Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
John 61X Breezy,
If you define microevolution as sub-species evolution, and macroevolution as evolution of new species, genera, etc., then, of course, you have your true dichotomy. However, they are both driven mainly by natural selection. They are both considered factual by scientists everywhere, with the usual exception of the nutty fringe which is attached to any scientific field. Cases of good microevolution have been observed to reach the macroevolutionary stage! I guess you would call it microevolution until it steps past that species boundary whereupon it becomes a case of macroevolution.
Yes, taxonomy has a subjective element to it as do many areas of science, but it's not so subjective as to preclude meaningful, detailed conclusions. We know, for example, that elephants and mice, and bats, all trace back as part of the mammalian line of evolution. We now know that birds should be classified with the dinosaurs.
As for macroevolution, I missed your claims about mutation limitations, but in the light of the fossil record, or comparative DNA, it is entirely a pointless sideshow. How do you explain the fossil record? Are you going to take after creationist Dr. Henry Morris or do you have your own pet explanation. How do you explain comparative DNA? Even creationists seem to understand that DNA is useful for tracing family roots. Well, guess what? It's also very useful for tracing evolutionary roots! Do you actually have any credible, scientific explanations for the fossil record and DNA, or will you take refuge in your dubious claims about presumed limits of mutation? How about leaving these obscure side shows and answering the big questions?
You said previously you missed my objections on macroevolution. If you're interesting in having a serious discussion shoot me an inbox message, and I'll respond by the end of the week and we can start from scartch. I'm at the point in this thread where I can't tell where one conversation begins and another ends.
Don't forget to give me the name of your evolution textbook.
John 61X Breezy,
John, I'm not asking for a huge essay! I'm not asking for you to redo all kinds of posts! Let me repeat my simple question. "Do you have some special knowledge, unavailable or not understood by the world's most brilliant biologists and paleontologists but available to yourself, knowledge that overthrows the last 150 years of research?" (A "yes" or "no" with, perhaps, a few brief comments will do. I don't want you to strain yourself.) If so, is there a reason why you or another has not published this fabulous knowledge in Nature or Science which are the most prestigious scientific journals in the English language? If you have a hot, slam-dunk argument I'd suggest you quickly submit it so that you can collect your Nobel Prize!
In my earlier post I recommended 3 books dealing with evolution.
Your comment looks so much like what a little brat would say when he/ she does not have any other answer that I had to laugh. What a child you are! You only needed to add ".. and my dad is stronger than yours! "
I would have to conclude that, or you have a very serious problem with reading comprehension, or you simply cannot bear the thought of not knowing something and having a wrong opinion on any topic. You may have to ask some of you psychology professors to set an appointment to take care of your disconnect with reality and/ or your narcissistic traits and inferiority complex.
You did not offer an iota of proof that macro and microevolution do not happen through the same mechanisms so they are one and the same process only differing in the time scale they need to be appreciated. That is the position of the overwhelming majority of biologists, and you did not provide any mechanism that will stop change from happening in the next and the next and the next generations. So your objection was just a misunderstanding of the process underlying evolution. How can you say that it stands? Unless it stands as a testament to your ignorance on the topic. Read something besides creationists literature, please.
I never discussed your position over taxonomy, so I do not know what you are talking about.
Your objections to macroevolution simply revealed that you do not know much about evolution in general. For example, you saying that codon degeneracy was a problem for macroevolution just showed that you had a partisan, completely biased and wrong idea of what degeneracy means in genetics. You were cherry picking the part of the phenomenon that you thought would support your position. Complete and total tunnel vision. I was very explicit about it, showing how it a is really a bonus to evolution, but I guess you are so high in your horse that probably you did not even read what I wrote or applied that selective blindness you seem to be so very good at.
Let me tell you, the fact that you demanded the recreation in the lab, not just an extinct species, but the whole evolutionary path to get to a present species had me thinking for a while. It was so crazy, that it was a clear proof of how little you know about biology, the functioning of organisms, the way evolution works and the present state of genetic knowledge and techniques. However, when I told you about the chicks with dinosaur snouts you ignored it as usual. I am sure that is scientists could achieve what you asked for you will immediately react by saying: "Bah.. but it was done by an intelligent agent. Where are the observations of that process happening by itself in the real world?". I have been down that road before with other creationists.
I am not going to argue with you. Anybody who bears reading through the whole discussion can see what really happened. Nor I or anybody is going to convince you of anything because you do not come here to find the truth but to "win" arguments in the style of high school debate teams and go away stroking your little ego and thinking you are very smart. You have shown me that you are an ashamed creationist who does not dare to show his true colors and an ignorant with respect to evolutionary science but with an ax to grind.
When you have a mechanism that stops "macroevolution" from happening, please write the paper and send it to a peer-reviewed publication. I will wait.
I hope you don't mind that I left you endure the entire process, I felt it was important you come to your own conclusion about John, and that I didn't "poison the well" in advance.
Congrats anyway, you've pegged him completely.
In the meantime you may find this very edifying.
"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is."
Now since I am a plodding and intellectually lazy dullard, I'll just ask one more question, who in this thread thinks they've found flaws in the scientific theory of evolution that everyone from Darwin to Dawkins has missed?
I had not really engaged with Breezy before but now I can see your were absolutely right.
My apologies for not sparing you the pain. However I didn't want to introduce any bias to your decision by interfering prematurely.
For what it's worth I thought you showed exemplary patience.
"You were cherry picking the part of the phenomenon that you thought would support your position. "
a particular way or method of doing something.
OMG it's like you're reading my mind.....
OK I was being facetious, it's more like John is relentlessly mendacious in the way he will only address tiny parts of discussions he thinks support his position, and steadfastly refuses to address anything outside of that narrow point of reference, you have to admit it's neither clever nor subtle. Is he really a psychology student or am I being royally pranked?
"Anybody who bears reading through the whole discussion can see what really happened."
I'm surprised you feel that confident about it. What I think such a person will see, is how quickly you ran out of ideas, and shifted over to a straw man as a defense. Such a person will also see that after I told you my position on evolution wouldn't change if I was atheist, and you realized that your argument was made of straw, that you fell into a pit of denial.
It made perfect sense to me why you would call me dishonest. After all, pretending I'm dishonest keeps your straw man from burning down.
"It made perfect sense to me why you would call me dishonest. After all, pretending I'm dishonest keeps your straw man from burning down."
Now that's hilarious John, he's hardly alone in noticing your penchant for dishonesty in your posts. Your claim about denying evolution even if you were an atheist is risible, the stridency and arrogance of your posts shows you can't conceive of a world where your beliefs are wrong.
Of course you could evidence your claim by listing any scientific facts you deny that don't in any way refute your religious beliefs, but that's not going to happen, and I think we all know why John.
"I think we all know why John."
I hope so, after all, I already told you why.
Well you made a claim, theists love to make claims, answering my question would have offered some tangible evidence either way, so again I think we can all see why you refused to answer it, and it has nothing to do with your absurd claim.
"if you're interesting in having a serious discussion shoot me an inbox message"
hey john you asked greensnake to PM you...how about shelly?
why don't you ask shelly to pm you john?
whats wrong john??you're not interested on offering sheldon a pep talk?
Why would I want to do that lol. I don't like spam in my inboxes.
Only in your posts.
hahah.....hahahah...i laughed at this one...nice one bruh...
i guess shelly wont do that...
well good luck with greensnake..just hit me on my inbox, on what were you both discussing ayyytt?
I gave you examples and explanations about your objections to evolution and you did not answer even one of them. So, in the end I decided there was something more than ignorance on evolution. Your avoidance to state how you thought "macroevolution" happened was a clear giveaway that a creationist lurked under all your verbiage and inane objections. That was the reason I asked you to come forward with you position on theism. You were not using logic or paying any attention to any of the reasons, as an objective person, atheist or not would have done. You were trying to confound and derail the discussion. You can call it strawman or whatever you want. To nullify it you just have to state what is your theory on "macroevolution". I am waiting.
Ah! Let me tell you that you statement about taxonomy being subjective being bad news to evolution is another proof that you do not know what you are talking about. You are not a biologist. You have not read or have not understood any serious materials on evolution. Your have not counter any of the explanations given by me and others about your objections. You have not offered another theory to explain evolution. What are you crowing about?
You seem to engage in arguments with yourself a lot. For example, despite me saying micro and macro have the same mechanisms affecting different levels of taxonomy, you keep asking me for evidence that the two have different mechanisms. You did it again just now, by saying that my (nonexistent) statement that a subjective taxonomy is bad news for evolution, is proof I don't know what I'm talking about. In other words, you make up your own version of what I say, then argue against it, and pat yourself in the back for it.
There's not much I can do except watch as you argue against yourself.
And the familiar dance continues...
Again and again and again....
More like this:
Yes, in the middle of your ramblings you said that "micro and macro have the same mechanisms affecting different levels of taxonomy". I am not going to go about how this a peculiar way, to say the least, to talk about the process. Now, again you show reading comprehension problems. I have never asked you to offer evidence that micro and macroevolution are two different mechanisms. I have asked you to explain a mechanism that will stop micro to become macro given enough time. You started to throw codon degeneracy and empty affirmations like " when scientist try to do it they will find obstacles" but never offered a valid process through which micro will not become macro.
If I was wrong about what you said about taxonomy then was it that it was an evidence for evolution? Why did you list taxonomy as an objection to evolution?
An interesting sideline here is that the FACT of evolution (common descent with modification), which is basically what we mean when we talk about macroevolution as a done deal, does not depend on specific mechanisms! The freakin details are irrelevant! Common descent with modification makes some powerful predictions that do not depend on how it actually occurred--and we have a mountain of evidence that confirms those predictions and no significant counter-evidence. 150 years of insight have not produced an alternate model that explains all those data! Thus, the basic FACT of evolution or macroevolution as a done deal. So, Mr. Breezy is whistling up the wrong road in making a big stink over the mechanisms for micro and macroevolution! He should be addressing the arguments for common descent with modification, arguments like phylogenetic trees, vestigial organs, and some of the other arguments I've mentioned previously.
"But you're not a scientist lol; you don't know how science works, you don't know how journals work, and you don't know how the Nobel Prize works."
Nice false dichotomy John, and nice straw man arguments but it's the entire scientific world you're disagreeing with, not me.
Tell me John do all the scientists in the world know how science works? How many of those have validated your claims? Bye then, as I guess your fallacious straw men arguments are all we're getting when we refuse to indulge your pseudoscientific claims.
"I would argue there's a negative correlation between those who speak and think like you, and those who are scientists."
That's a claim, not an argument, and your little game won't work John. You are the one denying the scientific fact of species evolution, not me, you are the one claiming the entire scientific world is wrong and you're right, not me. You may think you're a genius, but until you evidence it we have the right to infer you're just another bat shit crazy creationist on an ego trip.
Your ball.....this is fun, so I guess you were right about 1 thing anyway.
Another transitional fossil discovered but creationist do not give up.
I didnt read all 11 pages of comments but, i have a question. For everyone debating evolution, why is it still called the
theory of evolution"? Why isn't it a law yet? We don't say the theory of gravity, since it has been proven its called the law of gravity. There are still countless other signs that the theory of evolution isnt true but the biggest and easy hint that it is NOT true is that the fact after all these years and all this technology we have today, its still nothing but a theory
Oh? When did that happen?
Man in search o...
The problem is that you don't understand scientific terminology. Scientists use "theory" in a completely different sense than you do. And "law" is not a firmly established theory! What you need is some basic study of scientific philosophy. That's easy enough these days. All you have to do is to latch onto a good, university website and do some study. Avoid universities in countries where it is a crime to teach real science!
Scientific theories never turn into laws, it's not a linear progression from one to the other. Scientific theories may however contain laws where they are apropos. You can easily Google the definition of these scientific terms.
"We don't say the theory of gravity, since it has been proven its called the law of gravity. "
That's all incorrect, Newton's theories of gravity contain the laws, and always have, the only change has been to expand our understanding of the application of Newtonian physics with Einstein's theory of relativity.
Neither theory will ever *become a law, that's not how it works. This is in fact another piece of creationist propaganda.
"There are still countless other signs that the theory of evolution isnt true"
No there aren't, like Breezy you're denying a well evidenced scientific fact. Just flip on any news channel and you'll see that species evolution has not been falsified, even after almost 160 years of scientific scrutiny. All the evidence supports it.