(December 30, 2019 at 6:50 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 12:09 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: It’s not analogous to a few years when a new generation spawns in just one week. After 40k generations of forced mutations there is no macro evolution, no new body plans,organs, novel features just mutants. Nothing like that had been observed, there are limitations to micro evolution that stops short of macro

What stops micro evolution becoming macro evolution? What is the process and what is your scientifically verified evidence for it?

He will insist his funhouse understanding of biology demonstrates this .Too bad it doesn't .

(December 30, 2019 at 12:03 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 29, 2019 at 11:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @John 6IX Breezy

I wonder how it makes god feel to know that you won’t acknowledge to a forum full of atheists that you don’t believe in him?

Who knows; but it clearly makes you very upset. Understandably so, its hard work to build a strawman and see it be ineffective.

😘

(December 30, 2019 at 8:01 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 29, 2019 at 8:14 pm)Alex K Wrote: Take a sizable population, divide them up and give them selection pressure and a few tens of millions of years, then we're talking.

And what makes you so strangely certain that it will happen? By definition, any process supposed to operate in a timespan of tens of millions of years is not observable, not testable, and not falsifiable. It's only inference and guesswork.

Known mutation rates and ample genetic and fossil evidence.

I’m still waiting for John to answer my question about the horseshoe crab, since he brought it up and all.

(December 30, 2019 at 8:01 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 29, 2019 at 8:14 pm)Alex K Wrote: Take a sizable population, divide them up and give them selection pressure and a few tens of millions of years, then we're talking.

And what makes you so strangely certain that it will happen? By definition, any process supposed to operate in a timespan of tens of millions of years is not observable, not testable, and not falsifiable. It's only inference and guesswork.

How are you so certain the Quran is true? Did you observe Allah creating the world? You guys are the grandest of hypocrites.

(December 30, 2019 at 9:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I’m still waiting for John to answer my question about the horseshoe crab, since he brought it up and all.

Repost it.

(December 30, 2019 at 8:01 am)Klorophyll Wrote: And what makes you so strangely certain that it will happen? By definition, any process supposed to operate in a timespan of tens of millions of years is not observable, not testable, and not falsifiable. It's only inference and guesswork.

*Sigh*

Why, yes indeed. We can never test the predictions of the various sciences who's time spans of 'workings' or 'development' span aeons.

Oh, wait. Yes we can. It's call "Geology" and why we can successfuly drill for things like oil, gas, coal and other minerals.

 

Not at work.

(December 30, 2019 at 9:37 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: How are you so certain the Quran is true? Did you observe Allah creating the world? You guys are the grandest of hypocrites.

Do I really need to repeat it over and over? there is no possible discussion about the Qur'an until the existence of God is settled.

How do I know God exists? I live in an orderly world obeying innumerable laws of physics, existence of laws imply existence of an (uncaused) lawgiver. I infer the latter from the most basic brick of reasonable thought (ex nihilo nihil fit)

Why uncaused? Otherwise we have a causal infinite regress, which has no sufficient reason in itself to exist in the first place. Also there are many paradoxes arising from an actual infinite chain of causes. God is then the name we give to the necessary first cause.

If you're prepared to infer from anatomical similarities in the fossil record that we started evolving aeons ago? Why shouldn't I infer from an unbelievably fine tuned universe that there is a tuner?

(December 30, 2019 at 10:25 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: *Sigh*

Why, yes indeed. We can never test the predictions of the various sciences who's time spans of 'workings' or 'development' span aeons.

Oh, wait. Yes we can. It's call "Geology" and why we can successfuly drill for things like oil, gas, coal and other minerals.

 

Not at work.

Even in Geology, you have theories, not laws. The theory of tectonic plates, for instance, is considered to still need empirical support with the help of modern geographical equipments.

Geology is entirely different, you have earthquakes, volcanos and various other natural phenomena which are observable and measurable - maybe replicable in the future? - and serve as experiments to understand better what's below us, can I say the same about a hypothetical LUCA existing billions of years ago? No.

(December 30, 2019 at 10:32 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Even in Geology, you have theories, not laws. The theory of tectonic plates, for instance, is considered to still need empirical support with the help of modern geographical equipments.

Geology is entirely different, you have earthquakes, volcanos and various other natural phenomena which are observable and measurable - maybe replicable in the future? - and serve as experiments to understand better what's below us, can I say the same about a hypothetical LUCA existing billions of years ago? No.

Yeah... Except we'd never find oil or mineral deposits if the 'Theories' were tested and found to be false.

Funny old world, in-it?



Not at work.