B
buffalo
Guest
So the definition of a “new” species in the loss of an ability once had?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
So, now you accept evolution 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, but not today. That is a rather strange position to take. Evolution was true back then but it is not true now. You also have to deal with the 1 in 10 modern species that did not appear in that window, what about them?
Your position is looking weak here.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
I see quite well. Evo’s have cooked the books.
B
buffalo
Guest
Came into being - how did they come into being. Well evolution of course.
I have a different answer.
I have a different answer.
O
o_mlly
Guest
It’s a number (integer) between 4,600,001 and 4,599,999. Nothing else. What it is not is evidence. Try again.
Oh, here we go again. I guess any deflection on your part must be tried in the absence of any evidence for your claim. Start a new thread rather than deflecting. Do you have evidence or not? As it appears “not” is your answer.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Any time you are ready to discuss any of those papers using the ToE to make predictions…
The bars around here won’t be open for another couple of hours so if you have something to say about them then I’m ready to go.
The bars around here won’t be open for another couple of hours so if you have something to say about them then I’m ready to go.
B
buffalo
Guest
Maybe one of your mates can reference your strongest paper to prove macro-evolution. @rossum has tried but failed. Over and over they show variation within. No one argues this.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Not interested. You said the ToE couldn’t be used to make predictions. I’ve given you copious amounts of experiments that show it can.Bradskii:
Maybe one of your mates can reference your strongest paper to prove macro-evolution. @rossum has tried but failed. Over and over they show variation within. No one argues this.
Retract or dismiss them all. I’m waiting.
B
buffalo
Guest
Even a guy in a bar should be able to give the best prediction and back it up. Start with bacteria. What new and novel features will evolve?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Failed. You stated that the ToE could not be used to predict and you have been given umpteen examples.Bradskii:
Even a guy in a bar should be able to give the best prediction and back it up. Start with bacteria. What new and novel features will evolve?
Retract or dismiss them all. I’m still waiting.
B
buffalo
Guest
Uh no - you really haven’t. I will give you another chance. Give the best three papers. Post 'em for me and the folks.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Here’s a statement: ‘I have linked to well over 100 papers that show that the ToE is used to make predictions’. How can you claim that that is not true?Bradskii:
Uh no - you really haven’t. I will give you another chance. Give the best three papers. Post 'em for me and the folks.
Is there something in that statement that you don’t understand? You denied it was possible and I have given you examples that disprove that claim.
I have also said that you can take these examples IN ORDER and discuss them if you want to show that they do not. I cannot make that any clearer. You either discount the fact that NONE of those papers are using the ToE to make predictions or you retract.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Schools are only allowed to teach materialism and utilitarianism, under the guise of science.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
And that is what makes it illusion, as opposed to the reality that is an organism in itself, composed of simple material forms of being and existing as a participant within a larger system, all of which were created in stages at the beginning of time and undergoing the ongoing transformations that define time.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
We will just have a link war. Really. That is what your side is reduced to.
Is this the strength of your argument? Hey, I linked a bunch of papers. But don’t ask me to cite one specific from any one of them to back my claim. Another strike, another fastball. Epic fail.
A
Aloysium
Guest
This is a perfect example although the conclusion is askew.
Let’s recall that immunity to the flu of yesteryear rests on the capacity of white blood cells to recognize an antigen and mount a defense. That is why we have vaccines. The processes involved are preprogrammed responses to a particular stimulus, all of which were established at an embryonic stage utilizing and recombining genetic information from the parents and then is modulated by life experiences with infectious agents.
We have built in mechanisms to deal with foreign bodies entering our bodies as part of the harmony that exists in nature. Viruses may have their roots in aberrant plasmid transfer of genetic material which otherwise would assist in the flowering of diversity, but underwent random mutation of the information they carry. And, bacteria would find it a very warm comfortable place to dwell in our bodies were it not for this ever-vigilant system.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You have consistently refused to commit to a definition (not an example) of a new species that satisfies you. So you can’t very well complain when others use the definition that is mostly commonly used. But since you are the one defining “macro-evolution” maybe you should also be the one to define the word “species”. Remember, only rigorous scientific definitions please.rossum:
See how you did this. Let’s define species in a way that fits.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Since you have not shared your private definition of “species” there is no reason to require a change in functions.rossum:
The definition of species does.
B
buffalo
Guest
Asked and answered - look back over the last day or so posts.
I have also in the past posted the dictionary def of - Species.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Give me the post number.LeafByNiggle:
Asked and answered - look back over the last day or so posts.
I have also in the past posted the dictionary def of - Species.
- Status