B
buffalo
Guest
This is adaptation aka micro evolution.
- Status
G
GLam1761
Guest
Just b/c the Bible, which has NEVER been refuted to
be wrong says it is… Now time-wise, there might be
an argument whether the “days” of the actual Genesis
chapter 1 and 2 account are actually 24 hrs. in length
according to our concept of “time”.
be wrong says it is… Now time-wise, there might be
an argument whether the “days” of the actual Genesis
chapter 1 and 2 account are actually 24 hrs. in length
according to our concept of “time”.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, we have not. All your examples are of microevolution.
Why do evolutionary believers always offer micorevolution examples when asked for evidence of macroevoluiton?
Darwin saw evidence of only microevolution.
Transitional fossils before the Cambrian explosion could evidence microevolution but not macro. Do you have a peer reviewed article to support your claim?
Microevoluiton evidence again.
Darwin speculated hoping that the future evidence would support his imagination. Under your definition of species, Darwin’s speculation cannot be evidenced.
Try this thought experiment:
Assumption: Life can be generated if parts from dead bodies can be reassembled, soaked in a primordial solution, and electrocuted.
Evidence: Live bodies are observed.
Assumption: Speciation explains how different groups of living beings came into existence.
Evidence: Different living beings are observed.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
More microevolution evidence which no one refutes. Unless Tibetans are a new species, i.e., Tibetan cannot reproduce with non Tibetans.
H
Hume
Guest
The fossil record literally shows the “macroevolution”.
There are no homosapiens in dirt older than a few hundred thousand years. The first homosapiens to appear were still remarkably different from homosapiens today.
The rocks show you the “macroevolution”.
We can literally show our evolution from common ancestors with them.
No evidence for “macroevolution”?
Well… do you know what a fossil is? How about extinction?
Let’s be perfectly clear fossil evidence of creatures that no longer exist and a lack of fossil evidence for most creatures that currently do exist are absolutely evidence of “macroevolution”. It’s precisely what we expect to see.
There are no homosapiens in dirt older than a few hundred thousand years. The first homosapiens to appear were still remarkably different from homosapiens today.
The rocks show you the “macroevolution”.
We can literally show our evolution from common ancestors with them.
No evidence for “macroevolution”?
Well… do you know what a fossil is? How about extinction?
Let’s be perfectly clear fossil evidence of creatures that no longer exist and a lack of fossil evidence for most creatures that currently do exist are absolutely evidence of “macroevolution”. It’s precisely what we expect to see.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Very unscientific claim. You may say there are none discovered. This problem of elevating that which is provisional, possible, maybe, indicative, etc. to the realm of fact by evolutionists is pandemic.
Really? I just picked a rock and shook it. No signs of life, no indication of its “parent” rock.
Please literally show me.
Question are not evidence.
OK. Are the offspring of beings that sexually interbreed successfully the descendant of the male or female parent?
H
Hume
Guest
At this point we’ve been looking for a few hundred years and so far that seems to be the age of humanity.
We most certainly did not co-exist with dinosaurs, for instance.
But a fundamental difference between you and me is that my views are data driven. This means that if we suddenly find a 500k year old homosapien bone, I’ll be happy to change my view on the age of humankind.
Sure. The fossil records show us something very nearly but not quite human… and no humans. If you want to deny that, fine. But it seems pretty apparent.
Bone for each found in the appropriate time frame and that time frame only. Enjoy;
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
In a sexually diploid species, our genes come from both. It’s like asking "what color is the rainbow? Red or blue?
A counter question;
Ok, so since there’s no evidence of people before a few 100k years ago, where were we when, say Tyrannosaurs lived 65 million years ago? Why are we finding multiple tyrannosaurs and no people?
If you’re a rationalist, that’s gotta make you at least a little nervous!
R
rossum
Guest
Not relevant. The point was that beneficial mutations exist, contrary to o_mlly’s claim. Microevolution includes beneficial mutations and we have many examples of such mutations.
G
gama232
Guest
After thousands of generations, E. coli remain E. coli. They do not change into something else.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Better.
Recidivism. You may claim there is yet no evidence that …
Who is “we”?
Even your evolutionist colleagues would deny that the fossil records do not show humans.
Are you claiming each chip or collection of bones found in a rock dated indirectly (and ignoring fossil displacement) evidences a new species? The fossils are individuals, not groups. How do you know that none in the group could successfully interbreed? If the rock dating is correct and longer than the estimated life span of the individual (unknowable) then the most one can conclude is the individual most likely could not make the attempt to interbreed. That is not the same as could not interbreed.
No, I don’t think it asks what explains accidental characteristic differences but essential differences, like the ability to successfully interbreed. So, I ask you again: What species is Neanderthal?
As in, “We, the people …”? We are always better to argue from precise definition of terms.
Science answers the questions: “Who and How and Where?” The “Why” question is a teleological question and outside the range of scientific inquire. Your avatar, the quintessential empiricist, would protest vehemently.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
You really need to find better sources. Tauber and Tauber (1977) shows an example of macroevolution. Lyko (2017) shows an example of macroevolution. There are others. Why do you believe sources that mislead you so badly?
Erm… You might want to break it to your incompetent source gently, but other scientists have been working on evolution as well as Darwin.
The species found before the Cambrian, such as Kimberella, are not the same as the species found after, such as early molluscs. However the similarities are such that macroevolution is the best scientific explanation. Why don’t you ask some YEC scientist for Kimberella and early mollusc DNA sequences? After all, according to YEC, both are 6,000 years old and we know that DNA can last that long. If you search Google Scholar you will find an abundance of scholarly articles.
Don’t you read what you post? I gave those examples in answer to your incorrect claim that:
Your claim was incorrect. You do not avoid your error by pretending that my refutation was about something else. Beneficial mutations happen and have been observed. Your source’s claim that there are no beneficial mutations is false and hence that argument against macroevolution fails. As I have repeatedly said, you need to find better sources. The ones you are using are letting you down badly.
R
rossum
Guest
Here are three of those beneficial mutations that your sources claim don’t exist: Trio of genes supercharged human brain evolution. Or are you going to claim that a larger brain in humans is not a beneficial mutation?
Your sources are feeding you false information; haven’t you realised that yet?
H
Hume
Guest
Humanity
Hey, if that’s so then I ought to be pretty easy to embarrass here. The oldest known fossils I’ve heard of are 195,000 years old. Where can I read about human fossils that are older?
Are you claiming each chip or collection of bones found in a rock dated indirectly (and ignoring fossil displacement) evidences a new species?
Yup. They display traits not found in modern humans.
How do you know they could?
Speciation seems to take between 4k to 25k generations, depending on the pressure. The time frame is certainly right.
On this basis, I guess we don’t know for certain if humans could interbreed with Tyrannosaurs, lol
Homo Neanderthalensis, easy enough.
Then Where are the human remains that co-date with tyrannosaurs? I mean, we have difficulty finding any older than 195,000 years old, much less 65,000,000 years old.
I mean, surely we’d have found one stinkin’ bone!
Not gonna let you dodge this one.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes and now we are learning they are cell directed, iow the organism is in control.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is not proven. See soft tissue finds that have caused evo;s angst.
Soft tissue cannot survive thousands of years. So, we never looked for it.
We found dino soft tissue.
Well we know for sure dino’s went extinct 68 M years ago.
Therefore, soft tissue must be able to survive that long.
ROTFL and spend much money chasing this one.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
How about a dino bone dated 28K years ago? Will you change your views?
F
Freddy
Guest
Just a quick question…
Has anyone seen anything at all by the Usual Suspects of how they think that the process works? Because all we ever get, and all we have ever got, is literally thousands of posts in umpteen threads over literally many years saying ‘this is wrong…there’s no evidence for that…the fossil record doesn’t show…macro this, micro that etc etc’.
Has anyone ever seen any post at all explaining an alternative to the process? Not a bland statement such as ‘it appears to be designed’. But when it was designed for example. Is it really being promoted that, for example, whales didn’t evolve but God simply made them exactly as they are? And birds the same? And literally everything else? Is it a process that maybe doesn’t rely on God?
Can we have a statement from Buff and o-mlly how they think all this happened? And why it doesn’t correlate with any of the evidence? I’d just like to see how much of science you actually need to deny to hold to your position. I’d like to see how your answer fits in with dating methods, geology, archaeology, cladistics, genetics etc.
Has anyone seen anything at all by the Usual Suspects of how they think that the process works? Because all we ever get, and all we have ever got, is literally thousands of posts in umpteen threads over literally many years saying ‘this is wrong…there’s no evidence for that…the fossil record doesn’t show…macro this, micro that etc etc’.
Has anyone ever seen any post at all explaining an alternative to the process? Not a bland statement such as ‘it appears to be designed’. But when it was designed for example. Is it really being promoted that, for example, whales didn’t evolve but God simply made them exactly as they are? And birds the same? And literally everything else? Is it a process that maybe doesn’t rely on God?
Can we have a statement from Buff and o-mlly how they think all this happened? And why it doesn’t correlate with any of the evidence? I’d just like to see how much of science you actually need to deny to hold to your position. I’d like to see how your answer fits in with dating methods, geology, archaeology, cladistics, genetics etc.
F
Freddy
Guest
Why do you keep posting as true statements which you believe are false? You cannot make a claim about one aspect of evolution that you believe to be untrue to back up another of your claims.
This is truly madness.
- Status