Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have given it to you and supported it but you simply reject it,again, your argument is an argument from silence. Literally. And this reminds me of how when I ask for evidence of macro evolution, all I get is blank stares.
The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.If you have speciation you have macroevolution ...
The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.
That didn't work though, as evolutionists lost debates by creationists pointing out that no one has ever seen one genus give rise to another.
Now it looks like the devil is telling us macroevolution is species-ation: one species giving rise to another.
So all a scientist has to do is attach a different Linnaean classification to an animal and behold ... macroevolution!
The devil used to tell us that macroevolution was genera-ation: one genus eventually giving rise to another.
That didn't work though, as evolutionists lost debates by creationists pointing out that no one has ever seen one genus give rise to another.
Now it looks like the devil is telling us macroevolution is species-ation: one species giving rise to another.
So all a scientist has to do is attach a different Linnaean classification to an animal and behold ... macroevolution!
NO, you claimed it was a qualified paper. A quick exam of the site shows that it is merely a glamour publisher.
I'd say it depends on how old you are.That really doesn't even make nonsense.
I'd say it depends on how old you are.
You probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
Just out of curiosity, what is a glamour publisher? Don't know if I have run into that term before.
Dizredux
When the Muses* built their respective infrastructures in society, the education system put up pictures in their classrooms (or science books, I can't remember which) showing a fish coming out of the water, becoming a frog, becoming a monkey, then becoming a man.Age has nothing to do with it, AV.
Just out of curiosity, what is a glamour publisher? Don't know if I have run into that term before.
Dizredux
When the Muses* built their respective infrastructures in society, the education system put up pictures in their classrooms (or science books, I can't remember which) showing a fish coming out of the water, becoming a frog, becoming a monkey, then becoming a man.
The one thing that stood in the way of evolution in our schools was the Bible; and the devil had That taken out.
* The Muses are nine (?) specific fallen angels given specific tasks.
I suspect it's another term for a "vanity press."
Most publishers pay you for your work -- figuring they'll make the money back (and then some) in sales.
A vanity press, however, charges you to publish your work -- it's how you can be assured that no matter what asinine drivel you put on paper, it'll still be published.
Some people will do just about anything to see their name in print, hence the name.
I am 71 and you are right, I often do not have a clue of what your are talking about since you seem to delight in being obscure.I'd say it depends on how old you are.
You probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about.
I was having cognitive flatulence also. I got confused and was thinking about Guilford press when I reported Wiley being a good resource.I was haing a major brainfart and could not remember the term "vanity press". Though "glamor" is very close. A vanity publication is one that will publish almost anything, as long as the publication fee is paid. Sadly most articles that are free to see online are usually of this type. Anything new and cutting edge you will not be able to see for free.
There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.
Which is why I reported the impact factor as supplied by the publisher.I was haing a major brainfart and could not remember the term "vanity press". Though "glamor" is very close. A vanity publication is one that will publish almost anything, as long as the publication fee is paid. Sadly most articles that are free to see online are usually of this type. Anything new and cutting edge you will not be able to see for free.
There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.
There is a way of rating journals called its impact factor, and vanity press publications tend to have a very low impact factor. Journals like Nature on the other hand have a relatively high impact factor. The impact factor measures how often the journal or even articles, are sited by other journals.
But we have observed macroevolution in the fossil record. There are several lines where it can be seen quite well. Of course when it is shown to them creationists try to redefine macroevolution. .
I have given it to you and supported it but you simply reject it,
Macroevolution is speciation and above. If you have speciation you have macroevolution as scientists use the term which is not often.
Dizredux
I can.
There are other ways to define transitional fossils?
As for radiometricdating:
1. This is an intelligent design argument. The believe in the old earth.
2. I only use it to see if evolution works in the first place. Is it really that bad to try to understand both sides of the story?
I quoted a scientific article in a journal with an above average impact record, and it states the entymology of the word macro evolution:
let me repeat it:
"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level. In contrast to latter views, speciation was not seen as the crux of the distinction between micro- and macroevolution, since Filipchenko saw speciation as continuous with microevolutionary change"
above quote from :
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library
so when you say speciation is macro evolution, well thats not the way the original term defined it. So guess who changed it? Not Creationists! Evolutionists!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?