Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World

[orogenicman]

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

What is macroevolution? Why is it important? How can macroevolutionary thinking help with interpreting patterns of primate evolution?

More at the link.

 

[Old Rocks]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

 

[orogenicman]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

 

[Hollie]

Other than dumping the same phony "quotes" that are cut and pasted from various creation ministries, the usual suspects are wholly inadequate at debating the actual evidence.

Remember, science is just one big, global conspiracy, just ask Ken Ham.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm a Conservative hip on evolution.
Climate change I neither support nor deny. I'm cynical if anything.
Come on folks...

 

[flacaltenn]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

 

[PostmodernProph]

What is macroevolution?

human beings evolving from single celled organisms......

 

[westwall]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

I find it amusing that these self described "smarty pants' can never make a post with their own commentary. They link to some story and then abandon ship all the while thinking to themselves, "look how smart I am...I was able to do a cut and paste!"

 

[DriftingSand]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

LOL.

"Peer Reviewed" means one evolutionist scratching another evolutionist's back. The premise, from an evolutionist's perspective, is that a "peer" is someone who already accepts the "Theory/Supposition/Conjecture of Evolution." Anyone who disagrees with that theory never gets a review and is laughed off of the Cultist's "church" grounds (usually a University full of close-minded evolutionists).

 

[DriftingSand]

What is macroevolution?

human beings evolving from single celled organisms......

And single celled organisms "evolved" from inorganic, dead pieces of stone -- like magic **poof**.

 

[DriftingSand]

Other than dumping the same phony "quotes" that are cut and pasted from various creation ministries, the usual suspects are wholly inadequate at debating the actual evidence.

Remember, science is just one big, global conspiracy, just ask Ken Ham.

Then you won't mind presenting some scientific facts and discussing the issue in your own words. No cutting a pasting allowed. First there was nothing then **poof** there was a Universe. It just decided to create itself as a result of a really big explosion. All that the Universe contains just **popped** into existence by pure chance.

Then, by pure chance, a piece of stone just decided to **poof** create a living cell. Nobody knows what the cell ate but it must have had one hell of a long life span to have evolved into another living organism. Now THAT's a miracle indeed. We certainly aren't sure what **poofed** into existence first -- an animal cell or a plant cell. But wait, perhaps two very different cells **poofed** into existence simultaneously. Thus, by pure happenstance, we had early animal life and early plant life.

Then, once upon a time, this little cell with an extensive life span evolved two, very complex eyeballs, some hair, and a pair of Nikes.

Oh well ... I could go on with the fairytale but I want to listen to yours instead.

 

[orogenicman]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

If you want to see a well organized fossil record, I suggest you go visit the fossil archives at the U.S. National Museum.

 

[orogenicman]

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

I find it amusing that these self described "smarty pants' can never make a post with their own commentary. They link to some story and then abandon ship all the while thinking to themselves, "look how smart I am...I was able to do a cut and paste!"

Abandon ship? Perhaps you should recount the number of my posts since my OP. And at least I showed up - in the first place.

 

[orogenicman]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

LOL.

"Peer Reviewed" means one evolutionist scratching another evolutionist's back. The premise, from an evolutionist's perspective, is that a "peer" is someone who already accepts the "Theory/Supposition/Conjecture of Evolution." Anyone who disagrees with that theory never gets a review and is laughed off of the Cultist's "church" grounds (usually a University full of close-minded evolutionists).

So what you are saying is that you would prefer to have a diesel mechanic to perform brain surgery on you. Good luck with that.

 

[orogenicman]

What is macroevolution?

human beings evolving from single celled organisms......

And single celled organisms "evolved" from inorganic, dead pieces of stone -- like magic **poof**.

Strawman argument.

 

[orogenicman]

Other than dumping the same phony "quotes" that are cut and pasted from various creation ministries, the usual suspects are wholly inadequate at debating the actual evidence.

Remember, science is just one big, global conspiracy, just ask Ken Ham.

Then you won't mind presenting some scientific facts and discussing the issue in your own words. No cutting a pasting allowed. First there was nothing then **poof** there was a Universe. It just decided to create itself as a result of a really big explosion. All that the Universe contains just **popped** into existence by pure chance.

Then, by pure chance, a piece of stone just decided to **poof** create a living cell. Nobody knows what the cell ate but it must have had one hell of a long life span to have evolved into another living organism. Now THAT's a miracle indeed. We certainly aren't sure what **poofed** into existence first -- an animal cell or a plant cell. But wait, perhaps two very different cells **poofed** into existence simultaneously. Thus, by pure happenstance, we had early animal life and early plant life.

Then, once upon a time, this little cell with an extensive life span evolved two, very complex eyeballs, some hair, and a pair of Nikes.

Oh well ... I could go on with the fairytale but I want to listen to yours instead.

How about you reading the OP and then telling us specifically where it is wrong, why it is wrong, and present a better alternative. Can you do that?

 

[westwall]

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

I find it amusing that these self described "smarty pants' can never make a post with their own commentary. They link to some story and then abandon ship all the while thinking to themselves, "look how smart I am...I was able to do a cut and paste!"

Abandon ship? Perhaps you should recount the number of my posts since my OP. And at least I showed up - in the first place.

And so far, in every one of your posts, you haven't posted an original thought. You drop one liners that mean nothing, state nothing, explain nothing, and you expect us to take you seriously....

 

[westwall]

Other than dumping the same phony "quotes" that are cut and pasted from various creation ministries, the usual suspects are wholly inadequate at debating the actual evidence.

Remember, science is just one big, global conspiracy, just ask Ken Ham.

Then you won't mind presenting some scientific facts and discussing the issue in your own words. No cutting a pasting allowed. First there was nothing then **poof** there was a Universe. It just decided to create itself as a result of a really big explosion. All that the Universe contains just **popped** into existence by pure chance.

Then, by pure chance, a piece of stone just decided to **poof** create a living cell. Nobody knows what the cell ate but it must have had one hell of a long life span to have evolved into another living organism. Now THAT's a miracle indeed. We certainly aren't sure what **poofed** into existence first -- an animal cell or a plant cell. But wait, perhaps two very different cells **poofed** into existence simultaneously. Thus, by pure happenstance, we had early animal life and early plant life.

Then, once upon a time, this little cell with an extensive life span evolved two, very complex eyeballs, some hair, and a pair of Nikes.

Oh well ... I could go on with the fairytale but I want to listen to yours instead.

How about you reading the OP and then telling us specifically where it is wrong, why it is wrong, and present a better alternative. Can you do that?

Why don't you give a brief synopsis (in your own words) of the links premise. Then tell us why you think it is important to present to us and then identify those facts which support, and those that don't support the central premise.

 

[PostmodernProph]

human beings evolving from single celled organisms......

And single celled organisms "evolved" from inorganic, dead pieces of stone -- like magic **poof**.

Strawman argument.

wouldn't a strawman just be another example of a life derived from mere organic matter?....

 

[Old Rocks]

You won't get any real debate on the issue, that is, arguements backed with peer reviewed articles from real scientists. The only thing that our bunch here supporting creationism and denying climate change understand is derision of science and unsupported flap-yap. Even those claiming degrees, even in science, seldom, if ever, support their point of view. And when they do, often they have totally misunderstood the article, or taken statements out of context in such a manner as to make their meaning 180 degrees from what was said.

I can't say that I disagree with you. That said, the silence in this thread, that is the lack of a response from those individuals to whom you refer, is deafening, don't you think?

You want a medal for discovering 150 years of science since your avatar published his work?
Lots of stuff that Darwin had no clue about.. so much for a generally well organized fossil record eh?

Love the stuff that Newton had no clue about. Same goes for Lyle and Condon. And all of these men would be absolutely elated at the progress that has been made in their disciplines since their time.

Darwin provided the seminal observations and experiments, his book, Origin of the Species stands as a inspiration to all scientists. All the flap-yaps and yahoos in the world cannot falsify his work.