|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 30, 2022 13:43:42 GMT
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.
Your reluctance to define species is a circular argument that is basically a reiteration of your premise. “Evolution cannot generate a new species.” How would you know? How would a new species be recognized or identified? “Wellllll…..I can’t…..tell you that. So I’ll say ‘type’ instead.” What evidence would convince that that macro evolution had occurred? |
|
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 14:42:03 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? What is the evidence that one species TYPE CAN change into another species TYPE? So far the lines haven't crossed, and in science, we tend to like to prove a theory before calling it fact or settled. |
|
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 15:05:04 GMT
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.
Your reluctance to define species is a circular argument that is basically a reiteration of your premise. “Evolution cannot generate a new species.” How would you know? How would a new species be recognized or identified? “Wellllll…..I can’t…..tell you that. So I’ll say ‘type’ instead.” What evidence would convince that that macro evolution had occurred? There's no circular argument here from me, just a disputation of YOUR narrow definition of species. I'm looking for clarity, not a debate on word meanings. If semantics cause a block in our debate, we need to get past it.
What is circular is your "how would we know? how can we tell?" narrative, which tells me that we are supposed to take on FAITH that species types somehow blended when we weren't looking and now we can see how it happened. Science doesn't work that way; observation and evidence are needed for a conclusion.
If macro change is gradual over hundreds of millions of years as Darwin proposed, we should see evidence of the steps of those changes in the fossil record. If however, it happened abruptly, what is the mechanism for such a rapid change? Certainly, creatures adapt if they can, but those tend to be small subtle changes that do not reach the level of changing the creature type.
Again, where are the transitional forms, the creatures that are part one TYPE and part another as it progresses to some new creature. Were simians once part fish, bird or reptile? Assuming that they weren't once fish, birds and reptiles, where did that line...yes, that TYPE..... of creatures come from?
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” (Eldredge, Niles, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, 1996, p.95.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 30, 2022 16:16:40 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? What is the evidence that one species TYPE CAN change into another species TYPE? So far the lines haven't crossed, and in science, we tend to like to prove a theory before calling it fact or settled. The fossil record. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 30, 2022 16:18:17 GMT
Your reluctance to define species is a circular argument that is basically a reiteration of your premise. “Evolution cannot generate a new species.” How would you know? How would a new species be recognized or identified? “Wellllll…..I can’t…..tell you that. So I’ll say ‘type’ instead.” What evidence would convince that that macro evolution had occurred? There's no circular argument here from me, just a disputation of YOUR narrow definition of species. I'm looking for clarity, not a debate on word meanings. If semantics cause a block in our debate, we need to get past it.
What is circular is your "how would we know? how can we tell?" narrative, which tells me that we are supposed to take on FAITH that species types somehow blended when we weren't looking and now we can see how it happened. Science doesn't work that way; observation and evidence are needed for a conclusion.
If macro change is gradual over hundreds of millions of years as Darwin proposed, we should see evidence of the steps of those changes in the fossil record. If however, it happened abruptly, what is the mechanism for such a rapid change? Certainly, creatures adapt if they can, but those tend to be small subtle changes that do not reach the level of changing the creature type.
Again, where are the transitional forms, the creatures that are part one TYPE and part another as it progresses to some new creature. Were simians once part fish, bird or reptile? Assuming that they weren't once fish, birds and reptiles, where did that line...yes, that TYPE..... of creatures come from?
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” (Eldredge, Niles, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, 1996, p.95.)
Wait, what? You’re saying we have to be “very careful” with our definition of “species,” but the definition I offered is TOO NARROW?! Are you suggesting we should have a more “relaxed” definition? Wouldn’t it then be actually easier to point to a change in species? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 31, 2022 5:41:44 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2022 19:38:54 GMT
You're quoting from a site that defends Intelligent design. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 31, 2022 21:17:45 GMT
Then there is mega evolution:
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 31, 2022 21:18:16 GMT
You're quoting from a site that defends Intelligent design.
Yeah, I don't subscribe to the Intelligent Design theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 31, 2022 22:51:37 GMT
I'm not sure this paper is defining "microevolution" and "macroevolution" the way some Creationists would. |
|
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 1, 2022 13:50:18 GMT
There's no circular argument here from me, just a disputation of YOUR narrow definition of species. I'm looking for clarity, not a debate on word meanings. If semantics cause a block in our debate, we need to get past it.
What is circular is your "how would we know? how can we tell?" narrative, which tells me that we are supposed to take on FAITH that species types somehow blended when we weren't looking and now we can see how it happened. Science doesn't work that way; observation and evidence are needed for a conclusion.
If macro change is gradual over hundreds of millions of years as Darwin proposed, we should see evidence of the steps of those changes in the fossil record. If however, it happened abruptly, what is the mechanism for such a rapid change? Certainly, creatures adapt if they can, but those tend to be small subtle changes that do not reach the level of changing the creature type.
Again, where are the transitional forms, the creatures that are part one TYPE and part another as it progresses to some new creature. Were simians once part fish, bird or reptile? Assuming that they weren't once fish, birds and reptiles, where did that line...yes, that TYPE..... of creatures come from?
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” (Eldredge, Niles, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, 1996, p.95.)
Wait, what? You’re saying we have to be “very careful” with our definition of “species,” but the definition I offered is TOO NARROW?! Are you suggesting we should have a more “relaxed” definition? Wouldn’t it then be actually easier to point to a change in species? A rodent is a rodent, but a beaver can't mate with a mouse. But they are both the same lineage and same TYPE of creature. No record has been found of these rodents transmogrifying into some other species, and I don't think "Poof! I'm something else!" works either.
Got it now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 1, 2022 17:53:54 GMT
Wait, what? You’re saying we have to be “very careful” with our definition of “species,” but the definition I offered is TOO NARROW?! Are you suggesting we should have a more “relaxed” definition? Wouldn’t it then be actually easier to point to a change in species? A rodent is a rodent, but a beaver can't mate with a mouse. But they are both the same lineage and same TYPE of creature. No record has been found of these rodents transmogrifying into some other species, and I don't think "Poof! I'm something else!" works either.
Got it now?
Not at all. You didn't offer a definition of "species" that was better than my own. You're waffling..."can't be too specific" but "we need to be careful." In fact, your example is even more confusing. A beaver and a rodent are the same "type"...but they can't mate with each other. So...they are the same species? Or they aren't? How about this? Dogs diverge into different breeds until they can no longer mate with one another. At some point, they would become different "species" that would continue to diverge. I mean, this is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos. This is what the fossil record seems to indicate. And what DNA seems to indicate. The fact that we can artificially blend a chihuahua with a Great Dane doesn't affirm that "they can mate" naturally (which would be the the issue for pretty well all of history). This seems...pretty obvious. There seems to be a stubborn insistence that "this can't be the case" for an underlying reason that has nothing to do with actual 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 Aug 2, 2022 19:00:57 GMT
A rodent is a rodent, but a beaver can't mate with a mouse. But they are both the same lineage and same TYPE of creature. No record has been found of these rodents transmogrifying into some other species, and I don't think "Poof! I'm something else!" works either.
Got it now?
Not at all. You didn't offer a definition of "species" that was better than my own. You're waffling..."can't be too specific" but "we need to be careful." In fact, your example is even more confusing. A beaver and a rodent are the same "type"...but they can't mate with each other. So...they are the same species? Or they aren't? How about this? Dogs diverge into different breeds until they can no longer mate with one another. At some point, they would become different "species" that would continue to diverge. I mean, this is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos. This is what the fossil record seems to indicate. And what DNA seems to indicate. The fact that we can artificially blend a chihuahua with a Great Dane doesn't affirm that "they can mate" naturally (which would be the the issue for pretty well all of history). This seems...pretty obvious. There seems to be a stubborn insistence that "this can't be the case" for an underlying reason that has nothing to do with actual evidence. And you've gotten yourself stuck in the weeds with this obsession with the "species" definition. Do you really think that dogs become a different species because they come in different sizes? Dogs wouldn't exist without Intelligent Design, so they would all be wolves in nature. Today, I can't breed a Holstein bull with an Angus cow because the size of the calf would kill the smaller Angus if in nature. By your narrow definition, those cows must be different species, right? Or are the both still bovines just as dogs and wolves are canines. THOSE are the lines that are not broken or crossed through the fictional concept of macro-evolution.
Let's try it this way. The evolutionist's assumption is that, long ago, there was a creature that was not a bovine or a canine that became a bovine or a canine. Or somewhere, millions of years ago, some creature crawled out of the puddle and became a different type of creature.
So, it's simple. Prove that this evolutionary magic happened using fossil evidence. There should be a creature that's part bovine and part not a bovine in the fossil record (or tens of thousands of such fossils, if Darwin was right) that shows the switch from one creature type to another.
Show me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2022 19:53:53 GMT
Not at all. You didn't offer a definition of "species" that was better than my own. You're waffling..."can't be too specific" but "we need to be careful." In fact, your example is even more confusing. A beaver and a rodent are the same "type"...but they can't mate with each other. So...they are the same species? Or they aren't? How about this? Dogs diverge into different breeds until they can no longer mate with one another. At some point, they would become different "species" that would continue to diverge. I mean, this is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos. This is what the fossil record seems to indicate. And what DNA seems to indicate. The fact that we can artificially blend a chihuahua with a Great Dane doesn't affirm that "they can mate" naturally (which would be the the issue for pretty well all of history). This seems...pretty obvious. There seems to be a stubborn insistence that "this can't be the case" for an underlying reason that has nothing to do with actual evidence. And you've gotten yourself stuck in the weeds with this obsession with the "species" definition. Do you really think that dogs become a different species because they come in different sizes? Dogs wouldn't exist without Intelligent Design, so they would all be wolves in nature. Today, I can't breed a Holstein bull with an Angus cow because the size of the calf would kill the smaller Angus if in nature. By your narrow definition, those cows must be different species, right? Or are the both still bovines just as dogs and wolves are canines. THOSE are the lines that are not broken or crossed through the fictional concept of macro-evolution.
Let's try it this way. The evolutionist's assumption is that, long ago, there was a creature that was not a bovine or a canine that became a bovine or a canine. Or somewhere, millions of years ago, some creature crawled out of the puddle and became a different type of creature.
So, it's simple. Prove that this evolutionary magic happened using fossil evidence. There should be a creature that's part bovine and part not a bovine in the fossil record (or tens of thousands of such fossils, if Darwin was right) that shows the switch from one creature type to another.
Show me.
As opposed to the magic of species appearing out of thin air... Boy, are you stupid! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 2, 2022 20:45:21 GMT
Not at all. You didn't offer a definition of "species" that was better than my own. You're waffling..."can't be too specific" but "we need to be careful." In fact, your example is even more confusing. A beaver and a rodent are the same "type"...but they can't mate with each other. So...they are the same species? Or they aren't? How about this? Dogs diverge into different breeds until they can no longer mate with one another. At some point, they would become different "species" that would continue to diverge. I mean, this is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos. This is what the fossil record seems to indicate. And what DNA seems to indicate. The fact that we can artificially blend a chihuahua with a Great Dane doesn't affirm that "they can mate" naturally (which would be the the issue for pretty well all of history). This seems...pretty obvious. There seems to be a stubborn insistence that "this can't be the case" for an underlying reason that has nothing to do with actual evidence. And you've gotten yourself stuck in the weeds with this obsession with the "species" definition. Do you really think that dogs become a different species because they come in different sizes? Dogs wouldn't exist without Intelligent Design, so they would all be wolves in nature. Today, I can't breed a Holstein bull with an Angus cow because the size of the calf would kill the smaller Angus if in nature. By your narrow definition, those cows must be different species, right? Or are the both still bovines just as dogs and wolves are canines. THOSE are the lines that are not broken or crossed through the fictional concept of macro-evolution.
Let's try it this way. The evolutionist's assumption is that, long ago, there was a creature that was not a bovine or a canine that became a bovine or a canine. Or somewhere, millions of years ago, some creature crawled out of the puddle and became a different type of creature.
So, it's simple. Prove that this evolutionary magic happened using fossil evidence. There should be a creature that's part bovine and part not a bovine in the fossil record (or tens of thousands of such fossils, if Darwin was right) that shows the switch from one creature type to another.
Show me.
There is no "proof." But there is a "best fit explanation" (which coincides coincidentally with the same kind of "progression" that exists in DNA). But a converse challenge exists: 1. Why are there so many animals in the fossil record that don't exist today? 2. Why do animals that exist today not exist in the fossil record? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2022 21:21:22 GMT
And you've gotten yourself stuck in the weeds with this obsession with the "species" definition. Do you really think that dogs become a different species because they come in different sizes? Dogs wouldn't exist without Intelligent Design, so they would all be wolves in nature. Today, I can't breed a Holstein bull with an Angus cow because the size of the calf would kill the smaller Angus if in nature. By your narrow definition, those cows must be different species, right? Or are the both still bovines just as dogs and wolves are canines. THOSE are the lines that are not broken or crossed through the fictional concept of macro-evolution.
Let's try it this way. The evolutionist's assumption is that, long ago, there was a creature that was not a bovine or a canine that became a bovine or a canine. Or somewhere, millions of years ago, some creature crawled out of the puddle and became a different type of creature.
So, it's simple. Prove that this evolutionary magic happened using fossil evidence. There should be a creature that's part bovine and part not a bovine in the fossil record (or tens of thousands of such fossils, if Darwin was right) that shows the switch from one creature type to another.
Show me.
There is no "proof." But there is a "best fit explanation" (which coincides coincidentally with the same kind of "progression" that exists in DNA). But a converse challenge exists: 1. Why are there so many animals in the fossil record that don't exist today? 2. Why do animals that exist today not exist in the fossil record? How about when the most evolved forms of life were protozoa? None of the millions of current multicellular species existed back then. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 2, 2022 23:34:55 GMT
Opinions such as expressed by RWNJ's like Paleo are sterling examples of underlying micro-cephalic syndrome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 2, 2022 23:49:54 GMT
There are a lot of posts here that add nothing substantial to the conversation. Insulting someone just because they have a different perspective or opinion is weak, petty, and says more about the poster than the person they are trying to insult.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2022 4:42:32 GMT
Micro/Macro/Mega Evolution appears to be a Creationist Scam...
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2022 4:47:53 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.
|
|
