A thread on evolution

[bhsmte]

Threads like this, is why i love CF.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have. You haven't. In another recent post you requested evidence, but you do not understand that concept either.

Let's go over the concept of evidence and then I will gladly give you some. When a person has proven multiple times that he does not understand the concept of evidence it is pointless to supply him with any.

please post link to your peer review. And I expect it to answer my question about linking of two genra's proving macro evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Threads like this, is why i love CF.

you don't love it as much as myself. been here over ten years.

 

[createdtoworship]

He will object because it is not an "official dictionary". Even though it has been pointed out to him many times that there is no such animal as an "official dictionary".

try printed dictionaries for one. you know dictionaries you can check out in the oxford library for example. (if they let you check out references)

 

[pitabread]

He will object because it is not an "official dictionary". Even though it has been pointed out to him many times that there is no such animal as an "official dictionary".

He also doesn't seem to know why dictionaries exist in the first place. It's bizarre.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please post link to your peer review. And I expect it to answer my question about linking of two genra's proving macro evolution.

Nope, not until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

try printed dictionaries for one. you know dictionaries you can check out in the oxford library for example. (if they let you check out references)

So now you're shifting the goalposts. Classic...

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that's not debating, it's called acting like a child. If this were an honest debate, you'd actually respond to the whole of what I wrote, not just a small portion of it and take that portion out of context too.
And also, the term quote mine DOES appear in an online dictionary! Checkmate.

a slang dictionary is not an official dictionary. And most other sources are wiki based which is partisan to error because they are open sourced. to make it easy, try finding a printed dictionary that has it in it. And again they have multi word dictionaries as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

try printed dictionaries for one. you know dictionaries you can check out in the oxford library for example. (if they let you check out references)

Printed dictionaries are no more "official" than online ones and they have the drawback of usually not being up to date.

The OED is not an "official dictionary". If you want to make a demand there needs to be a valid reason for a demand.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, not until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

so excuse me if I don't believe you. so again , please post real evidence for evolution, if not... please stop trolling these threads.

 

[createdtoworship]

So now you're shifting the goalposts. Classic...

it's called moving the goal posts. genius. and how am I doing that? I have always asked for an official dictionary. Ones that are referenced in university english classes. My teacher only allowed us to use oxford english dictionaries. And I understand why. the others are biased.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

a slang dictionary is not an official dictionary. And most other sources are wiki based which is partisan to error because they are open sourced. to make it easy, try finding a printed dictionary that has it in it. And again they have multi word dictionaries as well.

No. Because I know for a fact that even if I do find an example of quote mind being a multi word dictionary (I found a better one online here), you'll still ignore what I've found and keep sticking your head in to the ground.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. Because I know for a fact that even if I do find an example of quote mind being a multi word dictionary (I found a better one online here), you'll still ignore what I've found and keep sticking your head in to the ground.

now your just reaching, that one doesn't even define it. and if that is the better of the two, then both are trash.

 

[Subduction Zone]

a slang dictionary is not an official dictionary. And most other sources are wiki based which is partisan to error because they are open sourced. to make it easy, try finding a printed dictionary that has it in it. And again they have multi word dictionaries as well.

Why not? A slang dictionary is just as "official" as any other dictionary.

And just because a source is open to contributions does not automatically make it "prone to error". I can link studies on Wikpedia that show it is just as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Guess what? You will find some errors in any encyclopedia. They are still GENERALLY reliable sources.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

now your just reaching, that one doesn't even define it. and if that is the better of the two, then both are trash.

Doesn't matter. I'm still right, you're still wrong and will always be wrong. Quote mines exist. End of story.

 

[Gene2memE]

In response to gradyll's requests for evidence:

Here are some excellent starting points for the evidence for evolution. These are free, college level courses and will answer most of the basic questions about evolution and genetics - if you're willing to put in the work.

Duke University
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

Yale
Open Yale Courses | Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior

Universiteit Leiden
Evolution Today | Coursera

American Museum of Natural History
Evolution: A Course for Educators | Coursera

 

[createdtoworship]

Here are some excellent starting points for the evidence for evolution. These are free, college level courses and will answer most of the basic questions about evolution and genetics - if you're willing to put in the work.

Duke University
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera

Yale
Open Yale Courses | Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior

Universiteit Leiden
Evolution Today | Coursera

American Museum of Natural History
Evolution: A Course for Educators | Coursera

why would i put in the work, if you guys, who allegedly took all these courses, cannot answer one question?

A little backround first. you have species, and then you have genus level taxonomy. Evolution happens at a species level and I can show you papers that define this level evolution as micro evolution. Macro level evolution is where you have two animals or types of animals evolving into a whole other genus of animal. For example a dog like creature into a whale or a dinosaur into a bird. The obvious conclusion is that there would be many transitions of monkey to man, and dinosaur to bird, and dog to whale creatures roaming the earth. Hence the search for the missing link. My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal? Lucy for example is ape like, while neanderthal is human like. So those would not qualify, you must show one that has both. This is the necessary ingredient to prove macro evolution is possible since macro evolution is at a taxa higher than species, or at the genus level at a minimum. But could be also higher, like a transition between two family of creature.

 

[createdtoworship]

Doesn't matter. I'm still right, you're still wrong and will always be wrong. Quote mines exist. End of story.

2ndly, let me prove them false on a rational basis: Well if you are talking about goats for 9 minutes but in the middle you talk about sheep for 1 minute. if you quote the sheep section you are quote mining by your own admission, even if the quote was correct. it was just not in context of the whole, get it now?

 

[pitabread]

My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal?

Have you still not seen the TO Transitional Vertebrate Fossil page? Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I mean, this site has been around for over twenty years now, with loads of examples of transitions (including of the higher taxa, which you keep asking for). Considering you said you've been asking this question over and over, I find it hard to believe nobody has ever referred you to this site before.

This is the necessary ingredient to prove macro evolution is possible

Not really. Genetics alone demonstrates common ancestry of species on Earth. Even if life never fossilized, we'd still have overwhelming evidence they are related via common ancestry.

It's also been pointed out to you that there isn't really a strict definition of "micro" and "macro" evolution in nature, unless you want to argue reproduction barriers between populations (i.e. speciation). Evolution is just, well, evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

why would i put in the work, if you guys, who allegedly took all these courses, cannot answer one question?

A little backround first. you have species, and then you have genus level taxonomy. Evolution happens at a species level and I can show you papers that define this level evolution as micro evolution. Macro level evolution is where you have two animals or types of animals evolving into a whole other genus of animal. For example a dog like creature into a whale or a dinosaur into a bird. The obvious conclusion is that there would be many transitions of monkey to man, and dinosaur to bird, and dog to whale creatures roaming the earth. Hence the search for the missing link. My question is can you provide a missing link between two separate genus of animal? Lucy for example is ape like, while neanderthal is human like. So those would not qualify, you must show one that has both. This is the necessary ingredient to prove macro evolution is possible since macro evolution is at a taxa higher than species, or at the genus level at a minimum. But could be also higher, like a transition between two family of creature.

Wrong, micro evolution is within the species level. At the speices level and beyond is macroevolution. The sources that you have supplied claimed that.

Second your claim is simply wrong. Neanderthal is ape like because Neanderthal is an ape. You are apelike because you are an ape. If you can't phrase your demands properly no one can answer them.

Lucy is roughly half way in between man and chimp. Her hips were more like modern man's than like a chimp's. Her brain was closer to a chimp's than it is to man. Not everything evolves at the same rate. Like it or not she is the "missing link" that creationists demand.