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: March 28, 2024, 2:50 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
#21
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1.
Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts

You (or whoever you copied that from) makes it sound like the scientific community is making a bare assertion, rather than reporting what the available physical evidence shows.

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes, and it's readily available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: 2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

You mean like a land animal's descendants involving into whales? That happens to be a transition particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: 3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

They are talking about the descendants of one species evolving into a different species, like eohippus into the modern horse. 'Family' has a specific meaning in taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)


(April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: No, those aren't creationist statements. Charles Darwin said evidence would be found in the fossils showing a whale on its way to a bear and a squirrel on its way to a bat.

This is untrue. Darwin speculated that bears who specialized in eating insects on the surface of the water might wind up the ancestors of a whale-like creature and that flying squirrels might wind up the ancestors of a more bat-like creature. He wasn't making a prediction about the future evolution of bears and squirrels, and he certainly wasn't suggesting that whales and bats had evolved from bears and squirrels.

(April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: I'm glad you at least acknowledge the idiocy of his theory and that you're so embarrassed that you're now blaming it on creationists.

We acknowledge the idiocy of your reading comprehension. He is not saying what you think he is.

(April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Here's the weblink to a source that quoted Darwin saying it. When you get to the website, scroll down to paragraph 8.[/size]

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulte...olve/print

You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin? Ann Coulter? Are you actively trying to become more stupid?

(April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: Where's the evidence to prove any of what you're speculating? Present it on the forum for all to see.[/color][/size]

It's not speculation when it's based on evidence. It's science. It's a shame that's inconvenient for your beliefs, but the transitional series leading to whales is remarkably complete.

(April 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: In case you haven't noticed, I cited two school textbooks in my opening post.[/color][/size]

And they were distinguishable from your own remarks in that they had merit.



Reply
#22
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Tiger
This thread reminds me of a certain Chick TractROFLOL
[Image: 2lkr3nc.jpg]
http://foo.ca/wp/chick-tract-satire/whos-your-daddy/
Reply
#23
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
I haven't seen this much Fail since Rick Perry was running ads.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Reply
#24
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Quote:You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin?

Ann Coulter on Darwin? Fuck me. That's like if I wrote a paper on brain surgery.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#25
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Apparently repetitious idiots are our "cross to bear."

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

Study and learn, alter. Then you will stop being a fucking jesus freak moron and join the real world.

Reply
#26
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1.[/b] Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?[/color]

1. Yes, you should go look for it on wikipedia. Try typing in "homo-erectus" and "homo-habilis".
2. Not how it works, you've completely misunderstood. Stupid question. See wikipedia.
3. No modern-day scientists are making *any* such claims that bats evolved from squirrels. Thats not macro-evolution, thats pokemon. Please do everyone a favor and type "evolution" on wikipedia instead of wasting our time with questions you can easily answer yourself but are probably avoiding the answers to.
Reply
#27
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
RaphielDrake Wrote:1. Yes, you should go look for it on wikipedia. Try typing in "homo-erectus" and "homo-habilis".

Lol. I have a feeling this guy is going to be afraid to type 'homo' anything into his computer.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Reply
#28
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(April 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote:
Quote:You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin?

Ann Coulter on Darwin? Fuck me. That's like if I wrote a paper on brain surgery.

Did you read the article? It is Ann Coulter trying to make the argument that "Darwinists" are actually the ones indoctrinating their children and believing in "Darwinism" as though it were a proto-religion.

Well done Ann. You have exceeded your own bar for stupid.

Also you know it's going to be stupid when they talk about "Darwinism" as though evolution still clung to Darwinian theory. The only thing still remaining in modern evolution is "descent with modifications". Pretty much every other part of Darwinian theory has been discarded at this point.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche

"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Reply
#29
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
Well, there's still Natural Selection, that's pretty important. The heredity stuff is much more complicated than Darwin imagined, but that's forgivable, given that he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. The main thrust still works, and that's not bad for a theory that originated 150 years ago.
Reply
#30
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(April 17, 2012 at 9:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Well, there's still Natural Selection, that's pretty important. The heredity stuff is much more complicated than Darwin imagined, but that's forgivable, given that he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. The main thrust still works, and that's not bad for a theory that originated 150 years ago.

Eh-heh-heh-heh-heh!

You said "thrust"!

Eh-heh-heh-heh!
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.

God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Darwin's Voyage on the Beagle, droll dramatization Alex K 2 820 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 34305 November 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Darwin Proven Wrong? sswhateverlove 165 21596 September 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution. Duke Guilmon 18 8099 June 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Last Post: Ryantology
  Did Darwin get it wrong? Zone 20 4569 September 19, 2013 at 9:58 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Alter2Ego 190 72569 August 23, 2013 at 6:14 am
Last Post: pocaracas
  Darwin Day KichigaiNeko 2 1451 February 8, 2013 at 8:25 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Lost Darwin Fossils Rediscovered frankiej 5 3236 January 17, 2012 at 10:55 am
Last Post: frankiej
  Darwin and the tree of life. 5thHorseman 13 5252 November 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: Blam!
  Charles Darwin Program. 5thHorseman 18 6187 September 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)