|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 25, 2022 15:50:02 GMT
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. Now define “species.” |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Jul 25, 2022 16:04:40 GMT
Change in species. A dog might be bred over thousands of years, as you mentioned earlier, but it is still a dog. Now define “species.” It might help if you just got to whatever point you want to make here instead of thinking I can't just google and past a definition of species here. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 25, 2022 18:14:26 GMT
It might help if you just got to whatever point you want to make here instead of thinking I can't just google and past a definition of species here. Let me offer a suggestion then, sort of a "layman definition" of "species," and you tell me what you think: A species is a kind of animal that can reproduce with others of its kind, such that its offspring can also reproduce (which rules out, say, mules and other offspring that cannot reproduce at all). Does that work? |
|
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 28, 2022 18:18:31 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?
Where is the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution? Again, show me the transition point from one species to a different one. We have a line of fossils for most animals that show micro variations, but none that show a transition to a different species. The "line" that you ask for has not been crossed in the fossil record so there is no line. A full transition from one species to another would take hundreds of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of natural iterations and failed branches, yet the record shows no transitional fossils to support this. A prehistoric beaver might have turned into several different lines of similar creatures today, but the basic physiology is still a rodent, not a lizard, horse or insect.
None of these creature types seem to have ever "jumped the rails". They all appear fully formed without a myriad of transitional forms. Nothing.
|
|
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 28, 2022 18:20:42 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. For an atheist, stupid is where you reside. But evolution offers not alternative explanation, so the mystery remains. Species seem to just appear fully formed in the record. What you imagine happened is also a fairy tale without evidence. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2022 19:13:07 GMT
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. For an atheist, stupid is where you reside. But evolution offers not alternative explanation, so the mystery remains. Species seem to just appear fully formed in the record. What you imagine happened is also a fairy tale without evidence. So ID is the theory of "we don't know"... Talk about useless, worse than useless, noxious. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 28, 2022 19:19:03 GMT
Where is the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution? Again, show me the transition point from one species to a different one. We have a line of fossils for most animals that show micro variations, but none that show a transition to a different species. The "line" that you ask for has not been crossed in the fossil record so there is no line. A full transition from one species to another would take hundreds of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of natural iterations and failed branches, yet the record shows no transitional fossils to support this. A prehistoric beaver might have turned into several different lines of similar creatures today, but the basic physiology is still a rodent, not a lizard, horse or insect.
None of these creature types seem to have ever "jumped the rails". They all appear fully formed without a myriad of transitional forms. Nothing.
You have yet to define "species." You want a transition point from one species to the next? You have to define what you mean by "species." I offered a definition. Do you accept it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 28, 2022 19:19:49 GMT
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. For an atheist, stupid is where you reside. But evolution offers not alternative explanation, so the mystery remains. Species seem to just appear fully formed in the record. What you imagine happened is also a fairy tale without evidence. Not quite. Evolution provides part of the answer. Maybe not all of the answer. We're kind of used to that in other areas of life. Why does this area require special scrutiny? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 28, 2022 23:46:38 GMT
So here I'm still wondering.
Is the whole micro vs macro evolution schtick simply a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss the whole theory of evolution and, in turn, scientific thought, and put in its place a clearly non-scientific and obsequious homage to religious doctrine?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 28, 2022 23:57:25 GMT
So here I'm still wondering. Is the whole micro vs macro evolution schtick simply a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss the whole theory of evolution and, in turn, scientific thought, and put in its place a clearly non-scientific and obsequious homage to religious doctrine? Not really. I think it's the concern that God as Creator has been removed from the Creative process. In one sense it is the "maintenance of gaps" so that God can fill them. In other senses, there are potential challenges to Christian doctrines like "the Fall," which itself is seen as a foundation for Jesus' redemption of mankind. I mean, when well-known people make claims like "evolution gave me permission to be an atheist," you can see that the stakes can be high. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 29, 2022 0:01:55 GMT
So here I'm still wondering. Is the whole micro vs macro evolution schtick simply a thinly veiled attempt to dismiss the whole theory of evolution and, in turn, scientific thought, and put in its place a clearly non-scientific and obsequious homage to religious doctrine? Not really. I think it's the concern that God as Creator has been removed from the Creative process. In one sense it is the "maintenance of gaps" so that God can fill them. In other senses, there are potential challenges to Christian doctrines like "the Fall," which itself is seen as a foundation for Jesus' redemption of mankind. I mean, when well-known people make claims like "evolution gave me permission to be an atheist," you can see that the stakes can be high.
Yeah, freedom of religion in the US Constitution means that nobody needs permission to be an atheist.
It's settled, except for those religious nuts who cannot accept reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 29, 2022 1:16:23 GMT
Not really. I think it's the concern that God as Creator has been removed from the Creative process. In one sense it is the "maintenance of gaps" so that God can fill them. In other senses, there are potential challenges to Christian doctrines like "the Fall," which itself is seen as a foundation for Jesus' redemption of mankind. I mean, when well-known people make claims like "evolution gave me permission to be an atheist," you can see that the stakes can be high.
Yeah, freedom of religion in the US Constitution means that nobody needs permission to be an atheist.
It's settled, except for those religious nuts who cannot accept reality.
"Intellectual freedom." |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 29, 2022 1:22:32 GMT
Yeah, freedom of religion in the US Constitution means that nobody needs permission to be an atheist.
It's settled, except for those religious nuts who cannot accept reality.
"Intellectual freedom."
Please cite the passage in the Constitution that guarantees "intellectual freedom"...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 29, 2022 15:28:09 GMT
Please cite the passage in the Constitution that guarantees "intellectual freedom"...
Excuse me, what? This is not politics. People have said that they felt capable of being atheist because evolution "game them permission to." Like...intellectual permission. Reason. Rationale. Not everything is defined by the U.S. Constitution, you know... |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 29, 2022 15:35:01 GMT
Please cite the passage in the Constitution that guarantees "intellectual freedom"...
Excuse me, what? This is not politics. People have said that they felt capable of being atheist because evolution "game them permission to." Like...intellectual permission. Reason. Rationale. Not everything is defined by the U.S. Constitution, you know...
Did you miss this?:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 29, 2022 17:44:33 GMT
Excuse me, what? This is not politics. People have said that they felt capable of being atheist because evolution "game them permission to." Like...intellectual permission. Reason. Rationale. Not everything is defined by the U.S. Constitution, you know...
Did you miss this?:
Did you miss that the people saying this were not looking for legal permission? And maybe weren't even American? If someone says, "Evolution gave me the freedom [or permission] to be an atheist," and you respond with, "You're already free to be an atheist, you don't need permission," you are... Completely. Missing. The. Point. I am literally shaking my head right now. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 29, 2022 22:36:02 GMT
Did you miss that the people saying this were not looking for legal permission? And maybe weren't even American? If someone says, "Evolution gave me the freedom [or permission] to be an atheist," and you respond with, "You're already free to be an atheist, you don't need permission," you are... Completely. Missing. The. Point. I am literally shaking my head right now.
Perhaps you should literally shake your head more often.
To get the cobwebs out.
|
|
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 30, 2022 3:53:04 GMT
For an atheist, stupid is where you reside. But evolution offers not alternative explanation, so the mystery remains. Species seem to just appear fully formed in the record. What you imagine happened is also a fairy tale without evidence. So ID is the theory of "we don't know"... Talk about useless, worse than useless, noxious. And macro-evolution is the theory of "we make sh*t up without evidence and pretend it's settled because science". It's a fairy tale and you are a zealot defending that tenet of your atheist religion. |
|
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 30, 2022 3:57:15 GMT
For an atheist, stupid is where you reside. But evolution offers not alternative explanation, so the mystery remains. Species seem to just appear fully formed in the record. What you imagine happened is also a fairy tale without evidence. Not quite. Evolution provides part of the answer. Maybe not all of the answer. We're kind of used to that in other areas of life. Why does this area require special scrutiny? Primarily because these evolution absolutists demand that we must accept that evolution explains everything, debunks our religious beliefs and is settled science, regardless of the fact that it's an flawed, incomplete theory full of gigantic holes.
|
|
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 30, 2022 4:36:40 GMT
Again, show me the transition point from one species to a different one. We have a line of fossils for most animals that show micro variations, but none that show a transition to a different species. The "line" that you ask for has not been crossed in the fossil record so there is no line. A full transition from one species to another would take hundreds of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of natural iterations and failed branches, yet the record shows no transitional fossils to support this. A prehistoric beaver might have turned into several different lines of similar creatures today, but the basic physiology is still a rodent, not a lizard, horse or insect.
None of these creature types seem to have ever "jumped the rails". They all appear fully formed without a myriad of transitional forms. Nothing.
You have yet to define "species." You want a transition point from one species to the next? You have to define what you mean by "species." I offered a definition. Do you accept it? As I said before, 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 chihuahua 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. A bald eagle can't have offspring with a tiny finch, but each are certainly birds.
Perhaps "genus" is a better term if species is confusing you. Crossover among types of creatures is macro-evolution and there's no proof that this happens at all.
Canines remain canines, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, fish remain fish, even apes remain apes. Hundreds of millions of years have made micro evolutionary changes and variations in creature TYPES, but the TYPES have remained linear.
This lack of fossil evidence of macro transformations combined with the statistically astronomical iterations required to make significant improvements in cascading phases makes macro-evolution a fairy tale that makes Grimm look like a piker.
|
|
