Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 4, 2026, 7:27 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg?rlkey=x1nmxbwrp...pouidnfvtl]
Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(May 23, 2012 at 2:23 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:
(May 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Um, no. I appreciated and understood your point.

Ah, fair enough. Its just that rainbow paragraph took alot of effort.
I'm very proud of it.

As well you should be. It was loverly. Big Grin
Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Ring species are so freakin cool. So many places today we can see the different stages of speciation occuring. It's like the life of a star, we can document the different stages of it by observing different stars in the different stages, even if we can't observe the whole process. With life you can see the very beginning with different sub-species (domestic dogs and wolves), then as separation occurs more and more we see ring species, as apophenia gave examples of, then speciation becomes more definite. The species can make offspring, but the offspring is sterile, as is the case with donkeys and horses. And finally species that are very similar today that interbreed but cannot produce offspring.
Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(May 24, 2012 at 10:24 am)libalchris Wrote: Ring species are so freakin cool. So many places today we can see the different stages of speciation occuring. It's like the life of a star, we can document the different stages of it by observing different stars in the different stages, even if we can't observe the whole process. With life you can see the very beginning with different sub-species (domestic dogs and wolves), then as separation occurs more and more we see ring species, as apophenia gave examples of, then speciation becomes more definite. The species can make offspring, but the offspring is sterile, as is the case with donkeys and horses. And finally species that are very similar today that interbreed but cannot produce offspring.

One ring to rule them all Smile

Check out my thread Evolution In Action for a few examples of speciation that is taking place over a human lifetime.
Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(May 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm)Chuck Wrote: She just has a very small and rigidly calcified mind. She offers no rebuttals, just assertions to the contrary, back by well poisoning. A very small mind stuffed full of biblical crap, and lacking the flexibility to expand even a tiny little bit, even in defense of her bible. My dog can come up with better trick to get his food.

If you think god couldn't work a miracle and make a creationist dumber than Statler Wordorff, you are proven wrong.

I don't think it's so much of a dumbing (she may be fully functional in other areas) as a blinder on her imagination. I keep running into creationists mystified by things that only take a few moments thought. 'What good is half a wing?' Gee, I don't know, maybe you should ask a flying squirrel, fish, lizard, or lemur. 'What good is half an eye?' You know I DO wonder what good half an eye is to a tapeworm or Nautilus. Why, theyd be better off blind!

Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Yeah, think of ring species as the Latin language family. There was once on single mutually almost completely intelligible population of speakers, gradually speakers dispersed, local dialect evolved, until today, when one could go from Portugal to Spain, to France, to italy, to Romania, and never find a single break in the mutural intelligblilith of adjacent dialects in the continuum of the Latin language family, yet portuguese and Romanian on either end are mutually unintelligible despite the Latin origin of both, and are now definitively different languages.

Reply
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Of course, the language that became Latin was itself a fusion of Osco, Umbrian, Etruscan and many other root languages by the time it cohered into the monster that colonized the world.
Trying to update my sig ...
Reply



Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Darwin's Voyage on the Beagle, droll dramatization Alex K 2 1462 September 17, 2016 at 9:45 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false Rob216 206 82691 November 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Darwin Proven Wrong? sswhateverlove 165 58024 September 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution. Duke Guilmon 18 11586 June 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Last Post: Ryantology
  Did Darwin get it wrong? Zone 20 8324 September 19, 2013 at 9:58 am
Last Post: Jackie
  Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Alter2Ego 190 112737 August 23, 2013 at 6:14 am
Last Post: pocaracas
  Darwin Day KichigaiNeko 2 2131 February 8, 2013 at 8:25 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Lost Darwin Fossils Rediscovered frankiej 5 4553 January 17, 2012 at 10:55 am
Last Post: frankiej
  Darwin and the tree of life. 5thHorseman 13 8663 November 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: Blam!
  Charles Darwin Program. 5thHorseman 18 10357 September 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)