Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 166 of 238 (591104)
11-11-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
11-11-2010 4:36 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Well this creationist believes that your mice that can not breed with other mice is still mice.
When they cease to be mice then 'Macro-Evolution' will have taken place.
So when would they cese to be mice, when would you stop cayyling them mice il find a simmilar example when you tell me what your definition of what makes seperate species is.
If that is true could you tell me where I could pick up a cross between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua?
Well if you want it unatural then insaminate a grate dane bitch whit chiuahua sperm, the way nature would do it though is mix a few together, a grate dane would f%&/ a smaller dog and a Chiuhaua a slightly bigger dog and the ofspring of those 2 dogs could mate retaining parts of the chiuaua and the grate dane.
You can call it anything you want to call it. But if you start with two mice and a billion years later you got trillions of mice and billions of them can not breed with each other because of changes or habits you still got trillions of mice, whether they can breed with each other or not.
So when do you stop calling them House mice, the second they go out the door well no cause they are still the same. Wehen they adapt to their new enviorment growing some parts larger some smaller, when.
On a nother note if those mice are mice then why is the buffalo a buffalo and not a cow they look the same they should be called cows so what they have a bit of fur and different horns everything else is roughly the same why are they buffalo and not cows what destiguishes a species in your eyes if not the fact of sucsesfull reproduction. Does every diferent species need a new organ well shit happens all mamals are the same species then.
What is the mechanism that you use to define 2 diferent species, what would the minimal changes haveto be in a house mouse to be called something different to be a different species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 4:36 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 238 (591106)
11-11-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
11-11-2010 4:36 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
You can call it anything you want to call it. But if you start with two mice and a billion years later you got trillions of mice and billions of them can not breed with each other because of changes or habits you still got trillions of mice, whether they can breed with each other or not.
Right. And again - macroevolution is not the prediction that mice will ever stop being mice; it's that the group called "mice" will come to refer to more and more different species.
"Ape" referred, once, to only a single species. Now it refers to dozens, including hominids like us. "Hominid" once referred to a single species; now, it refers to dozens, including Homo hablis, Homo neandertalis, and Homo sapiens.
Do you understand, yet? Mice will still be mice, apes will still be apes, tetrapods will still be tetrapods, birds will still be birds - yet, macroevolution will still be occurring, species will still be changing, and new species will still be emerging from old ones. Mice will never turn into birds - but evolution doesn't say that they ever did.
Do you understand that?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 4:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 4:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 168 of 238 (591109)
11-11-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by frako
11-11-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Hi fraco,
fraco writes:
How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice.
But they are still mice.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of land creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of water creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of flying creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of mankind.
I do have a problem when I am told anyone of those came from one of the others.
The problem arises because of the lack of evidence that everything has evolved from one living life form that began to exist all by itself.
Darwin has four notebooks on Transmutation of Species.
Transmutation is a strong word meaning changing one element into another element. Example changing steel into gold. Non life into life. One creature into a totaly different creature.
That is 'Macro-Evolution'.
Well that word is too strong for the ToE so it must be discarded when talking about evolution and has been.
Then we had the words 'Micro-Evolution' and 'Macro-Evolution'. Well the word 'Macro-Evolution' proved to be too much for the ToE. It hasn't been discarded yet but that problem is being worked on as we speak.
In this thread it has been incorporated into every argument against 'Macro-Evolution'. The statement you have made several times is the process 'Macro-Evolution' will be discarded by.
'Macro-Evolution' is just the accumulation of a lot of 'Micro-Evolution' processes.
I will hereby make a prediction that in the very near future that the word 'Macro-Evolution' will cease to be used except by creationist, or when someone is answering a creationist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 1:25 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 171 by jar, posted 11-11-2010 6:14 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:16 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 178 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 179 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 7:26 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 181 by Coyote, posted 11-11-2010 8:37 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 1:15 PM ICANT has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 169 of 238 (591110)
11-11-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Transmutation is a strong word meaning changing one element into another element. Example changing steel into gold. Non life into life. One creature into a totaly different creature.
That is 'Macro-Evolution'.
Ok ill take your word for it
So how much change in a house mouse would be needed at minimum for it to be a nother species.
If i grew a house mouse whit natural selection only, that had a rabbits tail horns and a gofers mouth would that be enough for it to be called a nother species or is more needed, would less sufice too?
I will hereby make a prediction that in the very near future that the word 'Macro-Evolution' will cease to be used except by creationist, or when someone is answering a creationist.
Wel it usualy is only used by creationists cause there is not much diference in macro or micro evolution.
When will you anwser the question i posted 5 times so far.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-11-2010 6:12 PM frako has replied

Zubbbra25
Junior Member (Idle past 4105 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-11-2010


Message 170 of 238 (591111)
11-11-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by frako
11-11-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Why does it seem like ICANT is totally avoiding frakos question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 6:09 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by frako, posted 11-11-2010 6:23 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 171 of 238 (591112)
11-11-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


ICANT's predictions about as valueless as the god he markets.
ICANT writes:
I will hereby make a prediction that in the very near future that the word 'Macro-Evolution' will cease to be used except by creationist, or when someone is answering a creationist.
And I will make the prediction that when used by anyone other than a Creationist it will be used correctly and understood.
In addition, as has been explained to you, the topic is whether macro-evolution can be disproved.
What you think, believe, understand, hope, assert is irrelevant, unimportant, of no relevancy to the topic.
The topic is "Can I disprove Macro-evolution", not can I doubt if it happened or question if it happened; it is can it be shown that Macro Evolution is impossible.
As you have admitted, there is evidence that the critters existed.
As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve.
The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time.
It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters.
The divisions of critters into the various categories is simply a human construct we created to put labels on things. The difference between humans and the rest of the great apes exists only in the minds of man, that we, man, decided to extend the labeling system to that level.
Now you may not believe any of this, and that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.
BUT, there is evidence to support the conventional model, and no evidence to support any alternative.
In addition, neither you or anyone else has presented any reason to even consider that macro-evolution is not simply the sum of micro-evolution over time, much less any evidence that would disprove Macro-evolution.
Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market.
When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again.
But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant.
Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer.
Edited by jar, : add on topic material

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 5:42 PM jar has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 172 of 238 (591113)
11-11-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by subbie
11-11-2010 3:38 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Hi subbie,
Subbie writes:
So in other words, you won't believe it unless there's evidence of every single step of the way, until each and every question has been answered.
Of course, that's not science. That's irrationality.
Actually knowing each and every step would be science.
Anything else is either religion or belief in some system.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by subbie, posted 11-11-2010 3:38 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by hooah212002, posted 11-11-2010 6:17 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 6:19 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 11-11-2010 11:32 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2010 5:00 AM ICANT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 238 (591114)
11-11-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Micro Macro
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of land creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of water creatures.
Could you believe that the same "kind" of creature could come in both land and water varieties? I mean, surely that's not a stretch - you've heard of "water rats", right?
So why couldn't every kind of mammal be the same "kind" of creature, only in different species - very different species - in very different environments? Why couldn't every reptile be the same "kind" of creature, only in very different species?
And if you can imagine the diversity of mammals all being one "kind", and the diversity of reptiles all being one "kind", then why couldn't mammals and reptiles themselves just be two different versions of the same "kind"?
If something in there doesn't work for you - then how much diversity, exactly, are you not prepared to accept as emerging from a single type of organism via microevolutionary change? Be specific.
The problem arises because of the lack of evidence that everything has evolved from one living life form that began to exist all by itself.
That evidence has already been presented to you. There's no "lack" of it.
Example changing steel into gold.
"Steel" isn't an element, it's an alloy of iron and carbon.
One creature into a totaly different creature.
Your avatar is of two totally different types of horses. You can, I assume, imagine two totally different types of mice - say, one that dwells on land and another that lives in the water. You yourself have admitted to turning one kind of pig into a totally different kind of pig. Yeah, yeah, they're "still mice, still pigs", whatever that means (you won't say.) So why is it impossible for you to believe that all living things are actually the same type of creature in an extraordinary diversity of form and environment?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 6:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 174 of 238 (591115)
11-11-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:15 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Actually knowing each and every step would be science.
Every time a step is found, you people create two more.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:15 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 238 (591116)
11-11-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:15 PM


Re: 'Macro-Evolution'
Actually knowing each and every step would be science.
Well, no. Science doesn't insist on having perfect knowledge immediately.
If science knew everything as soon as it started, why would we still be doing it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:15 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 176 of 238 (591117)
11-11-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Zubbbra25
11-11-2010 6:12 PM


Re: Micro Macro
Why does it seem like ICANT is totally avoiding frakos question?
Simple any other description of what seperates species would lead to a total meltown of the way we structured species so far.
If he says looks then a buffalo is also a cow, an ape a man ....
If he says diferent organs, then almost all land animals are the same species.
What ever what not he makes up it disrupts the way we classify species now.
Two species are different when they cannot mate and produce a fertile offspring. After that you can classify them for their looks, organs, predecessors, eating habbits and what not else if you do not include the mating part as a line, all sorts of animals become the same species.
In a way he has defiriciated animals like this, a cow is a cow cause it has 4 legs, horns and tastes grate, a horse is not a cow cause it has no horns if it grew horns though it would be a horse whit horns. And a buffalo is not a cow cause it has furr if it lost its fur it would not be a cow but a furless buffalo. Simple logic for the simple mind
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-11-2010 6:12 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 177 of 238 (591126)
11-11-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
11-11-2010 4:02 PM


Re: More assertions from jar
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
That's macroevolution - over time, our classifications describe a greater variety of organisms. You watched your "piney-woods rooters" go from describing one species of swine to two.
No I did not observe 'Macro-Evolution'.
I observed 'Micro-Evolution' small changes in time by selective breeding. At no time did the piney-woods-rooter cease to be the same creature that I started with. He just became a modified version of that creature.
crashfrog writes:
We classify living organisms in a hierarchal fashion.
We do a lot of things and over time we change a lot of the things we have done in the past.
crashfrog writes:
If they're both horses, why are they so different? If they're so different, how do you know they're both horses?
Be specific.
Well when that picture was taken Radar was the largest horse in the world. Thumbelina was the smallest horse in the world. Neither was refered to as anyother creature.
I understand that Einstein has weighed in at 6 lbs which is 2 lbs less that Thumbelina was at birth so is expected to take her record when he is full grown. He is presently 14 inches tall. Thumbelina was born May 1, 2001 is 17 1/2 inches tall and weighs 57 lbs.
Source
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 4:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2010 8:01 PM ICANT has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 178 of 238 (591127)
11-11-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Micro Macro
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice.
But they are still mice.
Ok so you acnowlage that they are different species not breeds so what is then the problem of macro evolution being evolution above the species level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2010 6:16 PM frako has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 179 of 238 (591128)
11-11-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Micro Macro
I have no problem with your non breeding mice being a different species of mice.
But they are still mice.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of land creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of water creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of flying creatures.
I don't have a problem with there being many different species of mankind.
I do have a problem when I am told anyone of those came from one of the others.
The problem arises because of the lack of evidence that everything has evolved from one living life form that began to exist all by itself.
sorry had forum problems the page would not load right
So you do not have a problem whit those mice becoming a different species of mice but you do have a problem whit all species comming from a single ancestor.
So if those mice would evolve further and grow hopping legs, a rabbit like tail and start eating bark would you still call them mice or something else.
if you look at the evidence so far you can see species changing their feeding habits, you have much evidence of species changing the lenght of their legs (lots of different dog breeds have diferent bone ratios in legs and ofcorse diferent lengts alltogether), and some humans get bourne whit a tail so it is logical to asume it is possible for some animal to be borne whitout one. So given the evidence it is possible that a mouse like the one above could evolve would you still call it a mouse or something else like a hoopelldoo.
And because it is no longer a mouse but a hoppelldoo do could you apply the same exsample to a pre human/ape like creature evolving in to a human.
Or is there something i have missed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:04 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 238 (591130)
11-11-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ICANT
11-11-2010 6:58 PM


Re: More assertions from jar
At no time did the piney-woods-rooter cease to be the same creature that I started with.
Well, it's not the same creature you started with. The creature you started with, presumably, died long ago, and the piney-woods rooters you have now are his descendants.
And, again - if "piney-woods rooter", as a term, can now encompass two species where before it encompassed one, why can't that be happening in nature? Why can't that have happened in the past?
Why can't "mammal", for instance, at one time have encompassed only a single kind of creature, and then over time come to have encompassed a large number of related creatures?
We do a lot of things and over time we change a lot of the things we have done in the past.
Sure, definitions change.
Is that what happened with your piney-woods rooters? Was everybody wrong about what that term referred to, and you wrote a letter to Miriam-Webster or whatever and have the definition changed? That's not at all what you did, right?
Didn't you actually breed a new form of piney-woods rooter? In other words - nothing about the word was changed at all; the actual biological reality was changed. What the word referred to changed, not the word.
Why couldn't that happen to another species? Be specific.
Well when that picture was taken Radar was the largest horse in the world. Thumbelina was the smallest horse in the world. Neither was refered to as anyother creature.
So you take some expert's word that they're both horses, but not that evolution happens? Come on, ICANT, think for yourself. Do you really need some egghead to tell you what a horse is? I doubt even you could be that intellectually timid. You breed animals, for Christ's sake, you must know how to recognize them.
How do you know that both animals are horses? Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ICANT, posted 11-11-2010 6:58 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024