Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

He's done that before.Enjoy

Yep. When we see these repeated patterns it always makes me wonder what he expects to happen? His support for his rants is not even lackluster, he's not even trying. It's just an old-fashoned Gish Gallop of PRATTS.I think he is a troubled young man. I hope he finds his way without anyone being hurt.

Maybe we can just wait and see if/when he comes back. Life, believe it or not, does have a tendency to happen outside this forum.He may be trying to get laid. Hope he bathed first.

Or maybe he/she's just stewing because he/she can't place the third PRATT without the second being closed...

That's true, but him/her taking all the time by placing a second PRATT and then complaining that he/she didn't have time to participate in the first PRATT makes me wonder.

I had to look the word "incel" up. Probably male, but you never know.

How does this.... demonstrate macroevolution?Related, homologous? Sure. But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

There is only one process. Evolution is change from generation to generation. Macroevolution is just the result of many generations of change that lead to one or more daughter species.Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same process.That image doesn't demonstrate anything without more explanation, except that there are some clear similarities. The images do not demonstrate what the exact hereditary relationships are between the species that are illustrated.

Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.The typical creationist line is that most hominids were "100% ape" and some of then "100% human". Furthermore, you should be able to draw a line dividing hominids on that basis and, according to creationists, that line is very clear and easy to draw. Yet nobody is able to draw that line, not even professional creationists.At http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html, Jim Foley takes six hominid skulls and surveys the writings of nine professional creationists for their judgement of which fossils are "100% ape" and which are "100% human". If the dividing line between the two groups is so clear and obvious, they should have all come to the same conclusions and be in agreement with each other. They didn't. Not only couldn't they agree with each other, but some even changed their minds from one book to another.

Microwalking is walking from the living room to the mailbox. Macrowalking is walking from New York to San Francisco. The process of walking is the same in both cases.

They don't. What made you think they did?

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant. From what I was asking, 'method of change' = 'same process'. So what do the skulls say as to the process, if anything?
I agree there is a similarities, and that supports some sort of relationship. But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that. I agree with the first statement. But the second statement is not necessarily true. For one thing, the 'chimp' skull should not even be in that sequence, as I understand that with Common Descent it should be some older common ancestor of the chimp and human (Homo x) that led to humans. A chimp would be on a totally separate branch and would not lead to humans. I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.Again, a relationship is clearly evident. The cause of that relationship is not. As for a cause, ID is just as valid a proposal as M+NS is.

NOT usually how evolution is meant, by whom? So, how is evolution usually meant? Yes, that's what I just said. I did not write that. I didn't write this one either. No it is not.

Of course you didnt. The next poster(s) did. And why not?

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.