695 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 29 October 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Define 'macro-evolution'. Given it isn't a scientific term, and creationists invented it (and happen to give a slew of contradictory definitions of it), you'll need to give us an idea of what you want.

Check swede's first link,which claims to provide proof for macroevolution in multicellular animals.Though there is no empirical proof for the core claim there,the same old pointing out of two completely formed distinct species and then claiming one evolved from the other.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Check swede's first link,which claims to provide proof for macroevolution in multicellular animals.Though there is no empirical proof for the core claim there,the same old pointing out of two completely formed distinct species and then claiming one evolved from the other.

Don't dodge the question. In a sentence or two, define for me what "macro-evolution" is for you. (Again, evolutionary biology never claimed there should be anything other than completely-formed organisms; you still haven't given me your personal definition of "species" either.)

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 29 October 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Don't dodge the question. In a sentence or two, define for me what "macro-evolution" is for you. (Again, evolutionary biology never claimed there should be anything other than completely-formed organisms; you still haven't given me your personal definition of "species" either.)

Say 'class transitions' as an index,since you choose to define speciation=reproductive isolation in bacteria.
Personal definition of species,i don't have one.But i know that just acheiving temporary reproductive isolation in bacteria (which eventually revert to wild type hence cannot be extrpolated to prove any sort of evolution) cannot be the only index for speciation.Ther is no major morphological change,the bacteria still remains bacteria being identical in almost all aspects but just uncapable of interbreeding with wild type due to delterious negative mutation.
Other then that there was no Darwinistic principle at work for such reproductive isolation in the experiment,it was a random negative mutation.Extrapolating that to any sort of evolution can just be termed daft without empirical proof to back the claim.(Don't state examples of 'variations' (or so called microevolution) again.)

Another creative way to define 'Macroevolution' can be acheived by equating it with the 'extrapolations made by evolutionist' based on variations.So Macro evolution=extrapolations made by evolutionists.

An interesting definition that can be alternative to species can be a 'Kind',i.e a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings.(since species is defined as a group of organisms that cannot interbreed,'Kind' can be the positive of the statment.A horse and a donkey are considered to be sperate species but they can reproduce to give mules,so species even now is not a very well defined fool proof concept.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Say 'class transitions' as an index,since you choose to define speciation=reproductive isolation in bacteria.

I choose to define it that way because that is the definition.

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Personal definition of species,i don't have one.But i know that just acheiving temporary reproductive isolation in bacteria (which eventually revert to wild type hence cannot be extrpolated to prove any sort of evolution) cannot be the only index for speciation.Ther is no major morphological change,the bacteria still remains bacteria being identical in almost all aspects but just uncapable of interbreeding with wild type due to delterious negative mutation.

There are very few morphological differences between Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu; morphology needn't be brought into this. And again, if you're looking for class transitions, I've given you numerous examples already, though you ignored them.

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Other then that there was no Darwinistic principle at work for such reproductive isolation in the experiment,it was a random negative mutation.Extrapolating that to any sort of evolution can just be termed daft without empirical proof to back the claim.(Don't state examples of 'variations' (or so called microevolution) again.)

Evolution needn't be Darwinistic; many evolution experiments dabble in non-Darwinian mechanisms. Artificial selection is a more useful example of experiments in Darwinian principles; though of course his was natural selection (there isn't much of a difference between the two). And again, variation is a subset of evolution; if you consider yourself a "variation" of your parents' combined genomes, then so be it, but you are evolved from them, by definition. You needn't be a different species from your parents to have evolved. You've ignored my previous explanation of this concept.

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Another creative way to define 'Macroevolution' can be acheived by equating it with the 'extrapolations made by evolutionist' based on variations.So Macro evolution=extrapolations made by evolutionists.

What a meaningless statement. You still aren't giving me any answers.

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

An interesting definition that can be alternative to species can be a 'Kind',i.e a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings.(since species is defined as a group of organisms that cannot interbreed,'Kind' can be the positive of the statment.A horse and a donkey are considered to be sperate species but they can reproduce to give mules,so species even now is not a very well defined fool proof concept.

No species is not a perfect concept, because it was established before we understood genetics. It's better now than in Linnaeus' or Darwin's times, but still incomplete, because the concept itself is based on premises in science which predated a great deal of very significant information. Yes, donkeys and horses are different species; yes, they can interbreed. The offspring however, mules, are sterile/infertile. This is a demonstration of the speciation which occurred between horses and donkeys (I've explained this before, and you ignored it, but I'll do it again...). The horse and the donkey are indeed different species, but they are still closely-enough related that semi-viable offspring are possible. Mules, however, are not fully viable organisms; they cannot reproduce, due to the discordance in their genomes caused by the combination of the weakly-compatible gametes of the horse and the donkey. The horse and donkey are descended from a single ancestor species; they are still in the process of diverging from that ancestor, and have not yet reached the point of total reproductive isolation. In a few thousand years, however, provided both populations have not gone extinct, it is perfectly plausible to think that they will have completely diverged, based upon our knowledge of genetics and biology; or, alternatively, something even stranger could happen: namely, that the two species could begin to converge, and mules might become a viable, independent species. One of these possibilities is inevitable to occur; or possibly even both (what if one population set diverged fully, while another population set converged?).

[Harsh86_Patel]

You are the one who is supposed to give me answers."macroevolution'=extrapolations made by evolutionist.
If you are not yet beyond reason you can very well isolate the extrapolations made in the theory of evolution without empirical evidence to support it,you can spot them and give empirical proof for the same.

And now we have shifted to non-darwinistic mechanisms,i can see you shifting the goal post now.This is what i meant when i said that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable since everytime one unintelligent process is dismissed a new one is suggested in it's stead,so there are a countless unintelligent processes to dismiss before we can falsify the theory of evolution.Evolutionists have been serving the role of 'evolution apologists' ever since major breakthroughs in Biology have been surfacing in the last 45 years.

Species is not a perfect concept same reason speciation cannot be equated with reproductive isolation in bacteria in the laboratory only.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

You are the one who is supposed to give me answers."macroevolution'=extrapolations made by evolutionist.

False.

And incidentally, I have been giving you answers: you've just been ignoring all of them.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

If you are not yet beyond reason you can very well isolate the extrapolations made in the theory of evolution without empirical evidence to support it,you can spot them and give empirical proof for the same.

I could if they existed outside of your imagination.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

And now we have shifted to non-darwinistic mechanisms,i can see you shifting the goal post now.

I don't think you understand what shifting the goal-posts is.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

This is what i meant when i said that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable since everytime one unintelligent process is dismissed a new one is suggested in it's stead,so there are a countless unintelligent processes to dismiss before we can falsify the theory of evolution.Evolutionists have been serving the role of 'evolution apologists' ever since major breakthroughs in Biology have been surfacing in the last 45 years.

You seem to be under the impression that things are disproved, and then the scientists have to invent some completely novel answer out of thin air. No, when a hypothesis is shown false or incomplete, then scientific response is to replace or modify it based on the context of the evidence which disproved it in the first place. Evolutionary biologists have served as "apologists" about as much as NASA technicians have served as exorcists (i.e., not at all).

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Species is not a perfect concept same reason speciation cannot be equated with reproductive isolation in bacteria in the laboratory only.

Species isn't a perfect concept, but to suggest it's so worthless that it can't be used to differentiate between reproductively-isolated population groups is idiotic (particularly because that is the concept which the term species defines to begin with).

Edited by Arbitran, 30 October 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 30 October 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

False.

And incidentally, I have been giving you answers: you've just been ignoring all of them.



I could if they existed outside of your imagination.



I don't think you understand what shifting the goal-posts is.



You seem to be under the impression that things are disproved, and then the scientists have to invent some completely novel answer out of thin air. No, when a hypothesis is shown false or incomplete, then scientific response is to replace or modify it based on the context of the evidence which disproved it in the first place. Evolutionary biologists have served as "apologists" about as much as NASA technicians have served as exorcists (i.e., not at all).



Species isn't a perfect concept, but to suggest it's so worthless that it can't be used to differentiate between reproductively-isolated population groups is idiotic (particularly because that is the concept which the term species defines to begin with).

Yes evolutionist have shifted the goal post everytime there has been a major breakthrough in Biology..........Genetic mutations is a good example.Genetic mutations being the cause for natural selection to act on and thus cause evolution was hypothesied in 1960/70 after the advent of Genetics.Similarly now everything has boiled down to the 'Duplicate Gene' hypothesis,everytime a suggested mode of evolution is refuted or debunked the evolutionist come up with a new apology.
You have not given me any coherent answers,i asked for empirical evidence and all you have been giving me is elaborate stories.

And when you write false what do you mean by it? Does it mean "evolutionist observe variation and extrapolate it to speciation and class transitions" is false or Macroevolution is false?

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Yes evolutionist have shifted the goal post everytime there has been a major breakthrough in Biology..........Genetic mutations is a good example.Genetic mutations being the cause for natural selection to act on and thus cause evolution was hypothesied in 1960/70 after the advent of Genetics.

I rest my case: you have no idea what shifting the goal-posts means. Anyway, yes, natural selection acts through genetics; one doesn't need to know what a gene is to know how the principle applies. Breeders have been utilizing artificial selection for thousands of years without having known what a gene was. Darwin too, saw the principle at work, of heredity (now a subset of our modern science of genetics, of course), and observed its mechanics.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Similarly now everything has boiled down to the 'Duplicate Gene' hypothesis,everytime a suggested mode of evolution is refuted or debunked the evolutionist come up with a new apology.

Wow, you don't even know what an apologist is. It doesn't have anything to do with apologizing, incidentally.

Again, if a hypothesis in science is called into question, then it is either modified, or a new model is made to correlate to observed data; what about that is hard to understand? Do you expect science to stop when a hypothesis is challenged? Either way, very little in the way of the founding principle of evolution has been changed: because absolutely every discovery and observation ever made corresponds perfectly to its predictions.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

You have not given me any coherent answers,i asked for empirical evidence and all you have been giving me is elaborate stories.

I don't even think you know what you're asking for. I certainly don't. Just asking for "empirical evidence" is meaningless, since it's overwhelmingly clear that you have a different definition of that term from the scientific one I'm familiar with. Please, define "empirical evidence" for us, and I'll respond. As I've said, evolution is proven empirically beyond any doubt in science; but then, since you aren't really using the scientific definitions of things, kindly explain what it is you'd like us to do.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

And when you write false what do you mean by it? Does it mean "evolutionist observe variation and extrapolate it to speciation and class transitions" is false or Macroevolution is false?

Your insinuation that "evolutionists" extrapolate things (they do, sometimes) is irrelevant, and false. Partly false. Variation is not speciation; variation will inevitably lead to speciation, however. Yes, this is an extrapolation; in the same way that saying that a pebble falling from space will eventually hit the ground is an extrapolation. "Macro-evolution" isn't a scientific term. Again, please either use scientific terminology, or define your non-scientific terminology for us.

[docyabut2]

How can any one dispute evolution when every living creature has two eyes.:)

[Harsh86_Patel]

docyabut2, on 30 October 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

How can any one dispute evolution when every living creature has two eyes.

lol.It can also mean that all creatures were created by the same designer.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 30 October 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

I rest my case: you have no idea what shifting the goal-posts means. Anyway, yes, natural selection acts through genetics; one doesn't need to know what a gene is to know how the principle applies. Breeders have been utilizing artificial selection for thousands of years without having known what a gene was. Darwin too, saw the principle at work, of heredity (now a subset of our modern science of genetics, of course), and observed its mechanics.



Wow, you don't even know what an apologist is. It doesn't have anything to do with apologizing, incidentally.

Again, if a hypothesis in science is called into question, then it is either modified, or a new model is made to correlate to observed data; what about that is hard to understand? Do you expect science to stop when a hypothesis is challenged? Either way, very little in the way of the founding principle of evolution has been changed: because absolutely every discovery and observation ever made corresponds perfectly to its predictions.



I don't even think you know what you're asking for. I certainly don't. Just asking for "empirical evidence" is meaningless, since it's overwhelmingly clear that you have a different definition of that term from the scientific one I'm familiar with. Please, define "empirical evidence" for us, and I'll respond. As I've said, evolution is proven empirically beyond any doubt in science; but then, since you aren't really using the scientific definitions of things, kindly explain what it is you'd like us to do.



Your insinuation that "evolutionists" extrapolate things (they do, sometimes) is irrelevant, and false. Partly false. Variation is not speciation; variation will inevitably lead to speciation, however. Yes, this is an extrapolation; in the same way that saying that a pebble falling from space will eventually hit the ground is an extrapolation. "Macro-evolution" isn't a scientific term. Again, please either use scientific terminology, or define your non-scientific terminology for us.

Neither do you have any idea of what shifting a goal post is,i never shifted my goal post which was always to deny 'Macroevolution' since it has no empirical proof to back it.You accused me of shifting goal posts when i did nothing of that sort.So if you can attribute special meaning to 'shifting the goal post" so can I.

Variation doesn't lead to speciation,is pretty evident and well documented by the scoers of animal breeders,plant breeders etc,there are limits to variation which is known by farmers and breeders way before Darwin or his stupid theory.Darwin ignored the empirical evidence existing in his times regarding these same limitations of variation to forge his fairytale.It is hardly rational to equate "variation leads to speciation" to "a falling pebble hitting the gorund".

I defined the term 'Macroevolution' very clearly for you on three occasions now.This will be four 'Macro-Evolution'=Extrapolations made by evolutionists for eg-class transitions.

Hypothesis in science are also shelved if core contentions of the hypothesis are repeatedly falsified,choosing and inventing stories to supplemant falsified hypothesis is the bread and butter of evolutionist apologists.

Regarding meaning of empirical: i will post the definition that i adhere to and surprisingly it is listed first on google search.


em·pir·i·cal/emˈpirikəl/


Adjective: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Synonyms: empiric - experiential - experimental


https://www.google.c...iw=1366&bih=677

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Neither do you have any idea of what shifting a goal post is,i never shifted my goal post which was always to deny 'Macroevolution' since it has no empirical proof to back it.

You have no idea what shifting the goal-posts means; kindly prove me wrong by defining it, in your own words.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

You accused me of shifting goal posts when i did nothing of that sort.So if you can attribute special meaning to 'shifting the goal post" so can I.

You certainly have taken that initiative; I simply request you use the established definitions of words, not your own invented definitions.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Variation doesn't lead to speciation,is pretty evident and well documented by the scoers of animal breeders,plant breeders etc,there are limits to variation which is known by farmers and breeders way before Darwin or his stupid theory.

False. Cite just one scientific paper which proposes a limit to biological change through the principle of natural/artificial selection.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Darwin ignored the empirical evidence existing in his times regarding these same limitations of variation to forge his fairytale.It is hardly rational to equate "variation leads to speciation" to "a falling pebble hitting the gorund".

Darwin didn't ignore any evidence which existed at his time. You're just pulling claims out of your ass now.

And no, it isn't irrational at all to equate variation-speciation inevitability with falling-pebble inevitability; not if you understand how biology works.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

I defined the term 'Macroevolution' very clearly for you on three occasions now.This will be four 'Macro-Evolution'=Extrapolations made by evolutionists for eg-class transitions.

Which is an entirely meaningless definition, devoid of useful content.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Hypothesis in science are also shelved if core contentions of the hypothesis are repeatedly falsified,choosing and inventing stories to supplemant falsified hypothesis is the bread and butter of evolutionist apologists.

Again, you're just inventing stories out of your ass now. You simply don't understand how science works, at all.

Harsh86_Patel, on 30 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Regarding meaning of empirical: i will post the definition that i adhere to and surprisingly it is listed first on google search.


em·pir·i·cal/emˈpirikəl/


Adjective: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Synonyms: empiric - experiential - experimental


https://www.google.c...iw=1366&bih=677

At least we agree on the definition. And based on that definition, yes, for the n^th time, evolution has been proven empirically.

[cormac mac airt]

Arbitran, on 30 October 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

You have no idea what shifting the goal-posts means; kindly prove me wrong by defining it, in your own words.



You certainly have taken that initiative; I simply request you use the established definitions of words, not your own invented definitions.



False. Cite just one scientific paper which proposes a limit to biological change through the principle of natural/artificial selection.



Darwin didn't ignore any evidence which existed at his time. You're just pulling claims out of your ass now.

And no, it isn't irrational at all to equate variation-speciation inevitability with falling-pebble inevitability; not if you understand how biology works.



Which is an entirely meaningless definition, devoid of useful content.



Again, you're just inventing stories out of your ass now. You simply don't understand how science works, at all.



At least we agree on the definition. And based on that definition, yes, for the n^th time, evolution has been proven empirically.

Props to you Arbitran. You've got a great deal of patience it seems. Just remember, when debating the willfully ignorant quite often they'll attempt to pull you down to their level of ignorance and beat the hell out of you with it.

cormac

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 29 October 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

Look at yourself in the mirror and repeat what you believe regarding evolution,and you will have ample proof for the 'evolutionist world view regime'.

And swede 'Macro evolution' in multicellualr animals' has never been observed,the articles you posted don't have an ounce of empirical experimental proof i.e they are stories weaved by evolutionists,remove your evolution glasses and read the same articles you posted.(assume you are skeptical of evolution and read the same article and ask yourself whether this sort of proof is enough?)

Given your fondness for dictionary definitions (and your apparent attempts to manipulate such):

re·gime also ré·gime  (r-zhm, r-)n.1.
a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration.


regime, régime [reɪˈʒiːm]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a system of government or a particular administration.

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/regime

These are the primary contemporary definitions. Social conceptualizations play a somewhat secondary role.

Despite my technical contributions to the sciences, it would be quite difficult to consider these contributions to be of the level of the accepted definitions. Was quite unaware of the extent of my authority. Will need to be mindful of such.

Sarcasm aside - Please define "observed" as per the definition of empirical evidence. Would you now be suggesting that genetic research is not empirical? Morphology? Etc. Realize that the above are rather redundant. You would appear to have difficulty in providing credible references to support your position. And you are aware of the position of Class differentiations in the phylogenic "tree"?

Note: Will be out of contact for one to two weeks due to professional research obligations.

.

[kmt_sesh]

Swede, best wishes on your research. You will be missed...so hurry back, dammit!

cormac mac airt, on 30 October 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Props to you Arbitran. You've got a great deal of patience it seems. Just remember, when debating the willfully ignorant quite often they'll attempt to pull you down to their level of ignorance and beat the hell out of you with it.

cormac

Is that anything like getting beaten by the ugly stick?