Evolution is a farce: Evidence

Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It all sounds so seductively simple doesn't it, a forever morphing organism with this amazing energy that transforms a piece of useless organic matter into a living thing, with a will and desire to develop a central nervous system so it can actually have sex with something that isn't itself. Understandable granted.

It's damn lucky mind you that it found another organism that had interlocking parts so to speak. Imagine how long that would have taken waiting for a little pecker to evolve, and what are the chances that he would find a female version (whatever that is),of its own kind, that corresponds perfectly with fertile eggs for it to impregnate.

Image how many species never quite made it because after searching for a few million years he still never quite figured out where to put it. Life is a tragedy and a wonder it ever evolved at all really.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Its a nice little straw man you are trying to construct there neigbour, but its not a very subtle one. Oh and it is indeed a University I went too, my location is listed and that is where my University was. You clearly have never taken a science paper at a university if you think they spend any time "Defining" what it is. That is for what you would call "middle school" or perhaps "junior high" and I'dve called Intermediate. Seriously to get into University over here you pass exams to gain the privilege. I know they do that in the US too, because I spent close to a decade working in the pharmaceutical industry.

As I said, its a neat little straw man you are building (or perhaps a house of straw little piggy) but its nothing more. Your belligerence towards science is evident in your postings.

Look I admire you have faith. I do too, mine just is not threatened by science. Its not like they deal with the same things any how Perhaps one day you will be able to overcome your fears.

a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Or alternatively don't apply a separation of the two, apply scientific method, and look at all the appropriate (to science) data, then see what you get. Its what scientist do. We don't sit down and separate things on whim. Its why creationists fail every time. Your faith is between you and your deity. Just as my faith is between myself and my pantheon. My science deals in critical thinking, facts, and objective thinking.

a reply to: Noinden
Noinden, my faith has no role in the way science works. Can you honestly say the same.
For Science to work the way you want it to, You have to have way more faith than me. Think about it neighbor.

a reply to: kennyb72

You have a strange way about you. It is the way you "try" to be clever. It eally is child like IMO. Oh well you can always make up some more words and definitions if you like just don't expect to many people to except them.

Here is something for you to ponder though. 99% of the species that have inhabited the earth have been extinct for a very long time. I hope you are not a believer in the Ark tale because the mental gymnastics for that one have to hurt.

Its an inherent urge in all life whether a complex creature like. Blue whale or a single celled amoeba. The one primary drive and function is to continue spreading the seed. Biology 101

a reply to: peter vlar

Primary drive, Oh, OK and does it explain in Biology 101 what exactly this Primary drive is and where it comes from and where it resides. No I didn't think so, maybe if you where to read Metaphysics 101 you may find the answer in there somewhere.

It takes two people of equal knowledge for a debate to take place and since I'm better off arguing with the wall.

You really shouldn't berate yourself like that, I am sure you are much much smarter than a wall. Juvenile, I know! sorry

My point really is not flippant you know, it is the crucial difference between intelligent design and evolution theory.

You can explain the how (with many question marks) but not the why, why is there consciousness at all to allow organism to want to evolve?. It is always the same argument with physicalists, you never want to discuss it because the natural conclusion is intelligent design.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Yes as a matter of fact I can neighbour. I'm a being of deep spiritual faith. I'm a Neopagan Druid. I seek knowledge through Imbas. I also happen to be a scientist. I seek that sort of knowledge through observation, experimentation, and analysis.

I hold recognized accreditation in my faith (recognized in the US too) and I am on the clergy path.

I hold a Bachelors with honors, a PhD, and several postgrad diplomas, as well as a Masters in entrepreneurship being finished. I have worked (ie earned good money) in the fine chemical and Pharmaceutical industry. I've done research into the genetics of certain types of breast cancer, and yes evolutionary theory.

Quite simply I know the difference between faith and science. Can you claim the same?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Noinden
Noinden, my faith has no role in the way science works. Can you honestly say the same.
For Science to work the way you want it to, You have to have way more faith than me. Think about it neighbor.

I see micro changes in organisms, and I BELIEVE these changes are evidence that the frog and the Princess was a possibility by these micro changes. This is how "science" works according to these creatures.

a reply to: BlackManINC

No scientist says that. Only creationists. Are you one of Kirk Cameron's adherents or something? Next you'll wave the poor photoshop of "Crocoduck" around, then talk about the perfection of the Banana

A scientist who are specialists in evolutionary theory (after all a Physicist is unlikely to weigh in, nor should they) would talk about the probabilities that certain mutations give an evolutionary advantage to a creature. For example antibiotic advantage.

You are back to the insults again "apes", "creatures" etc. You must be really mortified about the implications of evolution. I feel very sad that you are so backward in your thinking.

a reply to: BlackManINC

How can you repeatedly say this given that I have provided a very concrete and quite complex example of how early reptilian jaws and middle ears slowly (over hundred and hundred and hundreds of thousands of years) change into that of mammals. I don't get it. That is one example of something you would consider to fall into the category of macroevolution. Please review what I have written if it has already slipped your memory. You can't pretend like these examples don't exist. You keep asking people to provide evidence of these things, and I have put time into doing so. You haven't really refuted it or engaged in discussion about it, when in reality it is exactly the type of thing you continually ask for us to show. It's pretty frustrating.

a reply to: kennyb72

I'm guessing the answer to my question then is virgin. Nobody that wanted to have sex and was able to do so successfully without spending a weeks pay would be as dull, petty and flippant as you come off as.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Here is something for you to ponder though. 99% of the species that have inhabited the earth have been extinct for a very long time

Wow, thats what I come to ATS for, who would have thunk.

I hope you are not a believer in the Ark tale because the mental gymnastics for that one have to hurt.

You apparently have read non of my posts or you would not have even said that.

You have a strange way about you. It is the way you "try" to be clever. It eally is child like IMO

I accept your compliment, thank you.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

No scientist says that. Only creationists. Are you one of Kirk Cameron's adherents or something? Next you'll wave the poor photoshop of "Crocoduck" around, then talk about the perfection of the Banana

A scientist who are specialists in evolutionary theory (after all a Physicist is unlikely to weigh in, nor should they) would talk about the probabilities that certain mutations give an evolutionary advantage to a creature. For example antibiotic advantage.

You are back to the insults again "apes", "creatures" etc. You must be really mortified about the implications of evolution. I feel very sad that you are so backward in your thinking.

What implications? You've given none? And I thought you said you are an ape? So why are you claiming I'm "insulting" you?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Grimpachi
You can simply do this on your own.
FIRST- Apply the definition of science to each (the macro and the micro).
Second- Apply the Scientific Method to each.
If you don't see the line then rinse and repeat.

It has been done thousands of times already. But what does that have to do with what I asked you?

Seems to me you are trying to slither your way out of answering honestly. If you really want to slink off go ahead even though I made a simple request of you.

I guess it was too much to expect you to man up and admit you had nothing.

If it has been "shown a thousand times" perhaps you should look once for yourself.
I said earlier "we can make a case for the micro yet not scientifically for the macro".
Seriously, apply what you quoted in my last post and see it for yourself. It is the ONLY way you will learn anything.

a reply to: peter vlar
Thank you for your intellectual response (well!) to my question regarding the seat of consciousness that animates biological blobs. Don't worry, I won't call it flippant or even insulting, I quite understand where you are coming from.

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: BlackManINC

How can you repeatedly say this given that I have provided a very concrete and quite complex example of how early reptilian jaws and middle ears slowly (over hundred and hundred and hundreds of thousands of years) change into that of mammals. I don't get it. That is one example of something you would consider to fall into the category of macroevolution. Please review what I have written if it has already slipped your memory. You can't pretend like these examples don't exist. You keep asking people to provide evidence of these things, and I have put time into doing so. You haven't really refuted it or engaged in discussion about it, when in reality it is exactly the type of thing you continually ask for us to show. It's pretty frustrating.

Can you provide a link to your post?

a reply to: BlackManINC

I summed up EXAMPLE 2 in the following link: www.talkorigins.org...

Note that every claim is backed by citations, the majority of which from one of the most respected peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.

a reply to: BlackManINC

And for goodness sake, the people publishing this stuff are some of the leaders in the field of biology..in the WORLD. These are some of the smartest minds who conduct years of intensive and complex research to arrive at these conclusions and analyses. If you are to be taken seriously, I'd expect you to read this sole, lowly example (among thousands of others), and explain to me what it is you have a problem with. The facts presented all are proven, it's a matter of analysis of those facts that leads to conclusions. What analyses of these facts specifically would lead you to a conclusion other than the one reached in this example?