Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 356 of 968 (599105)
01-04-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Taq
01-03-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Taq writes:
Why don't you take your dog and pony show to a court room sometime. You can tell the jury that those fingerprints are not evidence against your client. OH NO, that can't be. Those swirls of oil are just that, swirls of oil. You can conclude what you want from those swirls, but it will be nothing more than your interpretation and not science, right?
no, your honor. that video means nothing, as it doesn't actually show my client shooting the victim. while we know that bullets do indeed move through time and space, you've only managed to capture a series of still frames that represent the position of a bullet at any given time. you can't actually show that the bullet in one frame is in any way related to the bullet in the next. maybe it's just coincidence that two bullets happened to magically appear and then disappear in similar places, one shortly following the other. it takes speculation, and operating from a certain viewpoint that is highly prejudiced against my client.
oh, and that smoking gun and the dna? you'll just have to ignore those, as a 99.99% match isn't exactly conclusive. nor does a smoking gun actually prove much of anything, just that my client owned a gun and used it at some point -- there's no good way to link it to the victim, at that time and place.
the witnesses, you say? clearly they are conspiring against my client.
...
...guys, i'm telling you. if i ever kill somebody, i want a creationist to be my lawyer.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Taq, posted 01-03-2011 5:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Percy, posted 01-05-2011 8:03 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 358 by Taq, posted 01-05-2011 11:36 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 360 of 968 (599210)
01-05-2011 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Percy
01-05-2011 8:03 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Percy writes:
No you don't. Creationists do have the advantage that they can make those kinds of arguments with a straight face, but every time they go to court they lose.
yes, but if i was caught on video, seen by a bunch of eyewitnesses, and found holding the smoking gun, it'd be about the only argument that could be made.
that, and insanity. which hiring a creationist fraud as a lawyer should sufficiently demonstrate, imho.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Percy, posted 01-05-2011 8:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 364 of 968 (599800)
01-10-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by ICANT
01-09-2011 12:34 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
ICANTUNDERSTANDBIOLOGY writes:
1. Macroevolution is evolution above the the species level.
all evolution takes places on generational level, below the species level. "macroevolution" is a strawman creationists made up so they can pretend that speciation somehow doesn't compound.
2. There are no first hand accounts to be read. (There is no direct evidence we can produce).
there are first hand accounts of (indeed, lab-produced) speciation.
3. Once we figure out what evolutionary events we think happned. [sic] We try to figure out how we think it happened.
still having problems with turning dependent clauses into sentence fragments, i see.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 12:34 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 11:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 367 of 968 (599973)
01-11-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by ICANT
01-11-2011 11:16 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
ICANTTHINKSTRAIGHT writes:
Since you can't read a post before you coment I will repeat the post you are answering to in post 364.
that's great. firstly, they're not exactly talking about what you're talking about.
second, what you're talking about is still not an actual biological concept. evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution -- everything actually happens on the species level. most biological sources that use the word "macroevolution" are referring to speciation -- change that happens above the species level, ie: by introducing a new species.
this is, however, what creationists refer to as "microevolution".
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 11:16 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by shadow71, posted 01-11-2011 7:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 369 of 968 (599980)
01-11-2011 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by shadow71
01-11-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
notice that "micro" is anything below the species level, and "macro" is the species, or above (ie: the compounding of species-level changes).
this is not what creationists mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by shadow71, posted 01-11-2011 7:59 PM shadow71 has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 375 of 968 (600048)
01-12-2011 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Dawn Bertot
01-11-2011 11:49 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Dawn Bertot writes:
just quick question here, dont mean to interupt. if these are the changes from the Chimpanzees to humans and chimpanzees are still here, where did all these intermediate types go?
human and chimpanzees are both crown species of the primate family tree. one did not evolve into the other; we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
and yes, all of the species between the common ancestor and either crown species are extinct.
Shouldnt there be atleast one example of them still in existence if we still have all types and examples of primates
no, the vast majority of species in this planet's history are now extinct. in any case, if you pull the lens out a bit, and examine the bigger picture, chimpanzees are very much like a transitional species between other primates and humans. they aren't that species, but they retain a lot of the significant features.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2011 11:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 403 of 968 (600123)
01-12-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2011 10:09 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Dawn Bertot writes:
So from going from nearly human looking, Neandertal, some of them went back to looking like chimps and some humans
no. this may be a little difficult to believe, but for all intents and purposes, neanderthals are modern humans. they were just another species of modern human, that existed along side sapiens, like you and me. they only went extinct within the last ten thousand years, iirc.
the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans is way, way down the family tree.
Shouldnt they have went forward to atleast look like, Dr Adequate, Arch or Cavediver, something nearly human. Lets be real here, there are some but ugly people out there, not these guys of course
if you saw a neanderthal walking around the street today, you'd almost certainly mistake him for a homo sapien. he'd be a bit more barrel chested, and have a bit less of a chin. but he'd look more or less like you or me.
So where did the Gorillas, Apes and other type of primate come from and what should they have evolved into by now
evolution is not directed -- and those living species are all "crown" species. here is a very simplified primate family tree.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2011 10:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 01-12-2011 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 405 of 968 (600130)
01-12-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Percy
01-12-2011 5:10 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
RAZD already posted one above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 01-12-2011 5:10 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2011 7:34 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1462 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 412 of 968 (600169)
01-13-2011 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by RAZD
01-12-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
RAZD writes:
Curiously, they agree.
must be some kind of horrible coincidence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2011 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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