Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Why Evolution is science

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5

Normal Thread Display
Message 173 of 200 (382398)
02-04-2007 2:30 PM 		Reply to: Message 171 by Oliver
02-04-2007 2:24 PM

Re: Macro-Evo not Science -- This is the topic
I owuld say that some expansions or caveats to Chiropter's post might be desirable - but there's nothing badly wrong with it.
​
In contrast you are using a definition of "macro-evolution" that appears to be your own invention (without even mentioning that fact) and not explaining why your demand for direct observation is a requirement of science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Oliver, posted 02-04-2007 2:24 PM Oliver has not replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5

Normal Thread Display
Message 186 of 200 (382850)
02-06-2007 5:46 AM 		Reply to: Message 185 by Oliver
02-06-2007 5:30 AM

Did you also find this ?Page not found
​
And my opinion on the article you found is that the author has proved that he is ignorant of science.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Oliver, posted 02-06-2007 5:30 AM Oliver has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Oliver, posted 02-06-2007 9:10 AM PaulK has replied
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5

Normal Thread Display
Message 189 of 200 (382885)
02-06-2007 9:22 AM 		Reply to: Message 187 by Oliver
02-06-2007 9:10 AM

quote:
Ok, I had a look at that site. As usual, micro-evolution was
cited which is perfectly acceptable but when hoaxes are
involved, alarm bells sound!!
​
But - as you admit - no hoax was cited.
​
And simply arguing that archeopteryx is a 'true bird' does nothing to dispel it's status as a transitional. Any transitional would be classified as a dinosaur or a bird (or, more correctly, both).
​
And Sarfati even cites the fact that archaeopteryx has a brain intermediate in size between dinosaurs and modern birds - how's that for evidence that it's transitional ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Oliver, posted 02-06-2007 9:10 AM Oliver has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024