Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 1104 (845178)
12-12-2018 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Pressie
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...
He's done that before.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 6:02 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 10:45 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 77 of 1104 (845181)
12-12-2018 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
12-12-2018 10:03 PM


RAZD writes:
Pressie writes:
I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...
He's done that before.
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.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2018 10:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 78 of 1104 (845182)
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:07 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 80 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 4:13 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 79 of 1104 (845187)
12-13-2018 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AZPaul3
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2018 10:59 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 80 of 1104 (845188)
12-13-2018 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by AZPaul3
12-12-2018 10:59 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2018 10:59 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 81 of 1104 (845191)
12-13-2018 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tanypteryx
12-12-2018 2:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2018 2:11 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 82 of 1104 (847254)
01-20-2019 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
12-04-2018 11:08 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
How does this....
demonstrate macroevolution?
Related, homologous? Sure. But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 12-04-2018 11:08 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2019 1:32 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 01-20-2019 1:37 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 86 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2019 3:32 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 01-22-2019 2:38 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 83 of 1104 (847279)
01-20-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 84 of 1104 (847287)
01-20-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 85 of 1104 (847288)
01-20-2019 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 86 of 1104 (847294)
01-20-2019 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But how do they demonstrate the method of change?
They don't. What made you think they did?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 87 of 1104 (847375)
01-21-2019 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tanypteryx
01-20-2019 11:56 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They don't. What made you think they did?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-20-2019 11:56 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2019 11:21 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 01-22-2019 11:13 AM WookieeB has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 88 of 1104 (847376)
01-21-2019 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:
The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant.
NOT usually how evolution is meant, by whom? So, how is evolution usually meant?
WookieeB writes:
But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that.
Yes, that's what I just said.
WookieeB writes:
dwise1 writes:
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.
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 did not write that.
WookieeB writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
They don't. What made you think they did?
I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.
I didn't write this one either.
WookieeB writes:
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.
No it is not.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 89 of 1104 (847378)
01-21-2019 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tanypteryx
01-21-2019 8:01 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I did not write that.
Of course you didnt. The next poster(s) did.
No it is not.
And why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 8:01 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-21-2019 9:12 PM WookieeB has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 90 of 1104 (847379)
01-21-2019 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 8:41 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
No it is not.
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.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024