro evolution.
|
|