who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[CrusaderFrank]

No, seriously. I don't need you to find stuff on Wikipedia or Evolution Now magazine. That you think Ive "taken a new tact" just shows you've not been paying attention to anything I've posted in this or any other Evolution thread.

You just like to show off your "Superiority" by ranting and raving. You think you're making a point by insulting me and all you're doing is making a point about your own shortcomings.

Well this is a new track for you. You went from rhetorical questions which showed you have no clue about evolution to giving that up to instead whine about how superior I am and complain about sources, none of which you've actually read.

As I've offered in previous posts, I am happy to show you primary research articles instead of dumbed down Wikipedia articles for you, but let's be honest here: if you're not reading the dumbed down version, you're definitely not going to read the intelligent things. Nonetheless, I can still support my facts with primary unbiased research. RESEARCH. You're still supporting your made up idea with... NOTHING. If you want to talk about "shortcomings", I recommend you look at your own ability to support the things you say.

By all means! Please don't be shy about sharing the research!

I learned all about ManMade Global Warming by reading their research.

 

[antagon]

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution? what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them. if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it. what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution? where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

 

[antagon]

Maybe evolution is like gravity, we know it's there, we can see it at work, we can even measure it like the peppered moth, but we cannot locate the particle that propagates it through our physical Universe

have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank? heredity?

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

 

[antagon]

But that still leaves open the question of what evolutionary advantage an individual would possess through the elimination of a tail? Why would humanoids with smaller tails (or with no tail) win out in that continuing contest known as "Natural Selection"?

works for gorillas and chimps. selection isnt always about winning out as much as it could be a matter of divergent evolution. the lifestyles of upper primates and monkeys are quite different. the tail issue might have been redundant for the decidedly more surface-active creatures among which we are part.

 

[rightwinger]

Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)

Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor

 

[Cecilie1200]

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution? what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them. if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it. what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution? where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.

 

[HUGGY]

Two words that confirm evolution: Dogs, Mosquitos.

The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution. The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT. What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.

That's perfect!

Because when you question the underlying assumption about evolution you get answers from the ManMade Global Warming play book eg., ridicule, settled science, concensus

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Two words that confirm evolution: Dogs, Mosquitos.

The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution. The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT. What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.

Huggy, it has nothing to do with the "God Camp" My views are clearly not IntDes either. Evolution is a theory and as such is subject to question.

We find that we still don't yet have a firm handle on gravity so the idea that our understanding of the force of evolution is beyond reproach is not only laughable, but seems to indicate that it probably will wither under questioning.

 

[HUGGY]

Fuck-A-Duck Frankie!!! That post wasn't directed at YOU!!! It was following the Oh so very stupid CC's post. I just can't bring myself to quoting such proudly willfully ignorant rubbish.

This is old ground...The definition of "the scientific theory" as opposed to the dictionary definition of the singular word "theory" has been abused past sanity by the god squad.

If you cannot differentiate between a pure "theory" like the existance of god and a hypothisis like "a scientific theory" with most of the questions answered fully such as evolution and natural selection then you are just blowing smoke. I know that you are far too intelligent to deny much of the evidense of evolution. You know that I am too well informed to grant any credit for faith as evidense of anything including the existance of god or creation.

One is just wishful thinking ..the other is a compilation of millions of factual examples with a few holes that have not yet been fleshed out.

The effects of gravity have been proven... we do not need to pretend we are imbiciles and deny gravity just because most people do not understand everything about it.

 

[JBeukema]

Complexity not so costly after all, analysis shows

 

[Cecilie1200]

Two words that confirm evolution: Dogs, Mosquitos.

The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution. The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT. What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.

First of all, mosquitos only prove change within a species, something that no one has ever argued. Unless you're suggesting that mosquitos are no longer mosquitos. Second of all, the fact that it is HUMAN BREEDING that produces changes in dogs looks more like support for intelligent design than it does support for evolution. Could you please explain to me how you get "example of super evolution" from the deliberate, controlled manipulation of a species by an intelligent outside force?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Hey cecilie, where's that missing link again? Oh right you won't say. Am I supposed to "prove" YOUR idea of a missing link wrong? Well no.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right.

That's not what he said at all. Timeline matters hear, so pay attention for a change. Someone ELSE made the claim that there is a barrier. Why should anyone aside from that person try to prove it? See evolution is defined on the basis of reproducible evidence from research, while this barrier claim is yet another made up piece of garbage. And yet you think it's our responsibility to prove it wrong?

Let me know when you figured out what GENETICS is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank? heredity?

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)

Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor

Janet Reno?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)

Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor

Janet Reno?

Be nice.

 

[JBeukema]

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

And the raging fire is the effect of the light cast by the fire, not the cause of the light it casts off

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

unfortunately for you, all reproducible evidence on the topic shows otherwise, and nothing supports your idea.

 

[JBeukema]

Gravity is caused by things falling when dropped, eh Frank?

 

[antagon]

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

wow. for kicks, could you explain how that works?