Why Evolution is True

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I just want to be fair here, cabvet. You can change the bars as much as you like, but remember we need closure on our old topic. Are you willing to accept defeat, and be intellectually honest here? No evidence of macro evolution exists to date amongst vertebrates? If so we can move on.

How are fossils not evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
see my last post, and also this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7417298/#post66007155

thanks for the comment.

That doesn't answer the question.

If we split a population of dogs and keep them separate for 10 million years, what is stopping each population from accumulating different mutations through microevolution that result in a lack of fertility between the two populations when they are reunited 10 million years later?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
the only qualifications for macroevolution (per the definition) is to have a hybrid link two genras . . .

No, it isn't. That is something you dreamt up out of whole cloth.

If macroevolution is true, we would expect the lack of hybrids between distantly related genera.

as this is what would be required to share common ancestry on a macro level.

We don't have to have hybrids with chimps in order to share a common ancestor with chimps. That is something you have invented out of whole cloth.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
really what you are doing here is explaining something that doesn't exist. I, out of the goodness of my heart am giving a qualification or example for you to meet, just so you can see if your theory is valid.

Your qualification is something that macroevolution doesn't do, and isn't required for macroevolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, you aren't. No definition says that macroevolution is the production of a hybrid between two genera.

I have to go out for a bit, I won't address all of your posts but this one for now. I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level. Genus is above the species level, do you agree? Do you agree on the U.C. Berkleys definition of macro evolution? Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. But if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. Does that answer your questions? Thanks for the comment.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level.

Then use that definition. Using that definition, the production of two non-interbreeding populations from a single population is macroevolution. That is what the definition is.

Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry.

Using the definition that you already agreed with, we would expect macroevolution to produce two populations that could NOT produce hybrids. So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have to go out for a bit, I won't address all of your posts but this one for now. I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level. Genus is above the species level, do you agree? Do you agree on the U.C. Berkleys definition of macro evolution? Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. But if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. Does that answer your questions? Thanks for the comment.

Being able to form hybrids is suggestive of common ancestry, but isn't necessary for it to be true.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Being able to form hybrids is suggestive of common ancestry, but isn't necessary for it to be true.

no one is saying it is. I simply am asking for a hybrid or any transition to prove your point, now you can attack hybrids, and transitions and the definition of macro evolution, but you still come up short. With no evidence.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?

so here you have it folks, a confession that macro evolution in fact is not, and cannot be observed, nor have observations. And since observation is a prerequisite to science (as per the definitions from schools and colleges I provided), macro evolution is not a science. No further questions your honor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I simply am asking for a hybrid or any transition to prove your point,

You are asking for a hybrid that shouldn't exist if macroevolution is true.

now you can attack hybrids, and transitions and the definition of macro evolution, but you still come up short. With no evidence.

Why aren't transitional fossils evidence? Why aren't shared ERV's evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
so here you have it folks, a confession that macro evolution in fact is not, and cannot be observed, nor have observations.

That is not what I said.

I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.

You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.

And since observation is a prerequisite to science (as per the definitions from schools and colleges I provided),

Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.

We have the observations.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then use that definition. Using that definition, the production of two non-interbreeding populations from a single population is macroevolution. That is what the definition is.

like I said, in order to prove macroevolution as possible it must be observed. But the next best thing is provide a fossil etc of a transition. Namely, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. The next best thing, if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. That means 2000 steps if needed, or 2000 transitions between an ape and a man. OR a whale and a doglike creature, or a dinasaur and a bird. This is the definition of macro evolution. I remember you doubting that definition a day or so ago, have you changed your views of macro evolution since I provided professional sources that agree in my definition of macro evolution? I await your response.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is not what I said.

I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.

You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.




We have the observations.

well then you would simply be wrong. A hybrid is a transition between kinds, species, genra and the like. Not just a genus hybrid. Here is the definition:

Hybrid | Define Hybrid at Dictionary.com

secondly you said the following:

So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?
__________________

and thus you would have to retract this statment that can be interpreted as you not believing in observations of macroevolution of any kind. If you do believe, please provide one.

Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.

then please provide one observation, for scrutiny. Thanks Otherwise we will take your word for it, namely that observations cannot exist for macroevolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That is not what I said.

I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.

You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.



Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.

We have the observations.

Thanks Loudmouth, you just ruined the work of Darwin and science over the last 150 years and have shown the 99% of biologists who are members of the national academy of sciences to be wrong about evolution.

I guess this will be front page news tomorrow, but who is getting the Nobel prize?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.