Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

wright



    Posts: 3357
  • Darwins +221/-1


"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

You've been shown evidence of how the small, incremental changes predicted by evolutionary theory do add up to larger ones. Your turn: explain how "microevolution" cannot result in "macroevolution" over time. And provide evidence.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Science is a self-correcting and competitive enterprise, rhocam. You really need to grasp this. Scientists compete for academic / research positions, grant money and getting experimental results published first, to name just three areas.

Especially now, there are millions of experts working in areas directly bearing on the Theory of Evolution (ToE). If there was evidence that could offer the ToE serious competition, there would be an explosion of interest; the prestige to be gained by rewriting the basis of modern biology would be immense.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

Please be specific: what gaps? The gaps that you've shoved your god into as science has progressively shown he need not be invoked as an explanation? As Astreja said, you can claim this all you like. But without evidence to back it up, that's all it will ever be.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

That is almost certainly a quote-mine, a sadly common creationist tactic of lying-by-omission. So we can be sure this isn't the case, please provide the original source and complete quote.

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

It's not clear what you mean by "Darwinism", but Kimura's work does not throw the ToE into doubt. On the contrary, it is a refinement and expansion of the ToE into the field of molecular evolution.

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

I said before: I didn't expect you to accept the evidence. But that is not the fault of the evidence.

Be careful about making blanket statements. There are quite a few regulars here who have been educated and live outside the US. Not to mention the ToE is often "watered down" in public schools in the US due to the opposition of willfully ignorant people like you.
Changed Change Reason Date
Samothec love the "explain how micro can't result in macro" March 08, 2012, 07:55:01 PM