Author Topic: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor  (Read 6115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #58 on: December 14, 2011, 03:32:37 PM »
Show some evidence of this god and then you’ll have a leg to stand on.  But as it stands, you have no more than those religions that came before you.   
I don't know what triggerred your conversion from Christianity to atheism and it's none of my business. However, you know just as well as anyone what the evidence consists of so stop asking for it. It's a loaded pseudo-rhetorical question coming from you.
Oh, if you want to know I’ll tell you. In fact, I will so you don’t try to make believe that it was because I was “angry” or because I wanted to “rebel”, etc. &)  It’s pretty much the lack of evidence for this god.   And no, BS, I shall never stop asking for evidence no matter how hard you want me to stop.  I shall ask for evidence every time you or someone like you claims your god is real. It’s just as I would do to someone who claimed that Vishnu, fairies, bigfoot, reptiloids, Voodoun loa, big eyed aliens, etc existed.  Or that coffee enemas for pancreatic cancer worked, etc.  You make a claim, back it up. where’s the evidence?   
Quote
You claim you looked for God and didn't find Him but that is not true for everyone.
Nice lie there.  No, I can say with absolute honesty that I did once believe in god and then prayed humbly and earnestly for this god to help me keep my faith. Why no help for me, BS?  Why nothing for this doubting thomas?  If other peole have found him and are faithful followers of JC, why no god-give abilities as promised? Why no empty VA hospitals by the good gifts from faithful Christians?  There is no way to know if anyone has found this god at all, only personal claims which Christians regularly dispute, fussing about who really knows what God “really” meant. 
 
Quote
I cannot explain why some people can hold the Bible as the ultimate Truth and "experience' God and look at the same scientific data you do and see Him rather soup-to-humans.....but that doesn't make us all idiots or brainwashed fools.
Actually, it does.  I was one too and I can explain why people think that the bible is more than a bunch of primitive nonsense.  I mistakenly trusted that people who told me god was real knew what they were telling me was true.  They were ignorant and so was I.  Then I read the bible and saw how nonsensical it was when compared with reality.  I saw that the creation story and flood were idiotic so questioned: why believe the rest?  Why believe in something that has no evidence supporting it? Why not believe in Judaism or Islam, Wicca or Santeria?  None of them have any evidence supporting them, just like Christianity.  I do believe it is misplaced trust, greed, and fear that motivate most, if not all theists.  Not much of a basis for something claiming to have eternal truth.  Especially without evidence and all religions, all of those who are sure that the others are going to some “hell”, having the same dearth.
Quote
I have been reading and participating in these threads for some time now and despite everything thrown at me, I still see God....and, trust me, some of the arguments can be strong. You can call it fear or brainwashing or whatever else you feel it may be but to me it is VERY real.
I’m sure it seems very real. It did for me too. So does the belief in Vishnu or in the loa for those who believe in them.  So?   Are they as real a beings as your god?   

Quote
I'm sorry that you cannot satisfy your desire to locate Him and shake hands with Him and interact with Him in the same way we, as humans, do. But, please, use caution and be responsible when introducing your beliefs as the only 'logical' explanation. When you don't, you are doing the very thing us theists are often criticized for and that is trying to jam our high and mighty belief system down your throat. I am not suggesting that you lack any foundation to hold up your beliefs but it is no more irrefutable than the theist claims.
No, sorry, not buying the old concerned Christian with crocodile (or is it crocoduck?) tears and the baseless accusations of how I’m supposedly just like Christians. No, I’m not trying to jam any “belief system” (really, that’s all you have, claiming atheism is a religion again? tsk, depending on another lie, how sad) down anyone’s throat. And I do love how you insist that the foundation for science is “no more irrefutable” than the theist’s nonsense.  If you think that’s the case, BS, refute it!  But you won’t because you can’t.  You attack science and you run away when called on the carpet to show how you can show that biology so very very wrong as you wish everyone to believe.  The theory of evolution, quite robust, no matter what you try to claim, is responsible for modern medicine, modern agriculture, etc.  It *works*, no matter what lies creationists try to tell.  If it didn’t work, we’d not use it and horrors, maybe we’d be back to sacrificing doves for a good harvest and keeping our child from dying from dysentery to your bloody god.
Quote
I've looked through my children's school biology books and, frankly, I find it disturbing and so very irresponsible to see the level of alleged 'proof' behind what should be presented as a highly unfinished evolutionary model.
I’m sure you do find it disturbing, being shown that you are wrong. No one likes to be wrong, it makes people stupid and angry, doing ridiculous things like telling blatant lies in attempts to save face.  But again, all of these claims of how “irresponsible” it is to show the evidence for evolutionary theory but you can’t refute it one bit.  If it is “a highly unfinished evolutionary model”, then show us what’s wrong with it, oh wise one.  But again, you wont’ because you can’t. You, and so many creationists, make vague claims and tell outright lies, unable to show how something is “wrong”.  Why is it that despite the promises of evidence of god in creation to be presented ‘any time now” in peer reviewed journal for the last 10 years and more, we still have nothing?  Again, why the lack of evidence for any of this mythical nonsense?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #59 on: December 14, 2011, 03:52:30 PM »
Biblestudent, what many of us find strange about your inability to accept evolutionary theory is that it has been confirmed and continues to be confirmed by the same scientific empiricism that you do accept in other areas. The immunizations that you and your children receive, the food that you eat (its cultivation, husbandry, processing and delivery), your ability to debate with us on this forum: all products of the same reasoning process.

The TOE was even more controversial when it was first popularized than it is now. It gained and has continued to gain support because it works. If it wasn't valid, then none of the science and industry based on it would be valid: we couldn't predict the development of trans-species diseases like bird or swine influenza, much less prepare vaccines for them just in case there's an outbreak. The improvement of food plants and animals would be haphazard, animals would be useless for testing human medicines... the list goes on and on.

At this point, evolutionary theory is as solid as the theories that allow your PC to come on when you touch a button. The same legwork of empirical reasoning and experimentation bears it out.

I'll repeat what I have said before. I do not dispute the aspects of the ToE that have been rigorously put through the scientific process and shown to be fact. There is a limit to how this evidence should be interpreted, though. Only a true fool would dispute that microevolution is a fact. Where I (and many others) take exception is when this fact data is extrapolated into a macroevolutionary model and presented as equally substantiated fact. I know that my distinction between micro and macro is heavily frowned upon but there is very good reason I hold strongly to it. Microevolutionary change is well documented and, for the most part, indisputable. There are, however, huge massive holes in the belief that micro=macro. And, not to go off onto another topic here, but none of this even begins to validate an abiogenesis or panspermia (whatever you subscribe to) event and the highly improbable prospects that demonstrating either or both ever occurred.


Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #60 on: December 14, 2011, 04:13:05 PM »
and yet more claims about "huge massive holes" and not one bit to show what those holes are. 

and nothing to show that there is a god or that abiogenesis or panspermia can't work.

and of course ignoring any evidence to show his claims are false.

yeesh. 
I'll repeat what I have said before. I do not dispute the aspects of the ToE that have been rigorously put through the scientific process and shown to be fact. There is a limit to how this evidence should be interpreted, though. Only a true fool would dispute that microevolution is a fact. Where I (and many others) take exception is when this fact data is extrapolated into a macroevolutionary model and presented as equally substantiated fact. I know that my distinction between micro and macro is heavily frowned upon but there is very good reason I hold strongly to it. Microevolutionary change is well documented and, for the most part, indisputable. There are, however, huge massive holes in the belief that micro=macro. And, not to go off onto another topic here, but none of this even begins to validate an abiogenesis or panspermia (whatever you subscribe to) event and the highly improbable prospects that demonstrating either or both ever occurred.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #61 on: December 14, 2011, 04:19:05 PM »
and yet more claims about "huge massive holes" and not one bit to show what those holes are. 

and nothing to show that there is a god or that abiogenesis or panspermia can't work.

and of course ignoring any evidence to show his claims are false.

yeesh. 
I'll repeat what I have said before. I do not dispute the aspects of the ToE that have been rigorously put through the scientific process and shown to be fact. There is a limit to how this evidence should be interpreted, though. Only a true fool would dispute that microevolution is a fact. Where I (and many others) take exception is when this fact data is extrapolated into a macroevolutionary model and presented as equally substantiated fact. I know that my distinction between micro and macro is heavily frowned upon but there is very good reason I hold strongly to it. Microevolutionary change is well documented and, for the most part, indisputable. There are, however, huge massive holes in the belief that micro=macro. And, not to go off onto another topic here, but none of this even begins to validate an abiogenesis or panspermia (whatever you subscribe to) event and the highly improbable prospects that demonstrating either or both ever occurred.

Well, that's because I've covered some of this in other threads. I guess I could do some copy and pasting or link to those discussions. Should I ??

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1885
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2011, 05:02:11 PM »

I'll repeat what I have said before. I do not dispute the aspects of the ToE that have been rigorously put through the scientific process and shown to be fact.p

Apologies if I missed where you said this; I know how irritating it is to have to repeat oneself.

Quote
There is a limit to how this evidence should be interpreted, though. Only a true fool would dispute that microevolution is a fact. Where I (and many others) take exception is when this fact data is extrapolated into a macroevolutionary model and presented as equally substantiated fact. I know that my distinction between micro and macro is heavily frowned upon but there is very good reason I hold strongly to it. Microevolutionary change is well documented and, for the most part, indisputable. There are, however, huge massive holes in the belief that micro=macro.

I'm curious as to what you think those holes are. The micro- / macro-evolution distinction isn't often used in science, it seems to be (AFAIK) mostly literal creationists who do so. The evidence in the fossil record and genetics bears out that distinction is artificial; morphological changes over time and mutations conserved in genes confirm macroevolution.

Quote
And, not to go off onto another topic here, but none of this even begins to validate an abiogenesis or panspermia (whatever you subscribe to) event and the highly improbable prospects that demonstrating either or both ever occurred.

Panspermia is simply abiogenesis deferred.  But I agree: until the latter can be recreated under conditions that likely existed on the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago, evolution is effectively a separate topic.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2011, 08:27:49 PM »
BibleStudent,

I'm going to give you a very simple example why the micro/macro-evolution differentiation is a fallacy.  Accepting one while not the other is like saying that you can walk down a hallway to your bathroom but you can't walk down to the end of your street.  Both involve the same action - walking - and the only difference is the scale of distance.  Or you can use a garden hose to fill a kiddie pool but cannot use that garden hose to fill a larger pool.  Any example like these will suffice.

It's the same with evolution.  In the ToE there is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution".  These are terms completely created by creationists because they fail to see the simplicity of evolution. Read any legitimate science paper or textbook on evolution and there will not be a single mention of "microevolution" or "macroevolution", except in referencing creationists or creationism.  No actual biologist uses these terms.

In summary: A small change over a small amount of time is just that - a small change.  Those small changes compounded over a longer amount of time equals a larger change.  The only difference is the amount of time involved.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 08:48:29 PM by Irish »
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2011, 05:55:31 AM »

Riiight. So you have actual evidence for the Garden of Eden, the Noachian flood and the Exodus? Until you do, darn right we're going to keep laughing at you for believing in myths with no basis. And opposing people who want to see those myths put on an equal level with actual facts.

Don't forget talking snakes, the burning bush, angel sightings, water into wine, resurrection, vegetarian carnivores, etc.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2011, 06:08:00 AM »
The title of the article isn't even correct:

"Life began with a planetary mega-organism"

Unless this is some abiogenesis event that they are hypothesizing (which is clearly not the case), the author of this "science" publication apparently doesn't even know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

It would be awesome if you read the bible with that kind of skepticism. It doesn't say that abiogenesis started that way, nor does it say that there wasn't other life around at the time. It's just the form of life that survived and went on to evolve into all the life we see today.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2011, 06:13:10 AM »
WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Quote
Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[5]

A more practical definition of the term describes it as changes occurring on geological time scales, in contrast to microevolution, which occurs on the timescale of human lifetimes.[6] This definition reflects the spectrum between micro- and macro-evolution, whilst leaving a clear difference between the terms: because the geological record rarely has a resolution better than 10,000 years, and humans rarely live longer than 100 years, "meso-evolution" is never observed.[6]

As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, Richard Goldschmidt, and Otto Schindewolf were) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.[5]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Quote
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

added: 29 EXAMPLES OF MACROEVO FOUND HERE
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 06:16:13 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2011, 06:14:31 AM »
Organelles without DNA ??

Like viruses, prions, etc? There's lots of organisms that don't have DNA. If you want to see what proto-life would look like (as in, and organism that is more of a self-replicating bunch of chemicals than a true life form) check out prions.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #68 on: December 15, 2011, 06:19:35 AM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


I think there should be a rule that in order to post on the forums one should be able to prove that they've read everything on talkorigins, posting an argument that has already been debunked there without showing new evidence should result in a 30 day ban.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2011, 06:29:28 AM »
What is it about the quote from Talk Origins, that I provided, do you disagree with?

Illumine me, please.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #70 on: December 15, 2011, 06:38:52 AM »
until the latter can be recreated under conditions that likely existed on the Earth of 3.5 billion years ago, evolution is effectively a separate topic.

It's getting there, there's lots of strides being made in understanding how life first started. Scientists are creating more and more complex self-replicating molecules in the lab under conditions of an ancient earth. They've found four RNA neucleotides that can be created pretty simply, one through mixing and evaporation, take that one and expose it to UV light and it changes into another. Expose those two to heat and pressure like an undersea volcanic vent and you get the other two.

So the first one forms on the edge of the water and gets exposed to sunlight forming the second. Then they get washed out to sea by the tide and drop to the bottom to for the other two. An elegant and simple way to form early RNA.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 06:43:20 AM by Illuminatus99 »

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #71 on: December 15, 2011, 06:42:10 AM »
What is it about the quote from Talk Origins, that I provided, do you disagree with?

Illumine me, please.

I didn't disagree with it, I was suggesting that everyone should read everything there so that they can stop annoying us with arguments that have already been shot down over and over again. I want to see creationists come up with something new for a change, I'm getting bored with researching their arguments only to find that they're old and already thoroughly debunked.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #72 on: December 15, 2011, 06:48:25 AM »
Gottcha'

I was mostly responding to this:
Quote
I'm curious as to what you think those holes are. The micro- / macro-evolution distinction isn't often used in science, it seems to be (AFAIK) mostly literal creationists who do so.

ADDED: There probably should be a rule that monkeyminds should have to finish their coffee b4 making a post!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 07:08:56 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #73 on: December 15, 2011, 08:03:57 AM »
Gottcha'

I was mostly responding to this:
Quote
I'm curious as to what you think those holes are. The micro- / macro-evolution distinction isn't often used in science, it seems to be (AFAIK) mostly literal creationists who do so.

ADDED: There probably should be a rule that monkeyminds should have to finish their coffee b4 making a post!

There should also be a rule against using non-scientific terms like "macroevolution" and "mico-evolution" too. They will be allowed to be used only if the poster adds the disclaimer; "I understand that the following terms are not used in science, but since I don't understand why, I will continue to use them because I have decided that anything that cannot be explained by science in a way that even I can grasp must be magic and no further study is required"

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #74 on: December 15, 2011, 09:09:07 AM »
BibleStudent,

I'm going to give you a very simple example why the micro/macro-evolution differentiation is a fallacy.  Accepting one while not the other is like saying that you can walk down a hallway to your bathroom but you can't walk down to the end of your street.  Both involve the same action - walking - and the only difference is the scale of distance.  Or you can use a garden hose to fill a kiddie pool but cannot use that garden hose to fill a larger pool.  Any example like these will suffice.

Another version of this that I've seen is => Micro-Evolution and the Theist attemt to say no matter how many 1+1+1+1+1+ ... +1's you have, you can never get to 10 or 100.

You see a newborn and the next day, it looks the same. The next it looks the same. etc. Even though outside of the regular haircut, you will see no discernable difference between the infant from day to day. However we all know, when you're comparing pics from the day of thier birth and thier 1st birthday party, you will notice a difference. Evolution however works on a slower timescale, instead of day to day, it's generation to generation.

Using 40 years per generation, at 365 generations is 14,600 years. Just as you wouldn't notice much change in an infant over the span of three days, so you don't notice any evolutionary difference between you and your Grandparents. Yet, looking back to Humans that lived in the Ice Age, there is a difference. This is the way evolution works, and no, it doesn't give a **** about your feelings or how much you might want it to speed up so you can observe it right in front of your eyes.

Edit: removed a redundancy.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 09:18:43 AM by TruthSeeker »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #75 on: December 15, 2011, 09:14:17 AM »
Organelles without DNA ??

Like viruses, prions, etc? There's lots of organisms that don't have DNA. If you want to see what proto-life would look like (as in, and organism that is more of a self-replicating bunch of chemicals than a true life form) check out prions.

I don't believe a prion is an organelle. I am not a biologist and don't make claims of posessing expertise but, as I recall, only cell sub-units containing DNA are considered organelles. Correct ?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #76 on: December 15, 2011, 09:27:46 AM »
I'll repeat what I have said before. I do not dispute the aspects of the ToE that have been rigorously put through the scientific process and shown to be fact.p
Apologies if I missed where you said this; I know how irritating it is to have to repeat oneself.

No apologies needed. I was actually referencing similar comments I have made in other threads so unless you had read them, you would have no way of knowing. Just the same, thank you.

The micro- / macro-evolution distinction isn't often used in science, it seems to be (AFAIK) mostly literal creationists who do so.
Very true for the most part. I tend to use (perhaps in error) the term ‘macroevolution’ interchangeably with ‘speciation.’ It is the absence of evidence for any hardcore examples of speciation that comprises one of the most substantial holes the ToE has difficulty filling. Now, I realize that the definition of speciation may seem clear and precise to many but we’re talking about the ‘snakes-to-lizards’ kind of speciation….not the more subtle low-level examples I am often presented with. 

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #77 on: December 15, 2011, 09:47:07 AM »
It's the same with evolution.  In the ToE there is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution".  These are terms completely created by creationists because they fail to see the simplicity of evolution. Read any legitimate science paper or textbook on evolution and there will not be a single mention of "microevolution" or "macroevolution", except in referencing creationists or creationism.  No actual biologist uses these terms.

Recommend you do a Google search to determine if your assertion is correct or not. Just out of curiosity, that's what I did and immediately found several fairly recent publications (non-theist)using the distinction of micro and macro. Your comment is simply not true.

Also, I do not believe the term(s) were coined by creationists but if you have something that verifies that, then I have no reservations with admitting I was incorrect.

Personally, just my opinion, I think debating the terminology of 'micro' vs. 'macro' is a very low impact debate anyway.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #78 on: December 15, 2011, 09:59:34 AM »
I think there should be a rule that in order to post on the forums one should be able to prove that they've read everything on talkorigins, posting an argument that has already been debunked there without showing new evidence should result in a 30 day ban.

Quote
There should also be a rule against using non-scientific terms like "macroevolution" and "mico-evolution" too. They will be allowed to be used only if the poster adds the disclaimer; "I understand that the following terms are not used in science, but since I don't understand why, I will continue to use them because I have decided that anything that cannot be explained by science in a way that even I can grasp must be magic and no further study is required"

I find this rather amusing coming from someone who thinks 'prions' are classified as organelles.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 10:02:33 AM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #79 on: December 15, 2011, 10:33:42 AM »
But again, all of these claims of how “irresponsible” it is to show the evidence for evolutionary theory but you can’t refute it one bit.  If it is “a highly unfinished evolutionary model”, then show us what’s wrong with it, oh wise one.  But again, you wont’ because you can’t.

I will respond to this. My answer is that I could ask 20-30 questions right off the bat that you could probably provide answers for...BUT....the answers will contain  qualifications such as “we don’t know yet”….”we’re still looking into that”……we think it happened this way”……”the fossil record suggests”…or some other such qualifying language.

The holes I refer to exist because of all the “might have”,” must have”,” suggests,”” probably”,” may have”, etc. etc. words attached to so much of the macro evolutionary tales I read.


Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2755
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #80 on: December 15, 2011, 11:26:03 AM »
I will respond to this. My answer is that I could ask 20-30 questions right off the bat that you could probably provide answers for...BUT....the answers will contain  qualifications such as “we don’t know yet”….”we’re still looking into that”……we think it happened this way”……”the fossil record suggests”…or some other such qualifying language.

The holes I refer to exist because of all the “might have”,” must have”,” suggests,”” probably”,” may have”, etc. etc. words attached to so much of the macro evolutionary tales I read.

Please, that's your argument?  The "language" you refer to is simply the way scientists work.  We know we don't have all the answers, we know our knowledge of things may be incomplete, wrong, inaccurate, etc.  The use of such "language" is a good thing because it means we're aware that our understanding of things may change over time.

Also... what's wrong with saying "we don't know yet" and "we're still looking into that"?  If we don't know something yet, then I would think it's better to say that we don't know, rather than make up an answer on the spot.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #81 on: December 15, 2011, 11:43:41 AM »
People want answers, and will follow some with an answer, even knowing that it is wrong, as long as they get an answer.

"There are too many choices! YOU tell ME what I want!"

People don't want to think, they want to be told what to do by someone who pretends to know the answers.

Of course, admitting you could possibly be wrong is Taboo. Science evolves. It's a process, meaning inherently that it does not have "All the answers." Yet, it is mocked by Christians saying, "They think they have All the answers... they THINK.."
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 11:47:57 AM by TruthSeeker »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #82 on: December 15, 2011, 12:05:33 PM »
I will respond to this. My answer is that I could ask 20-30 questions right off the bat that you could probably provide answers for...BUT....the answers will contain  qualifications such as “we don’t know yet”….”we’re still looking into that”……we think it happened this way”……”the fossil record suggests”…or some other such qualifying language.

The holes I refer to exist because of all the “might have”,” must have”,” suggests,”” probably”,” may have”, etc. etc. words attached to so much of the macro evolutionary tales I read.

Please, that's your argument?

Sometimes I feel like I have to explain things in intricate detail in order to get a point across. Do you not see the fallacy in asserting, for example, that "microevolution proves that all living things evolved?" It's the grandaddy of all logical fallacies because it's built on insufficient evidence. The proof of insufficient evidence lies in the use of the words/phrases "we think," "probably", "must have," "should have" and so on.....particularly when it is referring to something highly crucial to demonstrating how some unit of 'life' initially evolved. To assert with any degree of certainty that the ToE is the one and only 'be-all-end-all' explanation for 'life' has no logical verifiable basis in fact. How can you not see that ? Add in the fact that I could ask at least 20 questions that you do not have a concrete answer for and it pretty much cements my point here.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 12:11:44 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline Illuminatus99

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #83 on: December 15, 2011, 12:21:33 PM »
I find this rather amusing coming from someone who thinks 'prions' are classified as organelles.

I'm willing to change my thinking in light of more accurate information. You should try it some time.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #84 on: December 15, 2011, 12:42:39 PM »
Quote
Well, that's because I've covered some of this in other threads. I guess I could do some copy and pasting or link to those discussions. Should I ??
You could but they would show you just as ignorant as before when they were shot down before.  Repeating misinformation and lies makes them no more valid the 51st time you repeat them. God will not magically make everyone think that the science that works is wrong and that your lies are true, no matter how hard you pray. 

Irish and TS has again showed you how you are wrong.  and I’m guessing you’ll just ignore that too. 

For example you make this false claim again:
Quote
Very true for the most part. I tend to use (perhaps in error) the term ‘macroevolution’ interchangeably with ‘speciation.’ It is the absence of evidence for any hardcore examples of speciation that comprises one of the most substantial holes the ToE has difficulty filling. Now, I realize that the definition of speciation may seem clear and precise to many but we’re talking about the ‘snakes-to-lizards’ kind of speciation….not the more subtle low-level examples I am often presented with
  You move the goalposts and lie.  Simple as that.  You attempt to redefine ever bit of evidence that shows you to be wrong again, as not quite “good enough”.  You use everything that you claims about evolution in error, because you are ignorant about it.

you then do this
Quote
Recommend you do a Google search to determine if your assertion is correct or not. Just out of curiosity, that's what I did and immediately found several fairly recent publications (non-theist)using the distinction of micro and macro. Your comment is simply not true.
Recommend you do the same for yours *and* to show the evidence you claim you have.  Funny how you claim that these publications exist but for some reason you just can’t link to them.  More baseless claims and no evidence. 
Quote
Also, I do not believe the term(s) were coined by creationists but if you have something that verifies that, then I have no reservations with admitting I was incorrect.

Quote
Personally, just my opinion, I think debating the terminology of 'micro' vs. 'macro' is a very low impact debate anyway.
  Oh, and this again, the debate suddenly becomes “very low impact” as soon as BS is losing.  Poor thing.

and then we have you trying to make believe that someone things prions are organelles, when the point was that thing can have no DNA.  Again, no evidence for your claims, just the typical things we know you and other creationists for.

then finally we get this
Quote
I will respond to this. My answer is that I could ask 20-30 questions right off the bat that you could probably provide answers for...BUT....the answers will contain  qualifications such as “we don’t know yet”….”we’re still looking into that”……we think it happened this way”……”the fossil record suggests”…or some other such qualifying language.
  nice lie there.  Funny when Christians claim to know something that is supposedly going to happen and then it doesn’t.  Go ahead, coward, ask your 20-30 questions.  And watch your “prophecy” fail just like all of the others.   

Quote
The holes I refer to exist because of all the “might have”,” must have”,” suggests,”” probably”,” may have”, etc. etc. words attached to so much of the macro evolutionary tales I read.
  Oh, which tales are those, BS?  Come on, if you say that you know where the holes are, show them.  I do love you, hypocrite, since the things you use from science everyday have the same “problems” you claim, but you are too ignorant about them to even know.  You just spew what creationists say and have no clue what they are actually trying to attack.  Pathetic.

oh and again, provide evidence and answer my questions.  I know you won’t but I’ll ask again.  It does such a good job at showing a Christian at their “best”.

 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4956
  • Darwins +566/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #85 on: December 15, 2011, 01:05:30 PM »
Sometimes I feel like I have to explain things in intricate detail in order to get a point across. Do you not see the fallacy in asserting, for example, that "microevolution proves that all living things evolved?" It's the grandaddy of all logical fallacies because it's built on insufficient evidence. The proof of insufficient evidence lies in the use of the words/phrases "we think," "probably", "must have," "should have" and so on.....particularly when it is referring to something highly crucial to demonstrating how some unit of 'life' initially evolved. To assert with any degree of certainty that the ToE is the one and only 'be-all-end-all' explanation for 'life' has no logical verifiable basis in fact. How can you not see that ? Add in the fact that I could ask at least 20 questions that you do not have a concrete answer for and it pretty much cements my point here.
First off, micro-evolution proves that organisms are capable of evolving.  The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is a matter of degree; the one leads to the other.  Unless you can show that it is impossible for organisms to evolve beyond a certain point, your case is invalid and fallacious.

Second, the reason the theory of evolution is considered the premier explanation for how life diversified is because it explains what we see in nature without being contradicted by anything in nature.  That is its logical verifiable basis in fact.  Your attempt to contradict falls flat because you're basing it off of your emotional religious beliefs, and thus interpreting the evidence through that lens, rather than examining the evidence itself.

The reason people here do not accept your point is because your point does not hold up under examination.  And instead of considering that you might possibly have had the wrong idea from the very start, you insist that your beliefs must have been correct all along.  Personally, I don't really care that much what you believe to be true, unless you can show actual evidence that directly contradicts evolutionary theory.  That does not include nonsensical 'evidence' which is utterly dependent upon being looked at a certain way, like irreducible complexity.

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: Ocean-sized universal common ancestor
« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2011, 01:50:35 PM »
It's the same with evolution.  In the ToE there is no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution".  These are terms completely created by creationists because they fail to see the simplicity of evolution. Read any legitimate science paper or textbook on evolution and there will not be a single mention of "microevolution" or "macroevolution", except in referencing creationists or creationism.  No actual biologist uses these terms.

Recommend you do a Google search to determine if your assertion is correct or not. Just out of curiosity, that's what I did and immediately found several fairly recent publications (non-theist)using the distinction of micro and macro. Your comment is simply not true.

I stand corrected. Biologists use the term though I personally had not seen it - until now.  I did a Google Scholar search and found the term microevolution used in articles in PLOS Medicine, Nature, Evolution, Genetics, and The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Though there is no great difference in the two terms.  The two terms use the exact same methods of evolution laid out by Darwin.  The only difference in terms of definition being the time frames involved.

From the MicroevolutionWiki page on Wikipedia: "Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different."

Saying that, do you find the examples that I and TruthSeeker offered as descriptive on micro/macro-evolution.  I especially like his "1+1+1..." example.  The fact is very simple: the accumulation of many small changes lead to a larger change over a larger amount of time.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 01:57:58 PM by Irish »
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.