Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I am not a scientist, but...

Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
...My membership here hasn't been around that long, but evolution, it is a big topic here. And rightly so, it describes our origins, it describes who we are as a people, as a whole race, what our innate nature is and why we act like we do. Quite possessive, wouldn't you agree. If you were approached by a person who told you why you act like you do, why you order your life like you do because of your parented up bringing, wouldn't you question that, the claims he makes? Yet where are the questions to deny all eligibility? Now, many will come and circulate that evolution is scientific, sure I wouldn't like to deny that, right away! But lets see, lets take a look shall we?

Here is the definition of the word science: 'he intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:".

From what I understand, creatures of every kind adapt to their environments, we all know the types of adjustments here. Micro evolution I believe it's called, the term used here almost sounds like it expects there to be a further adaptation to the already existing definition, which I find odd. Unless dealing with metaphysics is there a double definition for one solitude...thing! It's not like evolution is two things, is it? Okay so we have micro evolution, we all know what that is, easy. It's testable, repeatable etc... But long term evolution, where time warps the image, the distinctive coding, the scientific field of view, of appearance, of kinetic visibility, the sight of constructive information being understood with perfect, precedent clarity. As I understand it, we are fixed in this time medium, experiencing the present.

So let's go into the process of long term evolution. Staring with a single species, I will allow it 50 million years to evolve. What would happen, ignoring science now, in analogy terms, I may as well be out side the observable universe. So this species is going about it's adaptations as nature demands, the species gets smaller ears, because the climate has become cooler. The species has become longer, because the trees have grown taller. So, everything is going well, understandably well; taller, check, smaller ears, check. Okay, so 50 million years later... What happened, what happened to the adjustment strategy of adaptation, seems like the species threw in the towel and fabricated the words "Looks like our species is dying out here, better use our trump card." Then all over a sudden, you have a species resembling some aspects of what it evolved from, like it may have ears, or not even that. Watched a Walking with Monsters episode once were the narrator said that a certain primate that lives in trees, had an ancestor that was a whale.

So, what happened, where is that point of change? Long term evolution to me, is like when children playing a game of most powerful; "I'm a super t-Rex machine gunning mutant. Well then, you can be that, but I am a mega, super, giant killer dragon that can eat anything!"

My point being, that there is no construction between the initial levels of one species to a totally different one, after the claim, 'They evolved from each other.". No construction of insightful step by step scientific transformation, 'This is what happens to the ear, this is what happens to the bone structure, this is what happens to the eyes, this is why the species has no eyes anymore.'.

Even if the fossil record was useful, at what point does it specifically show any type of evidence that claims jigsaw like connections? I have a set of spoons, all different noticeably so, to find out about each spoon and what their origins are, would you either go to each of their designers, or go look at older forms of kitchen cutlery, such as an old fork from 1434? This might sound a bit daft, but it's point is particularly opposing the notion of the fossil record's reliability and accountability of informative observation. I can see the fossil record, a collection of bones petrified. I can also see that clocks don't work, old, broken clocks that don't work. Do I need to be explanatory here?

These are my thoughts on evolution, thanks for reading.

Please add constructively.
joel.burgers
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:41:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hope these comments will help make this discussion clearer.

From what I can understand about your position, you have no problem with small variations in a species. Your difficulty lies with the extrapolation from micro to macro evolution. These terms are not used to desribe two different kinds of evolution, but to describe the degree of evolution a linage has gone through. And I think the sting of your question is resting is a false assumption.
You used the thought experiment of whales being descended from tree climbing mammals. And your question was 'Where is that point of change?'
That is where your fallacy is. In the neo-darwinian synthesis for the most part there are no 'points of change.' Its all a gradual morphing over eons.

You also said that there is no construction after the assertion 'they evovled from each other.' This is simply not true. The whole field of Paleo-biology is dedicated to eliminating the gaps of the fossil record. They have'nt explained everything, but what is explained helps to shed light on our ignorance.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 1:03:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.

Species definition: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.".

So there, I think it is evident that micro evolution is not the thing as macro evolution, although people would like to believe they are two peas in a pod. If that were so, time as the ultimate changer of species evolution, would actually maintain the effects of micro evolution and not, some how, warp the effects with the use of time being some, literal wand. When something changes, in this case, a species, it will go through a phase of visible transformation, from it's old definitive model to it's new exchanging definitive model. Despite the illusion of the not knowing the following appearances of a particular transformation. Not knowing something in the future, does not exclude you not knowing it's previous relations in appearances. In other words, you and I will know when it is no longer of what it was previously.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 1:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 1:03:00 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.

Species definition: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.".

So there, I think it is evident that micro evolution is not the thing as macro evolution, although people would like to believe they are two peas in a pod. If that were so, time as the ultimate changer of species evolution, would actually maintain the effects of micro evolution and not, some how, warp the effects with the use of time being some, literal wand. When something changes, in this case, a species, it will go through a phase of visible transformation, from it's old definitive model to it's new exchanging definitive model. Despite the illusion of the not knowing the following appearances of a particular transformation. Not knowing something in the future, does not exclude you not knowing it's previous relations in appearances. In other words, you and I will know when it is no longer of what it was previously.

Is a ring species one species or several? What is your opinion on the classification of Dendrobium subclausum? While your definition will make do as a nice little insert for a high school biology textbook, it is a vast oversimplification. In nature, there is no such line. You deal with overlapping ranges, complex hybridization patterns, including polyploidal hybridization, variations within genera which border on speciation (this is the case with Dendrobium subclausum). Families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, genera, species, subspecies, and a hoard of taxonomists fighting to find some semblance of clarity, which they can pass on to the general public. They do this so that you can make some sense of the chaotic mess that is nature. But don't fool yourself into thinking that nature is as neat and tidy as the imperfect classification schemes which we utilize. There are vast, innumerable gray areas, and that is where speciation exists, not as a single, readily distinguishable event, but as a constant process. It's probably so misunderstood because the public are completely ignorant of the true state of nature.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 4:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 1:46:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 1:03:00 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.

Species definition: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.".

So there, I think it is evident that micro evolution is not the thing as macro evolution, although people would like to believe they are two peas in a pod. If that were so, time as the ultimate changer of species evolution, would actually maintain the effects of micro evolution and not, some how, warp the effects with the use of time being some, literal wand. When something changes, in this case, a species, it will go through a phase of visible transformation, from it's old definitive model to it's new exchanging definitive model. Despite the illusion of the not knowing the following appearances of a particular transformation. Not knowing something in the future, does not exclude you not knowing it's previous relations in appearances. In other words, you and I will know when it is no longer of what it was previously.

Is a ring species one species or several? What is your opinion on the classification of Dendrobium subclausum? While your definition will make do as a nice little insert for a high school biology textbook, it is a vast oversimplification. In nature, there is no such line. You deal with overlapping ranges, complex hybridization patterns, including polyploidal hybridization, variations within genera which border on speciation (this is the case with Dendrobium subclausum). Families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, genera, species, subspecies, and a hoard of taxonomists fighting to find some semblance of clarity, which they can pass on to the general public. They do this so that you can make some sense of the chaotic mess that is nature. But don't fool yourself into thinking that nature is as neat and tidy as the imperfect classification schemes which we utilize. There are vast, innumerable gray areas, and that is where speciation exists, not as a single, readily distinguishable event, but as a constant process. It's probably so misunderstood because the public are completely ignorant of the true state of nature.

Give me an example to sum up what you have just said, an example found in nature.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 4:29:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 4:22:17 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 1:46:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 1:03:00 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.

Species definition: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.".

So there, I think it is evident that micro evolution is not the thing as macro evolution, although people would like to believe they are two peas in a pod. If that were so, time as the ultimate changer of species evolution, would actually maintain the effects of micro evolution and not, some how, warp the effects with the use of time being some, literal wand. When something changes, in this case, a species, it will go through a phase of visible transformation, from it's old definitive model to it's new exchanging definitive model. Despite the illusion of the not knowing the following appearances of a particular transformation. Not knowing something in the future, does not exclude you not knowing it's previous relations in appearances. In other words, you and I will know when it is no longer of what it was previously.

Is a ring species one species or several? What is your opinion on the classification of Dendrobium subclausum? While your definition will make do as a nice little insert for a high school biology textbook, it is a vast oversimplification. In nature, there is no such line. You deal with overlapping ranges, complex hybridization patterns, including polyploidal hybridization, variations within genera which border on speciation (this is the case with Dendrobium subclausum). Families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, genera, species, subspecies, and a hoard of taxonomists fighting to find some semblance of clarity, which they can pass on to the general public. They do this so that you can make some sense of the chaotic mess that is nature. But don't fool yourself into thinking that nature is as neat and tidy as the imperfect classification schemes which we utilize. There are vast, innumerable gray areas, and that is where speciation exists, not as a single, readily distinguishable event, but as a constant process. It's probably so misunderstood because the public are completely ignorant of the true state of nature.

Give me an example to sum up what you have just said, an example found in nature.

He did. Dendrobium subclausum.

In any event:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

What is important to remember is the only accepted difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is one occurs below the species level and the other at and above the species level. However, what constitutes different species is decided by us. It is an arbitrarily defined tool that exists out of pure utility, it doesn't exist as some sort of hard coded barrier ingrained in nature that evolution can't "cross."
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 5:21:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 4:29:12 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2013 4:22:17 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 1:46:58 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 1:03:00 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 9:15:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Let me ask you a little question: can you define 'species'? Because people who know nothing about biology usually think that this is quite the simple task, and base their arguments in this matter off of a vague, nebulous sense of the word. But this conceit is born of a profound ignorance concerning the conditions on the ground, so to speak. So fill me in on the exclusive knowledge to which you are privileged.

Species definition: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.".

So there, I think it is evident that micro evolution is not the thing as macro evolution, although people would like to believe they are two peas in a pod. If that were so, time as the ultimate changer of species evolution, would actually maintain the effects of micro evolution and not, some how, warp the effects with the use of time being some, literal wand. When something changes, in this case, a species, it will go through a phase of visible transformation, from it's old definitive model to it's new exchanging definitive model. Despite the illusion of the not knowing the following appearances of a particular transformation. Not knowing something in the future, does not exclude you not knowing it's previous relations in appearances. In other words, you and I will know when it is no longer of what it was previously.

Is a ring species one species or several? What is your opinion on the classification of Dendrobium subclausum? While your definition will make do as a nice little insert for a high school biology textbook, it is a vast oversimplification. In nature, there is no such line. You deal with overlapping ranges, complex hybridization patterns, including polyploidal hybridization, variations within genera which border on speciation (this is the case with Dendrobium subclausum). Families, subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, genera, species, subspecies, and a hoard of taxonomists fighting to find some semblance of clarity, which they can pass on to the general public. They do this so that you can make some sense of the chaotic mess that is nature. But don't fool yourself into thinking that nature is as neat and tidy as the imperfect classification schemes which we utilize. There are vast, innumerable gray areas, and that is where speciation exists, not as a single, readily distinguishable event, but as a constant process. It's probably so misunderstood because the public are completely ignorant of the true state of nature.

Give me an example to sum up what you have just said, an example found in nature.

He did. Dendrobium subclausum.

In any event:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

What is important to remember is the only accepted difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is one occurs below the species level and the other at and above the species level. However, what constitutes different species is decided by us. It is an arbitrarily defined tool that exists out of pure utility, it doesn't exist as some sort of hard coded barrier ingrained in nature that evolution can't "cross."

Sure I see, ring species as in; there are multiple cat species or dog species, or bear species, etc. Yes I get that, I am not fighting over this though, that you must understand. Sure over short time periods, new variations of a certain species will emerge from a existing gene pool. That's is how we have the creatures we have today, from the domestic cat to the lion. Same ring species, different type of cat. Yes, I know that two 'types' of cats can mate and reproduce. Lion and a tiger for example, that being an example of ring species breeding. Now this is where I spit, despite the power of time, give a 100 million years, I believe this is impossible, think I am nuts or irrational, you can breed ring species all you like, to a degree of course (can't breed a domestic cat with a lion for example, but the are the same ring species due to the extreme similarities), but a cat, despite the time given, amount of ring species breeding done, will either remain a cat of some sort or die out. This is my view, I see it as rational to the utmost degree of critical thinking. A species will die out, therefore a ring species will die out, despite the time given, if, now this is my logical mind speaking, if the offspring doesn't introduce any necessary improvement of it's own species over time, unless it's environment (including other wildlife) demands it to not adapt to any changes, it will die out, not evolve into a totally different species, ring species or not, for example, whale into monkey (which evolutionists actually think happened, watch Walking with Monsters, episode one).

The features that a ring species possesses such as sharp craws, contributes to the definition of a ring species, however if that feature disappears for some reason over a period of time, it does not necessarily redefine a ring species. Yet if a ring species adapted a feature that no other ring species currently possessed, it would die out, due to it's inability to reproduce. If a ring species adapted a feature new to the entire species, (imagine a feature that no cat on earth has, and make it that), this would be genetically impossible because such a feature does not exist in the current gene pool and therefore, despite all of time, environment and any other variable implied, this could never happen. For example, a cat of any species can never adapt a feature such as a hoof or a flipper, as mad as that sounds. But this is macro evolution, inter ring species adaptation is impossible. Reason against this, by all means.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 5:27:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 5:21:40 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:

Sure I see, ring species as in; there are multiple cat species or dog species, or bear species, etc.

Depends on how you are using "cat", "dog", or "bear" If you are talking about domesticated cats and dogs, there aren't multiple species.

Yes I get that, I am not fighting over this though, that you must understand. Sure over short time periods, new variations of a certain species will emerge from a existing gene pool. That's is how we have the creatures we have today, from the domestic cat to the lion.

Cats and lions aren't variation of the same species. They are different species and even different genus.

Same ring species, different type of cat.

The "species" in "ring species" is plural. Multiple different species.

Yes, I know that two 'types' of cats can mate and reproduce. Lion and a tiger for example, that being an example of ring species breeding.

No, lion and tigers aren't examples of ring species.

Now this is where I spit, despite the power of time, give a 100 million years, I believe this is impossible, think I am nuts or irrational, you can breed ring species all you like, to a degree of course (can't breed a domestic cat with a lion for example, but the are the same ring species due to the extreme similarities), but a cat, despite the time given, amount of ring species breeding done, will either remain a cat of some sort or die out.

Cats and lions aren't ring species either.

This is my view, I see it as rational to the utmost degree of critical thinking. A species will die out, therefore a ring species will die out, despite the time given, if, now this is my logical mind speaking, if the offspring doesn't introduce any necessary improvement of it's own species over time, unless it's environment (including other wildlife) demands it to not adapt to any changes, it will die out, not evolve into a totally different species, ring species or not, for example, whale into monkey (which evolutionists actually think happened, watch Walking with Monsters, episode one).

This makes precisely no sense whatsoever. I've read it several times, and I can't extract a coherent thought out of this. It's apparent, however, that you don't know what a "ring species" (or even a "species") is, despite your ability to recite a lay definition.


The features that a ring species possesses such as sharp craws, contributes to the definition of a ring species, however if that feature disappears for some reason over a period of time, it does not necessarily redefine a ring species. Yet if a ring species adapted a feature that no other ring species currently possessed, it would die out, due to it's inability to reproduce. If a ring species adapted a feature new to the entire species, (imagine a feature that no cat on earth has, and make it that), this would be genetically impossible because such a feature does not exist in the current gene pool and therefore, despite all of time, environment and any other variable implied, this could never happen. For example, a cat of any species can never adapt a feature such as a hoof or a flipper, as mad as that sounds. But this is macro evolution, inter ring species adaptation is impossible. Reason against this, by all means.

Until you can point to some actual barrier that prevents genetic alterations from accumulating over time, this is all just baseless speculation equivalent to saying you can't add 1 to 1 enough times to get to 1 billion.
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 5:52:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 5:27:55 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/18/2013 5:21:40 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:

Sure I see, ring species as in; there are multiple cat species or dog species, or bear species, etc.

Depends on how you are using "cat", "dog", or "bear" If you are talking about domesticated cats and dogs, there aren't multiple species.

Yes I get that, I am not fighting over this though, that you must understand. Sure over short time periods, new variations of a certain species will emerge from a existing gene pool. That's is how we have the creatures we have today, from the domestic cat to the lion.

Cats and lions aren't variation of the same species. They are different species and even different genus.

Same ring species, different type of cat.

The "species" in "ring species" is plural. Multiple different species.

Yes, I know that two 'types' of cats can mate and reproduce. Lion and a tiger for example, that being an example of ring species breeding.

No, lion and tigers aren't examples of ring species.

Now this is where I spit, despite the power of time, give a 100 million years, I believe this is impossible, think I am nuts or irrational, you can breed ring species all you like, to a degree of course (can't breed a domestic cat with a lion for example, but the are the same ring species due to the extreme similarities), but a cat, despite the time given, amount of ring species breeding done, will either remain a cat of some sort or die out.

Cats and lions aren't ring species either.

This is my view, I see it as rational to the utmost degree of critical thinking. A species will die out, therefore a ring species will die out, despite the time given, if, now this is my logical mind speaking, if the offspring doesn't introduce any necessary improvement of it's own species over time, unless it's environment (including other wildlife) demands it to not adapt to any changes, it will die out, not evolve into a totally different species, ring species or not, for example, whale into monkey (which evolutionists actually think happened, watch Walking with Monsters, episode one).

This makes precisely no sense whatsoever. I've read it several times, and I can't extract a coherent thought out of this. It's apparent, however, that you don't know what a "ring species" (or even a "species") is, despite your ability to recite a lay definition.


The features that a ring species possesses such as sharp craws, contributes to the definition of a ring species, however if that feature disappears for some reason over a period of time, it does not necessarily redefine a ring species. Yet if a ring species adapted a feature that no other ring species currently possessed, it would die out, due to it's inability to reproduce. If a ring species adapted a feature new to the entire species, (imagine a feature that no cat on earth has, and make it that), this would be genetically impossible because such a feature does not exist in the current gene pool and therefore, despite all of time, environment and any other variable implied, this could never happen. For example, a cat of any species can never adapt a feature such as a hoof or a flipper, as mad as that sounds. But this is macro evolution, inter ring species adaptation is impossible. Reason against this, by all means.

Until you can point to some actual barrier that prevents genetic alterations from accumulating over time, this is all just baseless speculation equivalent to saying you can't add 1 to 1 enough times to get to 1 billion.

Okay only responding to your last point, adding 1+1 enough times to equal 1 billion, since this is your definitive analogy of macro evolution. This is how I see it, 1 equals a particular cat species, such a the lion, not a lion or an individual lion, but the lion. Since what makes the next lion more of a lion? Is the question (rhetorical question). 1 billion means that there is 1 billion cat species. Not what you think, I unlike you, don't translate the analogy in a transformation type equation, rather a quantity type equation. 1 doesn't develop or evolution into anything and certainly not 1 billion, it is a number of it's own. It doesn't turn (evolve) into 2 rather 2 is a number of it's own. 1=1, but 1+1=2 as in it is the same as, or an equivalent not a development of, no construction occurs, just an equal to or the same as. Two separate numbers that equal the same amount. So yes, if you keep adding 1 together, you will get to 1 billion, but 1 billion is a number in it's own right, whether you add 1 with 1 a billion times or not. Do you understand?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:10:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:03:51 PM, drafterman wrote:
No, I don't understand a word you said.

Then we have nothing more to discuss. Go figure, work out what you think I might be describing. I genuinely mean this.
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that...
... a bat is a bird.

Oh? What were you saying the Bible states?

Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

The entire point of introducing Ring Species into this conversation was to demonstrate that this indisputably happens. Ring Species demonstrate, geographically, what happens to all species, temporally.

Until you point out the biological mechanism that inhibits genetic alterations from accumulating beyond a certain degree, there is no reason to deny evolution.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 9:25:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 8:41:41 PM, Bullish wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

(Can I post an image?)

And remember there are billions of these going around in 50 million years.

Here's a more complete list:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
0x5f3759df
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.

I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did you understand my points? Don't you think I have heard what you have said before, why would I change because you said the same thing? I have yet to hear any evidence against my beginning post. Saying I don't understand what a ring species is (of which I now understand), isn't convincing at all.
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 2:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.

What if part of a population of one species moved/were separated to a different environment (e.g. a population of frogs were separated into an African rainforest and a South American rainforest because of continental drift), and subsequently adapted to it through small changes over millions of years? Is there any guarantee that they will be able to produce fertile offspring if the two populations were re-introduced to each other?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:12:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 2:52:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.

What if part of a population of one species moved/were separated to a different environment (e.g. a population of frogs were separated into an African rainforest and a South American rainforest because of continental drift), and subsequently adapted to it through small changes over millions of years? Is there any guarantee that they will be able to produce fertile offspring if the two populations were re-introduced to each other?

It could or could not be possible. We both know they are still frog species, ring species or not. That is my point here. Why doesn't anyone get that!?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:16:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 3:12:36 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:52:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.

What if part of a population of one species moved/were separated to a different environment (e.g. a population of frogs were separated into an African rainforest and a South American rainforest because of continental drift), and subsequently adapted to it through small changes over millions of years? Is there any guarantee that they will be able to produce fertile offspring if the two populations were re-introduced to each other?

It could or could not be possible. We both know they are still frog species, ring species or not. That is my point here. Why doesn't anyone get that!?

And the definition of species implies inability to produce fertile offspring. In addition, macroevolution refers to the creation of new species. In this case, the differences aren't great enough to make them evolve too differently from eachother, but they still evolve along distinct paths, creating two distinct species. You have effectively conceded that macroevolution exists.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:43:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 3:16:46 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:12:36 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:52:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.

What if part of a population of one species moved/were separated to a different environment (e.g. a population of frogs were separated into an African rainforest and a South American rainforest because of continental drift), and subsequently adapted to it through small changes over millions of years? Is there any guarantee that they will be able to produce fertile offspring if the two populations were re-introduced to each other?

It could or could not be possible. We both know they are still frog species, ring species or not. That is my point here. Why doesn't anyone get that!?

And the definition of species implies inability to produce fertile offspring. In addition, macroevolution refers to the creation of new species. In this case, the differences aren't great enough to make them evolve too differently from eachother, but they still evolve along distinct paths, creating two distinct species. You have effectively conceded that macroevolution exists.

That isn't macro evolution then. Whether it is a ring species (inability to produce fertile offspring) or other wise a species with the ability. Macro evolution is a inter species adaptation, being able to reproduce has little to do with macro evolution. Two totally different species cannot produce (elephant, hippo) offspring. And perhaps in some case two of the same species cannot produces offspring (this would make them a ring species). But a ring species isn't sufficient to qualify as evidence for macro evolution. All it says is that the DNA in each creature is too different to produce offspring. Final line, no macro evolution has occurred.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:58:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 3:43:13 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:16:46 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:12:36 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:52:59 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/19/2013 2:06:42 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 10:05:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:49:44 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:29:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:20:52 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/18/2013 6:06:55 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Alright, you obviously have no idea what a ring species is. Watch this video please:

Agree with the video. The same kind producing the same kind with slight adaptations = micro evolution, agree. Just one problem though, where was the millions and millions of years of macro evolution mentioned? It was implied, yes, never described though.

Then you didn't understand it. The birds at the end couldn't reproduce, they were a different 'species'. Going by creationist ideas, this is impossible. It crushes the last relevant barrier that creationists bring up: the idea that there's some wall that 'micro-evolution' runs up against, and that this wall defines a kind, and that the nature of the wall is that organisms on either side of it cannot interbreed with one another. Ring species prove that the tiny changes can accumulate to the point where two groups can no longer interbreed, and this occurrence cannot be jammed into the creationist model without breaking it. Not only does this destroy the opposing ideology, it conforms exactly to the predictions of evolutionary theory. What happened to the warblers geographically and temporally can be observed in every other species on a temporal level through the study of the fossil record. It's simply the way that nature works.

When the biblical definition states that a kind can only produce after it's own kind, it doesn't mean to say that if the same kind cannot reproduce it is not the same kind anymore. What the biblical definition states is that a kind will produce after it's own kind, not to say if a kind can no longer reproduce with the same kind, they are of different kinds to begin with. What the definition means is that, in general, in generic terms, a kind will bring forth it's own kind. A cat will bring forth a cat, although a domestic cat will never bring forth a lion, that is impossible, it according to the biblical definition, is the same kind (aka both cats), they can, through development of the domestic cat through adaptation could breed with a lion over time. Yet it is still a cat, and non other, that is where our distinction lies. Macro evolution says, over time a cat will evolve into something other than a cat of any kind or type, I disagree with this.

Life has been evolving for 4 billion years. 4 billion years is a long time. Small changes over time lead to larger changes overtime.

Does the world seem pretty stationary to you? Well that's because landmasses are relatively stationary moving only about a millimeter a year. However over a course of hundreds of millions of years, that leads to huge changes in the landscape of the earth.



I don't see what your problem with macroevolution. Is it that you don't understand the scale or unconvinced of empirical evidence for it? Why isn't the fossil record sufficient evidence which shows transitional fossil records.

I think macro evolution is imaginary, false or made up, based upon a series of real findings or realities, the phenomenon has yet to be experienced. "But we experience it all of the time, look around you." No, that's micro evolution, or simply said, adaptation. One might say, "But 1 adds up to 1000 if you keep on adding 1." Yes but 1p added upon 1p a thousand times until 100 pounds isn't a 100 pounds (two 50 pound notes here in England), it's 1000 pennies. It is what it is and nothing other, although it is an equivalent to or equal to. From this pretty simple arrangement of points, I cannot see macro evolution happening ever, unless God produced a miracle.

What if part of a population of one species moved/were separated to a different environment (e.g. a population of frogs were separated into an African rainforest and a South American rainforest because of continental drift), and subsequently adapted to it through small changes over millions of years? Is there any guarantee that they will be able to produce fertile offspring if the two populations were re-introduced to each other?

It could or could not be possible. We both know they are still frog species, ring species or not. That is my point here. Why doesn't anyone get that!?

And the definition of species implies inability to produce fertile offspring. In addition, macroevolution refers to the creation of new species. In this case, the differences aren't great enough to make them evolve too differently from eachother, but they still evolve along distinct paths, creating two distinct species. You have effectively conceded that macroevolution exists.

That isn't macro evolution then. Whether it is a ring species (inability to produce fertile offspring) or other wise a species with the ability. Macro evolution is a inter species adaptation, being able to reproduce has little to do with macro evolution.

It has everything to do with macroevolution. Not only is it an essential part of the definition of a species, it is also the means through which natural selection occurs.

Two totally different species cannot produce (elephant, hippo) offspring. And perhaps in some case two of the same species cannot produces offspring (this would make them a ring species).

If they aren't able to reproduce fertile offspring, they aren't a member of the same species. Period.

But a ring species isn't sufficient to qualify as evidence for macro evolution. All it says is that the DNA in each creature is too different to produce offspring. Final line, no macro evolution has occurred.

It has occurred. It started with one species, and ended up with two. Macroevolution is the result of microevolution occurring in two isolated populations of one species.

At this point, there is no reason why you shouldn't believe that macroevolution does occur, unless you are displaying willful ignorance in light of the overwhelming evidence.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 4:36:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 3:43:13 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:16:46 PM, drhead wrote:

And the definition of species implies inability to produce fertile offspring. In addition, macroevolution refers to the creation of new species. In this case, the differences aren't great enough to make them evolve too differently from eachother, but they still evolve along distinct paths, creating two distinct species. You have effectively conceded that macroevolution exists.

That isn't macro evolution then. Whether it is a ring species (inability to produce fertile offspring) or other wise a species with the ability. Macro evolution is a inter species adaptation, being able to reproduce has little to do with macro evolution. Two totally different species cannot produce (elephant, hippo) offspring. And perhaps in some case two of the same species cannot produces offspring (this would make them a ring species). But a ring species isn't sufficient to qualify as evidence for macro evolution. All it says is that the DNA in each creature is too different to produce offspring. Final line, no macro evolution has occurred.

The issue is that you misunderstand the terminology you are using: what you are asking for is evidence of universal common ancestry, not macroevolution. Contrary to creationist claims, macroevolution refers to evolution at or above the level of species which differs from microevolution which is evolution below the level of species. Thus, examples of species divergence are examples of macroevolution. This is what others have been trying to tell you.

When considering evolutionary changes, it is important to note that the traits exhibited by an organism are driven by genetics; the differences between a human and a banana, for example, are on account of the different sequences of nucleotides. This means that a mechanism which changes the sequence of nucleotides (i.e. random mutation) can cause the changes proposed by common ancestry.

More scientifically speaking, the mechanism of random mutation allows mathematics involving Markov chains and Markov processes to be used statistically model evolution and compare the likelihood of different hypotheses, and such analysis shows universal common ancestry to be significantly more likely than creation or even evolution from multiple common ancestors [http://www.nature.com...].
Guy-In-Process
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:48:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 4:36:11 PM, Enji wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:43:13 PM, Guy-In-Process wrote:
At 5/19/2013 3:16:46 PM, drhead wrote:

And the definition of species implies inability to produce fertile offspring. In addition, macroevolution refers to the creation of new species. In this case, the differences aren't great enough to make them evolve too differently from eachother, but they still evolve along distinct paths, creating two distinct species. You have effectively conceded that macroevolution exists.

That isn't macro evolution then. Whether it is a ring species (inability to produce fertile offspring) or other wise a species with the ability. Macro evolution is a inter species adaptation, being able to reproduce has little to do with macro evolution. Two totally different species cannot produce (elephant, hippo) offspring. And perhaps in some case two of the same species cannot produces offspring (this would make them a ring species). But a ring species isn't sufficient to qualify as evidence for macro evolution. All it says is that the DNA in each creature is too different to produce offspring. Final line, no macro evolution has occurred.

The issue is that you misunderstand the terminology you are using: what you are asking for is evidence of universal common ancestry, not macroevolution. Contrary to creationist claims, macroevolution refers to evolution at or above the level of species which differs from microevolution which is evolution below the level of species. Thus, examples of species divergence are examples of macroevolution. This is what others have been trying to tell you.

When considering evolutionary changes, it is important to note that the traits exhibited by an organism are driven by genetics; the differences between a human and a banana, for example, are on account of the different sequences of nucleotides. This means that a mechanism which changes the sequence of nucleotides (i.e. random mutation) can cause the changes proposed by common ancestry.

More scientifically speaking, the mechanism of random mutation allows mathematics involving Markov chains and Markov processes to be used statistically model evolution and compare the likelihood of different hypotheses, and such analysis shows universal common ancestry to be significantly more likely than creation or even evolution from multiple common ancestors [http://www.nature.com...].

https://www.youtube.com...

I've read your text. I totally understand you. Never mind terminology, what I have said is what I mean, I am not speaking in terminologically terms but at face value. If I say macro evolution I mean universal ancestry, I hear billions, even millions of years, that means nothing to me, it isn't a scientific statement. "Just imagine micro evolution over millions of year, that's macro evolution." Yeah I know, what you mean, don't believe t, cannot see any evidence for it. Now macro evolution is ring species adaption. Sure, if a bird cannot breed with the same species, yes that sucks. Not evidence for evolution (we evolved from bacteria ultimately) though.

Watch the first guys premises, and he will tell you what I think. It's about 20 minutes, feel free to watch the whole debate if you like.