Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheCosmicMind

Ice Age Civilization

696 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.in/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=empirical+meaning&oq=empirical+meaning&gs_l=hp.3..0l7j0i30l3.3045.4610.2.5223.8.8.0.0.0.0.521.3394.3-3j3j2.8.0.les%3Beqrwrth..0.0...1.1.jrVezBU81Mo&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=920de22a0ec09ff3&bpcl=36601534&biw=1366&bih=677

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 nth time, evolution has been proven empirically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 nth 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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 (ramacr.gif-zhemacr.gifmprime.gif, ribreve.gif-)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.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Is that anything like getting beaten by the ugly stick? :w00t:

Not quite. Willfull ignorance is self-inflicted. :lol:

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 nth time, evolution has been proven empirically.

You said variation leads to speciation and evolution which is a false premise.A good analogy is "you look at a man jumping 5 feet high and extrapolate that after billions of years and random genetic mutations the man will start flying"

Macroevolution has not been proved empirically,there would be no debate otherwise.Only variations have been proved empirically,which is a fact that was never contested.

I understand how science works very well,and the only two black sheep that the scientific community has are evolutionists and a few astrophysicists.

Variations have been taking place naturally and artificially (by breeders etc) and have been observed for quite some time now and there has been not even a single case of variation leading to speciation and class transitions naturally.

Darwin ignored the above empirical evidence which was available to him.He ignored that variations have limitations and there is a strong tendency for the population to always return to wild type over a couple of generations.His theory bodered on illogical irrational fringe when he put it forward,and his suscribers since then i.e evolutionists (Darwinists)are comparable to the modern cult of UFO abductees.

Darwin observed beak 'variations' in Finches and extrapolated evolution and speciation.(If you argue that finches were not important then please highlight what Darwin based his theory on.)

http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112&Itemid=67

Darwin was a Fringe Conmen very comaprable to David Icke of modern times and suckers called evolutionists bought into his ramblings without any sort of empirical evidence and under false premises.The only beneficial effect of Darwin's theory was to give an excuse to many atheists to liberate many people from biblical creationist views and no other gain was acheived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

re·gime also ré·gime (ramacr.gif-zhemacr.gifmprime.gif, ribreve.gif-)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.

.

Thank you for defining regime.That is exactly the context in which i used the word when i said 'evolutionist world view regime' that is sadly dominating the current Biological Academia.

Observed empirical evidence works perfectly for genetics and almost all other feilds of real science other then for the two black sheep that i mentioned in my previous post to Tran and few other psuedosciences.

And it is good to know that such intelligent minds like yours are given reseach grants to do research,hope it's not for the elusive empirical proof for macroevolution.

Any which ways best of luck for your research and remember with great amount of research grants comes great scientific responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. Willfull ignorance is self-inflicted. :lol:

cormac

Soft trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft trolling?

Self descriptive?

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said variation leads to speciation and evolution which is a false premise.A good analogy is "you look at a man jumping 5 feet high and extrapolate that after billions of years and random genetic mutations the man will start flying"

What an absurd analogy. You can't simply declare evolutionary biology false because you don't understand it; which you absolutely do not.

Macroevolution has not been proved empirically,there would be no debate otherwise.Only variations have been proved empirically,which is a fact that was never contested.

Yes, it has been proved empirically, and again (STOP ******* IGNORING EVERYTHING I SAY), there is no debate among scientists. It's just the lay, uneducated creationists with a vested interest in disseminating misinformation and propaganda that muddle the facts for those (such as yourself) who don't know enough about evolution to differentiate between valid and invalid points. Yes, variations have been empirically; your assertion that evolution has not been is untenable, given that it has, and you have been provided with numerous (but by no means any large portion of the existing) examples of such.

I understand how science works very well,and the only two black sheep that the scientific community has are evolutionists and a few astrophysicists.

If you really understood how science works, you wouldn't have a number of scientists telling you that you don't, now would you?

Variations have been taking place naturally and artificially (by breeders etc) and have been observed for quite some time now and there has been not even a single case of variation leading to speciation and class transitions naturally.

We've been over this: your claim is false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm#Transitionals

http://darwiniana.org/horses.htm#Horses

http://darwiniana.org/dinobirds.htm#Birds

http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm#whales

Just because a process takes longer to happen than we have time to watch, doesn't mean that it's impossible; that's like saying that a man can take a single step, but putting together a series of steps and walking down the street is impossible. Class transitions and the empirical evidence for them have cropped up dozens of times in the history of our planet; but they do happen to take a very long time to happen. And as has been explained to you before, the distinctions between one class and another are purely man-made; in nature it's much harder to tell where one begins and the other ends. You don't seem to understand the concept of a continuum of organisms.

Darwin ignored the above empirical evidence which was available to him.He ignored that variations have limitations and there is a strong tendency for the population to always return to wild type over a couple of generations.

Sheer nonsense. Variation has only as much limitation as mutation (i.e., virtually none), and populations almost never return to ancestral haplotypical forms. If that were true, every dog on Earth would be a wolf right now; humans have been breeding dogs for tens of thousands of years. Why haven't they all "returned to the wild type" by now? The answer of course is that you invented that claim out of thin air, and it's complete crap.

His theory bodered on illogical irrational fringe when he put it forward,and his suscribers since then i.e evolutionists (Darwinists)are comparable to the modern cult of UFO abductees.

Yes, evolutionary theory took time to be accepted. That is because, as we have established, paleontology, genetics, and a number of other sciences which have provided much of evolution's strongest evidence were very underdeveloped in Darwin's time. Hell, Darwin wrote Origin during the era when they still thought that Iguanodon actually resembled a giant iguana. Fortunately, that didn't have any bearings on the principle of his thesis, which was as unassailable then as it is now. Any new, revolutionary theory in science will take time to be accepted; the inflationary model of cosmology, though almost unanimously accepted today, took more than half a century to attain that status. Evolution was radical to begin with, sure, as much as heliocentrism or gravity; it certainly isn't radical today, after more than a century and a half of every single scientific discovery corroborating the veracity of Darwin's premise.

Darwin observed beak 'variations' in Finches and extrapolated evolution and speciation.(If you argue that finches were not important then please highlight what Darwin based his theory on.)

http://www.creationb...d=112&Itemid=67

Darwin's finches were one example among many. Incidentally, yes, Darwin extrapolated the evolution of the finches. We now know much more than he did: we found their ancestral lineage. The finches of the Galapagos that Darwin was so inspired by are descended from South American populations of seedeaters: tanagers from the western coast of the South America continent, flown to the Galapagos millions of years ago. Genetics has confirmed this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/3/299.full

Darwin was a Fringe Conmen very comaprable to David Icke of modern times and suckers called evolutionists bought into his ramblings without any sort of empirical evidence and under false premises.The only beneficial effect of Darwin's theory was to give an excuse to many atheists to liberate many people from biblical creationist views and no other gain was acheived.

Such a statement only demonstrates empirically that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the creationist sites you read. Your claim is categorically false, on each point. Plain and simple.

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with atheism; and Darwin's "ramblings" are supported by more evidence than any other theory in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an absurd analogy. You can't simply declare evolutionary biology false because you don't understand it; which you absolutely do not.

Yes, it has been proved empirically, and again (STOP ******* IGNORING EVERYTHING I SAY), there is no debate among scientists. It's just the lay, uneducated creationists with a vested interest in disseminating misinformation and propaganda that muddle the facts for those (such as yourself) who don't know enough about evolution to differentiate between valid and invalid points. Yes, variations have been empirically; your assertion that evolution has not been is untenable, given that it has, and you have been provided with numerous (but by no means any large portion of the existing) examples of such.

If you really understood how science works, you wouldn't have a number of scientists telling you that you don't, now would you?

We've been over this: your claim is false.

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://darwiniana.or...ansitionals.htm

http://darwiniana.or...m#Transitionals

http://darwiniana.or...rses.htm#Horses

http://darwiniana.or...birds.htm#Birds

http://darwiniana.or...osea.htm#whales

Just because a process takes longer to happen than we have time to watch, doesn't mean that it's impossible; that's like saying that a man can take a single step, but putting together a series of steps and walking down the street is impossible. Class transitions and the empirical evidence for them have cropped up dozens of times in the history of our planet; but they do happen to take a very long time to happen. And as has been explained to you before, the distinctions between one class and another are purely man-made; in nature it's much harder to tell where one begins and the other ends. You don't seem to understand the concept of a continuum of organisms.

Sheer nonsense. Variation has only as much limitation as mutation (i.e., virtually none), and populations almost never return to ancestral haplotypical forms. If that were true, every dog on Earth would be a wolf right now; humans have been breeding dogs for tens of thousands of years. Why haven't they all "returned to the wild type" by now? The answer of course is that you invented that claim out of thin air, and it's complete crap.

Yes, evolutionary theory took time to be accepted. That is because, as we have established, paleontology, genetics, and a number of other sciences which have provided much of evolution's strongest evidence were very underdeveloped in Darwin's time. Hell, Darwin wrote Origin during the era when they still thought that Iguanodon actually resembled a giant iguana. Fortunately, that didn't have any bearings on the principle of his thesis, which was as unassailable then as it is now. Any new, revolutionary theory in science will take time to be accepted; the inflationary model of cosmology, though almost unanimously accepted today, took more than half a century to attain that status. Evolution was radical to begin with, sure, as much as heliocentrism or gravity; it certainly isn't radical today, after more than a century and a half of every single scientific discovery corroborating the veracity of Darwin's premise.

Darwin's finches were one example among many. Incidentally, yes, Darwin extrapolated the evolution of the finches. We now know much more than he did: we found their ancestral lineage. The finches of the Galapagos that Darwin was so inspired by are descended from South American populations of seedeaters: tanagers from the western coast of the South America continent, flown to the Galapagos millions of years ago. Genetics has confirmed this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/18/3/299.full

Such a statement only demonstrates empirically that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the creationist sites you read. Your claim is categorically false, on each point. Plain and simple.

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with atheism; and Darwin's "ramblings" are supported by more evidence than any other theory in science.

No empirical evidence for macroevolution exists.The material you provide is pure hypothesis or in laymen words stories.

It is you who doesn't understand how science works or the meaning of the word 'empirical'.

It is you who has been thoroughly brainwashed into a being a evolutionist parrot,you have been brainwashed and probably bribed enough (money/academic accolades/degrees) to throw scientific honesty down the drain and follow the regime.

Variations have limitations with respect to their sustainability through successive generations,ofcourse you can also include organism suffering from genetic disorders caused by mutations to be a type of variants but their survival is usually marred by the debilitating effects of the disease and the variation is not fit to survive.

Absolutely none of the modern breakthroughs in Biology have corroberated with Darwin's hypothesis and that has lead the evolutionists to different tangents altogether,like i said they have survived as apologists.

I did not read creationist content to come up with scientific objections to evolution,but sadly the creationists have taken the mantle to disprove evolution and sadly i support them in this endeavour of theirs.Since scientific criticism from within the academia of evolution has been made increasingly difficult by the regime hence the outsiders benefit from pointing out evolutionist stupidities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No empirical evidence for macroevolution exists.

False.

The material you provide is pure hypothesis or in laymen words stories.

Also false. If you had bothered to actually read any of the materials I provided, you might realize how idiotic your last statement was.

It is you who doesn't understand how science works or the meaning of the word 'empirical'.

Oh really? So it's just you, random layman who understands science, while every actualscientist doesn't? You're more delusional than I thought.

It is you who has been thoroughly brainwashed into a being a evolutionist parrot,you have been brainwashed and probably bribed enough (money/academic accolades/degrees) to throw scientific honesty down the drain and follow the regime.

I wish I could express in textual form how hard I'm laughing right now. Of course, you can't actually assail evolution honestly, and so have to claim a scientific conspiracy. It is you has been brainwashed son.

Variations have limitations with respect to their sustainability through successive generations,ofcourse you can also include organism suffering from genetic disorders caused by mutations to be a type of variants but their survival is usually marred by the debilitating effects of the disease and the variation is not fit to survive.

You don't understand what mutation means either. Not all mutations cause diseases, etc., most of them are neutral and have virtually no noticeable effect on the organism at all. You yourself are likely to be carrying around sixty mutations which you didn't get from your parents, most of which are neutral and don't affect you much.

Absolutely none of the modern breakthroughs in Biology have corroberated with Darwin's hypothesis and that has lead the evolutionists to different tangents altogether,like i said they have survived as apologists.

You've been brainwashed by the creationist propaganda; no creditable biologist in the world questions evolutionary biology, and every single discovery (not just biological) in the history of science has corroborated evolution. Just because you've bought into the creationist lies doesn't change that fact.

I did not read creationist content to come up with scientific objections to evolution,but sadly the creationists have taken the mantle to disprove evolution and sadly i support them in this endeavour of theirs.Since scientific criticism from within the academia of evolution has been made increasingly difficult by the regime hence the outsiders benefit from pointing out evolutionist stupidities.

The "evolutionist stupidities" you've "pointed out" (and which you evidently cannot "point out" without referencing creationist sites), are utterly invalid. They have been debunked ad nauseam over more than a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh86_Patel, would you be so kind as to tell us all what it is that you want? You ask us to provide examples of evolution, we do, but because they don't suit you, you dismiss them. What precisely would you like us to show you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.