Evidence of "Macroevolution" - Example 599
Budikka666
over time, from your standard pelagic free-swimming fish into a bottom
dweller? Instead of the usual one-eye-per-side, this fish evolved both
eyes on one side, so that when it lay on the bottom, it didn't have to
endure the inevitable icky (or icthy) jokes along the lines of "Here's
mud in your eye, Hippoglossus!"
The creationists would doubtlessly pour water on the idea, claiming it
sounds too fishy to be true. "Go tell it to the Marines!" they'd jest.
They would saltily insist that evolutionists show them *every single
step* of this macroevolution.
Well, at the risk of leaving them floundering, here it is:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/vert/fishes/larval/pleur.html
Pleuronectiformes is an order of fish - an order of fish that you might
get at a sea food restaurant and also a zoological order. These fish
are commonly known as flatfish, such as halibut. (Hey, if you get
turbot at the restaurant and pay for it with a credit card, is that
turbot-charged?)
The flounder isn't, of course, like the fish in Disney's "Little
Mermaid", with stereoscopic vision. It is born as a regular fish, one
eye per side. It swims freely in the ocean, but then is starts
changing. One eye migrates over the top of its head to the other side.
Because the ocellated flounder (Bothus ocellatus) has a dorsal fin
which runs right down to its nose, the eye has to migrate right through
the fin. To facilitate this, it has a hole in its head which closes
after the eye has passed through.
Who ordered that? you might be tempted to ask, in the vein of Nobel
physicist Isaac Rabi, who asked precisely that when a sub-atomic
particle now known as the muon was discovered. Was it an intelligent
designer? Where is the intelligence in designing a fish that has to go
through this risky transformation?
Maybe it's not my plaice to say it, but wouldn't a designer create the
fish complete to begin with? If not, why not? Why would a designer,
who wishes us to know his glory and wants to save our soles, put
misdirection into his design? Isn't misdirection the domain of Satan?
The only *intelligent* explanation of the transformation of the
pleuronectiformes is macroevolution.
Budikka
DaveJr
water and land.
http://www.axolotl.org/
Budikka666
How could I forget the axolotl?!!! I had no idea there was an "org"
devoted to it, however. Now all I have to do is figure out how to
frame this int he context of macroevolution! Thanks for the ref.
B.
real...@canada.com
Wow! That Axolotl is one funky looking creature!
Isn't this in fact a living transitional form? Isn't this half way
between a land creature and a fish?
If so why isn't this used as an example when ID ers claim there are no
transitional fosils?
Ombudsman_Revelation
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1130581624....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
+++++You ask the question why? and then state misdirection without even
getting the answer? You couldn't even produce one iota of evidence to
suggest that this is misdirection when you don't even know what it's
directed at! Like a blindfolded man firing shots into the air and screaming.
"darn - i missed"!
Pastor Dave
<haz...@telkomsa.net> spake thusly:
>> The only *intelligent* explanation of the transformation of the
>> pleuronectiformes is macroevolution.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>
>+++++You ask the question why? and then state misdirection without even
>getting the answer? You couldn't even produce one iota of evidence to
>suggest that this is misdirection when you don't even know what it's
>directed at! Like a blindfolded man firing shots into the air and screaming.
>"darn - i missed"!
>
>
> into his design? Isn't misdirection the domain of Satan?
He likes his fairy tales. And for some reason, he thinks
that a fish with two eyes, staying a fish with two eyes,
would be macroevolution.
He also seems to think that the fish doing what it was
designed to do and being successful at it, equates to
bad design. I guess he gets really pissed off when
his computer works. :)
I smell desperation. You?
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
The end timers believe in a literal, physical
New Jerusalem. But is that what Scripture teaches?
No, it doesn't! So what is the New Jerusalem? It
is amazing what the end timers miss, especially
since it is stated clearly that the New Jerusalem
is the bride of Christ, the church.
Revelation 21:1,9-10
1) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven
vials full of the seven last plagues came to me and
talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show you
the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain and showed me that great city, the
holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God
Budikka666
First of all, thee was no creator god, judged by the (lack of)
evidence.
The stated purpose of the god of the Bible is to reveal himself to us
so that we will follow him. How does it reveal anything of this god if
he creates something and then hides it behind the facade of evoltuion
to make it look like it was not designed? *That's* the misdirection.
But it's only misdirection if there is creation, which there wasn't.
Did that do it for you?
> You couldn't even produce one iota of evidence to
> suggest that this is misdirection when you don't even know what it's
> directed at!
Well thanks for joining my side! You've just dismissed the entire
Bible.
Budikka
Budikka666
cross-posted this to the original groups to which you posted your
initial challenge knowing for a fact you would cluelessly stumble
slam-bang right into the middle of it where I could publicly humiliate
you all over again. You're so easy you're not even interesting any
more which is why your name isn't on this series any more. LoL!
And thanks, also, for yet another fine example of your patented
cowardice, lies, unsupported nay-saying, and colossal hypocrisy. Go
check the "Pastor Dave's Sure-Fire Guide to Winning Arguments" to see
how many of those rules you employed in your "response":
(http://tinyurl.com/e37pw)
> He likes his fairy tales.
The fairytale is yours entirely: it's the one in the Bible for which
you've failed to produce even one shred of evidence while
hypocritically chiding scientists over evolution which has 150 years of
solid evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals by people
**OF ALL FAITHS AND ALL NATIONALITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD**.
> And for some reason, he thinks
> that a fish with two eyes, staying a fish with two eyes,
> would be macroevolution.
Nice moving of the goalposts there. Is that how you work out? It's
not doing you any good. You're still appallingly flabby.
Since I **ASKED** you in mid September to define macroevolution (along
with a lot of toher things) specifically so I could provide you with
the examples you asked for on August 31st and **YOU RAN AWAY**, I
provided a definition for you. For the most part, I used the
definition of 'speciation' or above. Speciation is macroevolution and
speciation has been observed in the wild and in the lab.
But in the end, macroevolution is nothing more than an accumulation of
microevolution, which is precisely what transforms the flatfish in this
example.
One of the IDiot demands your ilk unreasonably make is that a smooth
transitional series be supplied. This has been done many times from
the fossil record, including several examples in this series from which
you ran.
It is also true in the example I show here.
If the starting point, the larval fish with eyes on either side of its
head had been found as a species in the fossil record and in later
strata the adult had been found as another species and evolutionists
had said these two were related by evolution, you would have, without a
shred of scientific support, blindly gain-said it, yet here is that
precise transition **within a single fish**. This proves it can happen
and you cannot deny it.
So please do enlighten us by illustrating, with supporting science,
what it is which would prevent this same thing happening over time
between two species, or between two genera, or between two families, or
between two orders, or between two classes, or between two phyla. Yu
can't, can you? because I also asked you about this back in mid
September and **YOU RAN AWAY**.
This one fish also demonstrates that it was not designed - or that it
was designed by an incompetent bludnerer. Which is it?
Unless of course you want to present some science showing that the
flatfish was indeed designed in this precise way for a precise purpose
and support your argument with rationale or evidence. Can you do it?
Of course you can't. You've never yet supported a single thing you've
claimed. The only thing you've ever unarguably demonstrated is that
you're nothing but a limp Peter at the Passion.
Instead you've taken the cowardly and blasphemous position of setting
yourself up as god almighty who, without even a ghost of a science
degree in the relevant sciences to back you up, has declared himself
the arbiter of what's evidence and what isn't, of what's science and
what isn't, of what's claimed and what isn't, of what's true and what
isn't.
What a shameful example of a human being you truly are. And you call
yourself a Christian? You're not even remotely *christian*.
But you don't get to whine and bitch any more. You had your chance. I
presented example after example after example, and *begged* you to keep
to your promise to discuss the science **AND YOU RAN AWAY FROM EVERY
SINGLE EXAMPLE**. You had your chance. You have no one to blame but
yourself for your publically advertised cowardice, your exposed lies,
and your rancid hypocrisy. For your embarassment, we atheists will
take all the credit.
> He also seems to think that the fish doing what it was
> designed to do and being successful at it, equates to
> bad design. I guess he gets really pissed off when
> his computer works. :)
When you can demonstrate the design here, and show why it was designed
that way rather than evolved that way, then you'll get your discussion,
until then, you are nothing. Get that? Science has done its part.
the evidence is in the sicence journals. If you and your ilk want to
overthrow that, then *you* need to do the work. "Just saying no"
doesn't cut it in the world of hard science.
But of course you won't do that because you cannot. Instead you'll run
and hide behind your "I don't have to demonstrate anything" mantra like
the frightened, lost little boy that you are.
And what hypocrisy to jump in and whine about this one when your lips
have been glued shut for the entire series of 600 examples so far.
Just like Jesus who promised to return before people living in his time
had died, you had your chance to keep your promise. You both failed.
So here's how it is: before you get time of day from me ever again, you
need to go back to example one and go through every single one of them
keeping your lying promise to discuss them. Get it? Here they are:
Example 1: http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
Example 2: http://tinyurl.com/d4376
Example 3: http://tinyurl.com/d5vqm
Example 4: http://tinyurl.com/dmbxj
Example 5: http://tinyurl.com/cy7r7
Example 6: http://tinyurl.com/dj9sh
Example 7: http://tinyurl.com/aplxu
Example 8: http://tinyurl.com/clpsx
Examples 9-539: http://tinyurl.com/cy9m2
Example 540: http://tinyurl.com/dsjku
Example 541: http://tinyurl.com/bhxw2
Example 542: http://tinyurl.com/77tyl
Example 543: http://tinyurl.com/bpdqm
Example 544: http://tinyurl.com/czsdq
Example 545: http://tinyurl.com/9qnrc
Example 546: http://tinyurl.com/dxg8s
Example 547: http://tinyurl.com/88kch
Example 548: http://tinyurl.com/88kch (shared with 547 thread)
Example 549: http://tinyurl.com/ccw8y
Example 550: http://tinyurl.com/7cxsz
Example 551: http://tinyurl.com/74o4q
Examples 552-577: http://tinyurl.com/7u8lv
Example 578: http://tinyurl.com/9xo8o
Example 579: http://tinyurl.com/avzzk
Example 580: http://tinyurl.com/7segx
Example 581: http://tinyurl.com/8c8od
Example 582: http://tinyurl.com/9voan
Example 583: http://tinyurl.com/76zao (misnumbered as 582)
Example 584: http://tinyurl.com/crzmz
Example 585: http://tinyurl.com/exagp
Examples 586-590: http://tinyurl.com/c4pea
Example 591: http://tinyurl.com/9aveh
Example 592: http://tinyurl.com/d2vmd
Example 593: http://tinyurl.com/dsg6z
Example 594: http://tinyurl.com/75rdt
Example 595: http://tinyurl.com/ak3oo
Example 596: http://tinyurl.com/anqh5
Example 597: http://tinyurl.com/89zjr
Example 598: http://tinyurl.com/9s6cq
Example 599: http://tinyurl.com/7oorv
"Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge" are not dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/8d77u
And 10 questions creationists would rather dodge are dodged at:
http://tinyurl.com/7lvwr
And finally, a leading supporter of intelligent design is disowned by
his own university:
http://tinyurl.com/dydbr
And embarrassed on court on the topic:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
> I smell desperation. You?
Yeah, 600 exmaples, one after another is desperation? And your running
from every one of them is what, then? I smell incompetence, cowardice
and defeat.
But if you want to keep your promise and discuss them, then let's go to
it. Pick one - pick one of the first nine I posted and let's have that
scientific discussion you promised. Or keep running. I don't care,
because I'm not done with these examples yet.
Budikka
Ombudsman_Revelation
+++++The ground you are walking on is very shaky!
Can you define the difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution?
How does speciation differ from the above! and of course it must, or else
why introduce a new word such as "macro evolution", instead of just sticking
to the same thing speciation.
And then of course which of the many divergent biological definitions of
"species " are you using?
What facts lead you to conclude that the biblical definition of kind was to
be a static one when micro-evolution is an observable fact! The observable
nature of micro-evolution indeed suggests that the delineation of kind would
be dynamic by design! The only static and unchangeable is that one kind will
not reproduce with another kind! The confusion that exists within biological
circles exists exactly becuase the design criteria are dynamic and
approached as if being rigid. It is biologists who believe in the fixidity
of species and not creationists!
We can easily show that the reproductive ability between two individual
members of a species can terminate, that they become genetically isolated at
some point due to speciation and so by isolation they become of a different
kind, gene flow ceases between them but may continue between other members
of the same species!. What I am waiting for you to show is that the genetic
information in these isolated members is "new" and not adaptive!
It is apparent that evolutionists and biologists and the hundreds of sects
emerging from this "teaching" should hold a conference somewhere to agree on
their own definitions and terms and teachings before they can present a
united front necessary to advance their teachings!
Ombudsman_Revelation
"Ombudsman_Revelation" <haz...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:dk1pkb$60f$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
+++++I should just clarify that I am not talking about any new information
but new information that would be necessary to result in molecules - to -
man evolution, so that you don't waste our time with vast references to
mutated fruit flies and the like!
Ombudsman_Revelation
+++++++It is certainly amusing how your elk point to observable phenomena
and then make assumptive interpretations which usually are easily debunked.
Look at how your entire scientific brotherhood acclaimed the Lobefin as the
most essential and original link in the evolutionary chain based on the dead
skeletal remains of which they deviously believed no living evidence would
ever arise! Since the alive and kicking Lobefin has been discovered and
thouroughly debunked the "fossil evidence" the "fact" apparently established
from the study of fossils- what have they done to identify the alternative
essential originative to the evolutionary chain, have they found another
candidate to start off the sequence -certainly very wobbly if the starting
point is not even established, and then what changes have they made in the
conclusive methodology that could origially draw such erroneous conclusions
about an observable and tangible fossil specimen almost entirely preserved.
Would you continously return to a doctor who kept on misdiagnosing your
condition?
Ombudsman_Revelation
"Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4363db95$0$20313$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes> news:dk0d3c$9sc$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>> into his design? Isn't misdirection the domain of Satan?
> So how many infants and children did Satan or the demons tell them to BASH
> to death on the rocks? How many villages to wipe out because they had
> different religious beliefs? Did Satan or some demon command them to cold
> bloody stone women to death if their new husband thought they weren't
> virgins? ..... Just wondering.
++++Seems to be symptomatic, we're talking about fish here and you are a
wondering? The topic is under discussion in another thread, go and
contribute there instead of where you obviously have no retort!
>
> CR......
> Genesis 7:23 God killed, intentionally, every man,
> woman, and child on the planet save eight of them.
Phÿltêr
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
ID'ers are transitional fossils...
--
Phÿltêr
Alt.Atheism #1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
Budikka666
> +++++The ground you are walking on is very shaky!
When you can prove that, you'll have something to talk about, won't
you? I notice you completely avoided addressing the points I made. No
surprises there. Thanks for categorizing yourself so readily.
Now I am going to do you the courtesy of one more time responding to
your grade-school questions. After that, you're out if you do not
answer some yourself. Get that?
> Can you define the difference between Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution?
There is no difference. Duhh.
> How does speciation differ from the above! and of course it must, or else
> why introduce a new word such as "macro evolution", instead of just sticking
> to the same thing speciation.
Speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution
over a longer period of time. It really is that simple. I'm sure
you'll provide some science to back up your *opinion* if it differs
from this.
> And then of course which of the many divergent biological definitions of
> "species " are you using?
The scientific one.
> What facts lead you to conclude that the biblical definition of kind was to
> be a static one when micro-evolution is an observable fact!
The creationists conclude this, not me. Have you been living under a
rock?
> The observable
> nature of micro-evolution indeed suggests that the delineation of kind would
> be dynamic by design!
That's not what the creationists state. They insist on immutable
"kinds", yet they can neither define what a "kind" is, nor specify any
mechanism which would prevent one "kind" from changing into another
"kind" over time. If you do not know this, then you have no business
even imagining you can enter into an exchange on these topics.
> The only static and unchangeable is that one kind will
> not reproduce with another kind!
Now you're using the term "kind" without defining it. As you've used
it here, you're equating it to species, and since speciation has been
documented, you have already lost.
> The confusion that exists within biological
> circles exists exactly becuase the design criteria are dynamic and
> approached as if being rigid. It is biologists who believe in the fixidity
> of species and not creationists!
Lie. You ahve, typcially for your ilk, defined your terms precisely
the opposite way to what they are. the creaitons claim a "kind" is
immutable, yet they cnanot define what "kind" is, therefore they cannot
rationally claim it is immutable.
Scietists cannot always accurately define species precisely *because*
there is evolution. But, for sexually repducing species, a species is
readily defined as one which does not naturally reproduce with another
species.
> We can easily show that the reproductive ability between two individual
> members of a species can terminate, that they become genetically isolated at
> some point due to speciation and so by isolation they become of a different
> kind, gene flow ceases between them but may continue between other members
> of the same species!. What I am waiting for you to show is that the genetic
> information in these isolated members is "new" and not adaptive!
Science has already shown this. Read the literature before you make a
bigger fool of yourself than you have already.
> It is apparent that evolutionists and biologists and the hundreds of sects
> emerging from this "teaching" should hold a conference somewhere to agree on
> their own definitions and terms and teachings before they can present a
> united front necessary to advance their teachings!
Been there, done that. The camp that is in disarray is the
creationist/intelligent design camp. They are the ones who cannot
agree. Is the universe 6,000 years old? Is it 10,000? Is it 14
billion? They can't say. What is a "kind"? They can't say. What
prevents one "kind" from changing into another "kind"? They can't say.
What prevents evolution? They can't say. How many papers have they
published in refereed journals which start to establish the Theory of
creation/ID? None! How many papers have they published in refereed
journals which start to refute evolution? None. You lose.
The overwhelming majority of scientists the world over accept
ecolution. These are scientists form all nations and of all faiths.
They agree that there is evolution and they agree on the definition of
species for sexually reproducing organisms.
When the creationsits get their act together, come up with a workable,
testable theory that explains all the evidence, and publish in
peer-reviewed science journals, then they can talk. Until then, they
have nothing to say scientifically.
Now, since the flatfish adequately demonstrates that genes can
transform a fish of one "kind" into another "kind", where is the
rationale for asserting that this cannot happen over time, resulting in
macroevolution?
It's your turn to answer some questions.
Budikka
Budikka666
> +++++I should just clarify that I am not talking about any new information
> but new information that would be necessary to result in molecules - to -
> man evolution, so that you don't waste our time with vast references to
> mutated fruit flies and the like!
I don't waste my time with people who are evidently ignorant about
evolution yet think they can avoid adressing issues raised in the
opening thread and try to hijack the thread onto their own hobby horse.
Read up on evolution. When you know what you are talking about and
you have answered my qyuestions I will consider answering more of
yours.
Budikka
Budikka666
> +++++++It is certainly amusing how your elk point to observable phenomena
> and then make assumptive interpretations which usually are easily debunked.
Yet neither you nor anyone else in 608 examples on this topic has been
able to debunk even one of them. If they're easily debunked, then
answer my questions and debunk them or admit you're lying. It really
is that simple.
> Look at how your entire scientific brotherhood acclaimed the Lobefin as the
> most essential and original link in the evolutionary chain based on the dead
> skeletal remains of which they deviously believed no living evidence would
> ever arise!
If you can quote me the scientists who specifically said that, then
you'll have a point, otherwise you're simply restating more creationist
lies. The fact is that scientists considered the coelacanth to be
extinct since they had found no recent fossils. It in no way impacted
evolution in any shape or form to find a living one. In fact
scientists were delighted to find one, especially since the discovery
supported the understanding they had of this fish based on the fossil
evidence.
The theory of evolution is not dependent on the coelacanth being some
sort of missing link; far from it. There is no "missing link". Once
again your appalling ignorance on the topic is your undoing.
> Since the alive and kicking Lobefin has been discovered and
> thouroughly debunked the "fossil evidence"
Please explain how the discovery of a live coelacanth debunked
anything. Otherwise, all you're doing is propagating another
creationist lie.
> the "fact" apparently established
> from the study of fossils- what have they done to identify the alternative
> essential originative to the evolutionary chain, have they found another
> candidate to start off the sequence -certainly very wobbly if the starting
> point is not even established, and then what changes have they made in the
> conclusive methodology that could origially draw such erroneous conclusions
> about an observable and tangible fossil specimen almost entirely preserved.
This is a lie. The coelacanth was never a critical "missing link" and
your assinine claims that it was serve only to highlight your colossal
ignorance. The coelacanth is a representative of the evolutionary
pathway from marine to terrestrial, that's all. it is not necessarily
*the* pathway, and even if it were, please explain how finding a live
one destroys that pathway.
Read Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge" or *something* along those
lines to clue you in before you embarrass yourself further.
> Would you continously return to a doctor who kept on misdiagnosing your
> condition?
It's hilariously ironic that you use an example of medical science,
which is based, in part, on the fact of evolution. If you think
scientists are such idiots and liars, why do *you* go to the doctor?
Medical science uses the same scientific method that the evolutionists
use.
It's pretty pathetic that you and your ilk use computers and the
Internet to purvey your ignorance and lies. These tools were created
because science works. They would never have come about from
creationists, who create nothing, or from so-called intelligent
so-called design advocates who show no intelligence and cannot
scientifically define what design is as opposed to natural.
How do you feel, being such a hypocrite, using the tools science gave
you to proclaim (without a shred of support) what you blindly believe
is the ignorance and stupidity of scientists?
Budikka
duke
<1news-gr...@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
>He likes his fairy tales. And for some reason, he thinks
>that a fish with two eyes, staying a fish with two eyes,
>would be macroevolution.
bud the dud (a she, not a he) is a strange bird. She makes a statement, demands
that it's the only way that makes sense, then declares there is no God.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Budikka666
> "Cracklin'" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4363db95$0$20313$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
> >
> > "Ombudsman_Revelation" <haz...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
> > news:dk0d3c$9sc$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >>> into his design? Isn't misdirection the domain of Satan?
> > ===============
> > So how many infants and children did Satan or the demons tell them to BASH
> > to death on the rocks? How many villages to wipe out because they had
> > different religious beliefs? Did Satan or some demon command them to cold
> > bloody stone women to death if their new husband thought they weren't
> > virgins? ..... Just wondering.
>
> ++++Seems to be symptomatic, we're talking about fish here and you are a
> wondering? The topic is under discussion in another thread, go and
> contribute there instead of where you obviously have no retort!
That's your hypocrisy showing. We're talking about the flatfish, yet
nowhere in any single one of your responses have you even begun to
address the specific points I've made. I'm still waiting.
Are you going to be another Pastor Dave? He talked real big in his
macroevolution thread and then **HE RAN AWAY** as soon as I took him up
on his offer. You might want to take the plank out of your own eye
before you whine about the insignificant mote you think you can see in
the eyes of others.
Budikka
Ombudsman_Revelation
> Ombudsman_Revelation wrote:
>> +++++The ground you are walking on is very shaky!
>
> When you can prove that, you'll have something to talk about, won't
> you? I notice you completely avoided addressing the points I made. No
> surprises there. Thanks for categorizing yourself so readily.
>
> Now I am going to do you the courtesy of one more time responding to
> your grade-school questions. After that, you're out if you do not
> answer some yourself. Get that?
>
>> Can you define the difference between Macro-evolution and
>> Micro-evolution?
>
> There is no difference. Duhh.
++++++You are suggesting that micro evolution is not defined scientifically
as occurring at below the special level and macro evolution above! You are
suggesting that science has a whole range of terminology all meaning the
same thing !
I suggest you have no clue what you are on about and that no reputable
scientist would endorse any of your above comments as being "scientific"!
While it is true that so much confusion abounds within scientific circles as
to the exact technicalities of each term the majority of reputable
scienctists would disagree with your fallicious teaching that macro and
micro evolution are the same thing!
This obvious error confirms the truth - "you're no scientist are you?".
Of course any body on this group could do a bit of research in a few minutes
to establish your absolute lack of scientific knowledge! Just use google and
check the first few results for macro and micro evolution.
Of course it would take a little more to realize that scientists are not
quite sure of what macro evolution is ? and those who think they do have
never observed it!
I am somewhat dissapointed , having thouroughly entertained the idea of
being "instructed in the ways of science" by your honourable self, to find
the antclismatical reality, you're nothing more than a causal lay news group
poster without any scientific credentials.
I do now find it hard to motivate myself to wade through the rest of your
thread, but 'i'll try!
>
>> How does speciation differ from the above! and of course it must, or else
>> why introduce a new word such as "macro evolution", instead of just
>> sticking
>> to the same thing speciation.
>
> Speciation is macroevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution
> over a longer period of time.
++++++ Speciation = Macro-evolution. Macroevolution = (Micro-Evolution)T
Macr-E = MicroE = Speciation, what did you say (Microevolution)T equalled
again?
I did notice that within the space of a few sentences you changed from
micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing to macro-evolution
being microevolution relevant to a given time period! How whimsical this
scientific postulation of yours appears to be!
It really is that simple.
++++man I disagree!
I'm sure
> you'll provide some science to back up your *opinion* if it differs
> from this.
+++I'm sorry to say that "this" does not refelect science and must leave
scientist on this list red faced, watch out they don't excommunicate you
from the domain of scientific thinkers!
>
>> And then of course which of the many divergent biological definitions of
>> "species " are you using?
>
> The scientific one.
++++I guess asking you to extrapolate that would be useless! what an answer
"the scientific one"! Point was do you know what it is?
>
>> What facts lead you to conclude that the biblical definition of kind was
>> to
>> be a static one when micro-evolution is an observable fact!
>
> The creationists conclude this, not me. Have you been living under a
> rock?
+++++No, it's what the creationists ( Not sure if you're referring to YE or
OE creationists) have to conclude for your arguments to have any substance.
Sadly though -for your credibility, respectable creationists could never
deny that speciation observably does occurr. Scientific fact observably
demonstrates that some members of kind lose the ability to reproduce with
members of a kind that they once could, evidence of dynamics with the
categorization of kind, - but wonderboy this is because of the loss of
genetic information or reproduction of already existing genetic information
, none of which supports the basics necessary for evolution as you define
it! Scientific observation confirms variations with a kind, the development
of new species and new genus but the creation of new genetic information -
so vital to your evolutionary fundamentals have never been observed!
Scientist and biologilist cannot even define their own concept of Species ,
yet rush to pronounce the biblical definition of kind to be wrong, they
don't even have a clue what that delineation was based on, - and neither do
I, somewhere in this post you go on to define species along exactly the same
lines that the bible defines kind, and then in other parts your denounce
that very definition! It is glaringly apparent from the observable evidence
of speciation and dynamism within species that the biblical definition is at
a higher taxonomy than your currently human defined term of species.
You don't know what creationists believe and bely an utter ingornace in that
regard also, check to see what group of creationists you're talking to
before frothing at the mouth!
>
>> The observable
>> nature of micro-evolution indeed suggests that the delineation of kind
>> would
>> be dynamic by design!
>
> That's not what the creationists state. They insist on immutable
> "kinds", yet they can neither define what a "kind" is, nor specify any
> mechanism which would prevent one "kind" from changing into another
> "kind" over time. If you do not know this, then you have no business
> even imagining you can enter into an exchange on these topics.
++++You insist that they do, but that doesn't make your fabrications any
more truthful!
>
>> The only static and unchangeable is that one kind will
>> not reproduce with another kind!
>
> Now you're using the term "kind" without defining it. As you've used
> it here, you're equating it to species, and since speciation has been
> documented, you have already lost.
++++=What an abomination, you take the biblcal definition, assign it to some
observation you've made and then confidently assert that the biblical kind
and your - clueless - idea of species are the same! Kind will only reproduce
with kind and that obviously debunks your theory that species and kind are
one and the same thing. Man hasn't even begun to examine genealogy at the
"kind" taxonomy, they're still stuck debating some lower taxonomy they're
observing!
>
>> The confusion that exists within biological
>> circles exists exactly becuase the design criteria are dynamic and
>> approached as if being rigid. It is biologists who believe in the
>> fixidity
>> of species and not creationists!
>
> Lie. You ahve, typcially for your ilk, defined your terms precisely
> the opposite way to what they are. the creaitons claim a "kind" is
> immutable, yet they cnanot define what "kind" is, therefore they cannot
> rationally claim it is immutable.
++++Well i guess you've made it clear that you won't tolerate the concept
that you don't know what creationists believe, Therefore i'll leave it that
and let you go on your merry way singing "creationists believe that kind is
immutable".
I believe that species and kind are not one and the same thing, I don't know
what Kind is, but clearly it aint what you call species, so Kind may very
well be immutable,and species not immutable.......Like I said before
theology doesnt need to prove either, it's science that does and fails to do
so!
>
> Scietists cannot always accurately define species precisely *because*
> there is evolution. But, for sexually repducing species, a species is
> readily defined as one which does not naturally reproduce with another
> species.
+++++++earlier on you defined species as "the scientific definition", now
you agree that it is not precisely defined and never can be because it
evolves, was there ever a time according to your theory when species didn't
evolve? And you come right back to the common point fo departure at which we
commenced when I told you that their was a dynamism within species that
would preclude scientists from ever precisely defining it! You ultimately
agree with me after a long divergence!
>
>> We can easily show that the reproductive ability between two individual
>> members of a species can terminate, that they become genetically isolated
>> at
>> some point due to speciation and so by isolation they become of a
>> different
>> kind, gene flow ceases between them but may continue between other
>> members
>> of the same species!. What I am waiting for you to show is that the
>> genetic
>> information in these isolated members is "new" and not adaptive!
>
> Science has already shown this.
+++Hence my statement that it can easily be shown! By any halfwit who can
read!
Read the literature before you make a
> bigger fool of yourself than you have already.
>
>> It is apparent that evolutionists and biologists and the hundreds of
>> sects
>> emerging from this "teaching" should hold a conference somewhere to agree
>> on
>> their own definitions and terms and teachings before they can present a
>> united front necessary to advance their teachings!
>
> Been there, done that. The camp that is in disarray is the
> creationist/intelligent design camp. They are the ones who cannot
> agree. Is the universe 6,000 years old? Is it 10,000? Is it 14
> billion? They can't say. What is a "kind"? They can't say. What
> prevents one "kind" from changing into another "kind"? They can't say.
> What prevents evolution? They can't say.
+++++And now you submit that scientist themselves cannot exactly say what is
a species, following that they cannot then say wether evolution ocurred or
not! so whats your point....my very point stated that my theology is as
scientific as your science! both need faith to add any substance!
Theology accepts faith as a determining criteria, science pretends it
doens't!
Budikka666
> ++++++You are suggesting that micro evolution is not defined scientifically
I told you exactly what it was. Now when are *you* going to quit
running from the real issues in this thread? Your straw men are all
blown away - or are so so fond of the sound of your own fingers on the
keyboard that you didn't notice?
> as occurring at below the special level and macro evolution above! You are
> suggesting that science has a whole range of terminology all meaning the
> same thing !
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. It really
is that simple. There's no difference between microevolution and
macroevolution except the passage of time. Now do you need it
explained at a lower grade level even than that before it registers?
> I suggest you have no clue what you are on about and that no reputable
> scientist would endorse any of your above comments as being "scientific"!
Like I care what you think. Clearly you're no better than Pastor Dave
- too ill-educated on the topic and too cowardly to even begin to
address the issues in this thread.
Now when you're ready to quit lying and can support your inane blather,
and can address the issues raised in this thread instead of indulging
in unChristian ad hominem and bullshit, I'll take you seriously. Until
then, buh-bye little boy.
Budikka
Budikka666
> X-No-Archive: Yes> news:1130681069.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Now when you're ready to quit lying and can support your inane blather,
> > and can address the issues raised in this thread instead of indulging
> > in unChristian ad hominem and bullshit, I'll take you seriously. Until
> > then, buh-bye little boy.
> He doesn't know anything about genetics either. He thinks children inherit
> criminality from their parents and deserved to be bashed to death on the
> rocks as god ordered the Hebrews to do. He doesn't research anything. All
> they seem to know is what they read in the self-serving Watchtower rags.
>
> Can you imagine taking the children of criminals and murdering them that
> way? Or punishing them in any way for the crimes of their parents or
> grandparents? I suppose they have to justify the slaughter of innocents to
> live with themselves.
>
> If it was still legal some of these fundies would go out and do
> it...........
It's the kind of thing *Jesus* would do! At least that's what the
Bible claims happened when Herod killed off all the young kids in order
to try and get the Messiah. How anyone can contemplate following a
religion that would even *report* letting something like that happen
(regardless of whether it happeend or not) is beyond me. Those people
are sick, sick, sick (as well as clueless).
B.
Libertarius
Cracklin' wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1130681069.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Now when you're ready to quit lying and can support your inane blather,
> > and can address the issues raised in this thread instead of indulging
> > in unChristian ad hominem and bullshit, I'll take you seriously. Until
> > then, buh-bye little boy.
> ============================
> He doesn't know anything about genetics either. He thinks children inherit
> criminality from their parents and deserved to be bashed to death on the
> rocks as god ordered the Hebrews to do. He doesn't research anything. All
> they seem to know is what they read in the self-serving Watchtower rags.
===>Indeed, Christianity is BASED on the
(unstated, due to lack of the terminology)
belief that "sin" and "guilt" are genetically transmitted.
The question is, in that case how could the shedding of
someone else's blood (human or divine) cure it? -- L.
>
>
> Can you imagine taking the children of criminals and murdering them that
> way? Or punishing them in any way for the crimes of their parents or
> grandparents? I suppose they have to justify the slaughter of innocents to
> live with themselves.
===>actually, early on in the 20th century, some criminals were sterilized
because of such stupid nonsense. Thanks to the fact that scientific
knowledge is not a fixed but an evolving thing, no one to day believes
such nonsense -- except for the fundamentalist Christians. -- L.