O
o_mlly
Guest
We all agree on the conditional. What there not so much of is evidence for your consequent.
Last edited:
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Hehehe, Don’t quite understand this argument do you.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Maybe us means those mice in his pocket. You know, the ones that escaped the ice age.Hume:
Hehehe, Don’t quite understand this argument do you.
R
rossum
Guest
Your lack of knowledge of evolution is showing, I’m afraid. At the time of the separation of the line that produced plants from the line that produced animals there were neither plants nor animals. There were only protists. Both plants and animals came later, evolving from different lines of protists: green algae for plants and choanoflagellates for animals and fungi.
That is another error in the chronology of Genesis land plants came well after the first fish, not before them. Yet another indication that Genesis is not to be taken literally.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Did you remember how old you think the earth is yet?
B
buffalo
Guest
You already tested your own memory and it was wrong. There are plenty of past posts you can refer to.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I think you mean my lack of imagination.
Your myth reads eerily like Genesis. “And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep …”
Yes, you have a lovely story. Got evidence?
T
Techno2000
Guest
But, that still means that green algae is one of our Great 000-000-000 Grandpa…don’t it ?
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
I take that as retreat.Hume:
Hehehe, Don’t quite understand this argument do you.
I take this as confirmation.
But if you guys want to switch subjects or try to reframe, fine with me.
H
Hume
Guest
Do you, Miss “The Earth is Only 6000 Years Old”?
It’s interesting. You try to invoke scientific empiricism. Other times, you lambaste it.
It’s almost like you’ve already decided on a conclusion and only care about the evidence that can be construed as some vague support for your claim (which are usually just of the philosophical variety…).
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, you have a lovely story as well. In my compliment to Rossum, didn’t mean to slight you.
H
Hume
Guest
Same to you. Heavens and hells and angels and demons and virgin births and resurrections from the dead and all. Very imaginative.Hume:
Yes, you have a lovely story as well. In my compliment to Rossum, didn’t mean to slight you.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Not true. I am a big-time supporter of microevolution because it is empirical (repeatable observations) and a rationale that complies with first principles of reason. Now, macroevolution … well, it has neither.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I think you meant to limit your litany of biblical events to only the creation event. Else, new thread needed.
Now, which story meets the parsimony rule? Well, that would be creation.
H
Hume
Guest
As “macro” evolution (or speciation) takes longer than a lab setting can create, we have to look to other sources of evidence - namely fossils. And it fits perfectly with the PSR. There are small, sequential evolutionary changes in the DNA of a species (what you call “microevolution”). These small changes add up to the point where, in sexually reproducing species, the chromosomes in the gametes offered by mom and dad are no longer congruent. At that point, speciation occurred.Hume:
Not true. I am a big-time supporter of microevolution because it is empirical (repeatable observations) and a rationale that complies with first principles of reason. Now, macroevolution … well, it has neither.
We have a “Y”, we have a causal “X” - PSR maintained.
B
buffalo
Guest
namely genetics which is far better.
H
Hume
Guest
The universality of RNA in life is one of the strongest sources of evidence for the evolution of life from a common source.Hume:
namely genetics which is far better.
If you want to look for a field that is condemning of the theory of evolution, you won’t find much of a home in genetics.
B
buffalo
Guest
Or simply a very useful design element.
Oh yes you will. Stay tuned. The tree of life has fallen because of genetics.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Could you be a little more vague…please
O
o_mlly
Guest
Well, that’s convenient. There goes both falsification and verification and experimental confirmation …
I gotta tell you, it’s not looking good in the bones in the rock studies.
I do prefer your definition of speciation to Rossum’s. However, both definitions require that a single magical moment occurs in what mom and dad thought would be just another microevolutionary coupling turns out to be a macroevolutionary moment: mom and dad just produced a monster. Gotta have some evidence for such a singular event. Haven’t seen any yet.
Plants reproduce sexually as well. Would be nice to see that “coupling” produce a barking, meowing, or even grunting animal.
Last edited:
- Status