Evidence for macro-evolution

AV1611VET said:

Then they are all different kinds, whose [genera] were created in 4004 BC.

(Cue cross-bred hybrids in three ... two ... one ...)

Click to expand...

Gives inspiration to a poem now..... one genera , two genera, three genera four, four genera four, or more, from four thousand and four (bc) .....

The IbanezerScrooge said:

That's patently absurd.

Click to expand...

Oh, really?

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Isn't one of the hallmarks of the "kinds" argument that a kindergartener could tell that things were the same "kind" just by looking at them?

Click to expand...

A kindergartner can compare an elephant to a cow and know they are different kinds.

Not so much when it comes to comparing a bobcat to a mountain lion.

That doesn't negate God's definition of "kind:"

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

The IbanezerScrooge said:

Do you honestly believe that a kindergartener would look at all of these "cats" and say they were different "kinds"?

Click to expand...

No.

It takes looking at their respective genera that the difference becomes clear.

AV1611VET said:

Maybe not, but you have such a wonderful example of macroevolution here, and you're not using it.

Click to expand...

Because it's not a wonderful example of macroevolution?

An example of macroevolution would demonstrate the process somehow.

Even though the traits in those boys that allowed them to go as wrong as they did are aspects of our species they aren't uniquely in us or any other species as you've repeatedly demonstrated with your slightly confusing statements about feral animals.

AV1611VET said:

No argument there.

Only God can genetically change something.

Such as when he changed Aaron's rod into a serpent, and back again.

Click to expand...

Firstly that isn't even true in the Bible as the Egyptian magicians could do it as well.

And secondly we can change things with genetic engineering and other technological processes, even if it's not as flashy as Old Testiment miracles.

AV1611VET said:

There you go again.

"Might"?

Don't we come from a long line of killers and literal baby-eaters?

And didn't our close relatives club women over the head and drag them home to their caves by their hair to cook their food and have children?

Click to expand...

I said might because it is sometimes true and sometimes it isn't.

And you've described a way some people behave even today when they can get away with it.

AV1611VET said:

Another interesting word choice.

Why are you calling it "encouragement," when it should be "survival of the fittest"?

Or maybe it's natural selection gone awry?

Maybe Klebold & Harris wanted to "improve" their community by subjecting them to fight-or-flight?

(Evolution sure is cruel protective of itself, isn't it?)

They say "nature will find a way."

And when Klebold & Harris found a way, evolutionists treat them as if they were criminals or did something wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you are being dishonest about your characterisation to goad and provoke a reaction... that's a a silly description.

You should know that the evolutionary process is a description of what happens to a species on a multi generational scale, not about the actions of individuals.

Evolution is about consequences of the environment not decisions.

AV1611VET said:

But I somewhat disagree with "potential."

Isn't so-called violence the standard go-to method of natural selection?

After all, you can't have natural selection without death.

Click to expand...

Death doesn't mean direct violence and agression.

AV1611VET said:

What do you mean by "good"?

Click to expand...

Functional and able to cooperate, breed and thrive.

Significant numbers of the population going kill crazy is bad news for a social animal like a human.

AV1611VET said:

But what's a "better environment"?

Animals literally walk all over themselves, have multiple wives, wife swap, eat their children, stand around (or run) when a crocodile or something takes one of their herd, sniff each other's food, and Darwin knows what all else.

Can you take a sounder of swine and make them "more manageable"?

By the same token, can you take a shrewdness of people and make them "more manageable"?

Click to expand...

Yes you can.

If what you care about with your pigs is that they are fat and peaceful so you can safely and efficiently kill and eat them you can make sure their pens are the right size and you have the right lay out... or you can mess that up and get less healthy pigs and inferior meat from you farm.

Same with humans, if you try to make your society organised and make sure what you consider moral is reinforced you can have a better environment for everyone, even the examples who might have snapped in another situation.

AV1611VET said:

"Normal ability"???

LOL

Science can take a hike, can't it?

Click to expand...

It's abnormal to go on killing sprees or make terrorist attacks, in that the vast majority don't do it.

This isn't a statemented about science, genetics or evolution... it's just a description of basic facts of the world.

AV1611VET said:

I honestly believe you've got more sense than the evolutionist philosophy you're [trying to] defend.

All I hear you saying in post after post is:

"Macroevolution can take a hike."

Click to expand...

You can hear that, but it isn't consistent with what I'm talking about.

Macro evolution ultimately gave hominids the savagery to use violence as a tool but also the the empathy and intelligence to find other ways.

AV1611VET said:

Why would you have to clarify?

It should be standard teaching.

Click to expand...

Because if the topic is macro evolution the specifics of species is relevant.

Macro evolution is about changes beyond the species level, but that's not the only topic of biology.

AV1611VET said:

I don't think you do.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm getting that.

AV1611VET said:

It can take a hike, can't it?

Click to expand...

I'm kind of baffled by this.

Spree killers are a complex issue of inherent traits of people and social settings and upbringing.

There's nothing I can see in evolutionary theory that is countered by the concept that some humans are violent and dangerous.

Can you specifically describe how they are connected?

Shemjaza said:

Spree killers are a complex issue of inherent traits of people and social settings and upbringing.

Click to expand...

Or it is very simple, as has often been the case, they are simply on legal drugs prescribed for them that did not help them, and/or they got off the drugs prescribed for them that caused either way such violent tendencies.

AV1611VET said:

"Normal ability"???

LOL

Science can take a hike, can't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, especially when daily observing that "Normal ability" is almost always death dealing world wide in every occupation, job, school, religion, and so on....

Aaron112 said:

Or it is very simple, as has often been the case, they are simply on legal drugs prescribed for them that did not help them, and/or they got off the drugs prescribed for them that caused either way such violent tendencies.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for this?

I wasn't aware that there was any evidence that Klebold & Harris were on drugs of any kind and also that there is any evidence that anti-depressants can cause violence.

Standard Caution: Because the side effects (and main effects?)
are so variable and potentially threatening to health
do not add, stop, nor change any drug , dose, or frequency
without 'professional' oversite. i.e. learn all you can before changing to a drug approach or any change in drug use.

The evidence is only overwhelming and is involved in billions of dollars per day just in the usa, maybe trillions worldwide, so do not expect routine publice disclosures to be unaffected truth.

Online searches confirm the news published over the last several decades,
and the congressional investigations is just one of dozens or even hundreds or thousands over the last century - since so much money is directly involved, there are a lot of conflicting interests!

Here's just one for a start - to be continued each individually elsewhere (not this thread) >

================================================
"When are we going to have an honest conversation about drug abuse, mental illness, and SSRI’s???

And deadly side effects.

Are we really going to keep pretending?

Or covering for Big Pharma?

Because I’m absolutely done with the political plays on this BS. pic.twitter.com/8SkNpSOYWW

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 5, 2022"

AV1611VET said:

I'm not an evolutionist, but I'll play devil's advocate here and submit Klebold & Harris as evidence of macro-evolution.

Yea or nay?

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw in and say: nay.

A feral animal is still an animal. A feral dog does not become something new.

Just as a human killing another human in cold-blooded murder does not turn them into a new and terrifying thing. At the end of the day, they're still a human. Klebold and Harris were the symptoms of a society that just wanted and still wants to brush any problems with youth under a rug and pretend it doesn't exist then gets horrified and disgusted when the problems they create explode.
... I think I mixed one too many metaphors there.

But you're wrong for sure. Unless you think that we can find genetics that predispose for things like violence. And that, my good sir, is eugenics. And is a crock of horse s**t.

Aaron112 said:

Standard Caution: Because the side effects (and main effects?)
are so variable and potentially threatening to health
do not add, stop, nor change any drug , dose, or frequency
without 'professional' oversite. i.e. learn all you can before changing to a drug approach or any change in drug use.

The evidence is only overwhelming and is involved in billions of dollars per day just in the usa, maybe trillions worldwide, so do not expect routine publice disclosures to be unaffected truth.

Online searches confirm the news published over the last several decades,
and the congressional investigations is just one of dozens or even hundreds or thousands over the last century - since so much money is directly involved, there are a lot of conflicting interests!

Here's just one for a start - to be continued each individually elsewhere (not this thread) >

================================================
"When are we going to have an honest conversation about drug abuse, mental illness, and SSRI’s???

And deadly side effects.

Are we really going to keep pretending?

Or covering for Big Pharma?

Because I’m absolutely done with the political plays on this BS. pic.twitter.com/8SkNpSOYWW

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 5, 2022"

Click to expand...

Terrif!
The #1 crackpot in the congress, conspiracy theory,
and best of all, nothing about psychotic behaviour,
or any risk at all except to the one taking the drug.

Estrid said:

Terrif!
The #1 crackpot in the congress, conspiracy theory,
and best of all, nothing about psychotic behaviour,
or any risk at all except to the one taking the drug.

Click to expand...

And the ones they shoot of course.

MTG..."I don't believe in that kind of so called science "

Why would I so easily guess she's a creationist.

I'd trust her on science like I'd trust a sidewalk
dentist in Mozambique.

Aaron112 said:

IAnd the ones they shoot of course.

Click to expand...

The ones? Who? When?

Your worthless unattributed and altered citation makes
no mention of behavioral issues.

Other supporting evidence is conspiracy theory
and a crackpot.

The only "of course" is that you have nothing.

At a quick appraisal I'd say you could use
yourself a different attitude, and, if you don't
mind me aspersing your " information" again, a
a better class of citations.

Estrid said:

The ones? Who? When?

Your worthless unattributed and altered citation makes
no mention of behavioral issues.

Click to expand...

fwiw, maybe nothing to you,
drugs have long been known and proven to change behavior, often not for good.

You might argue against a thousand 'studies' worldwide proving the causal relationship
that
the druggies publish ten thousand 'studies' to disprove - so it boils down to
if you even can learn the truth of either side, or none.

You know well enough how to use the internet , albeit the internet is exceedingly deceiving and deceptive on purpose, and discovering what is true is harder than any scavenger hunt you've ever seen or participated in.

The motives and intents of men's hearts, including the druggies, is exposed by the "sharper than any sword" Word of the Creator,
and is never accepted by the world , rather is rejected by the world.

Aaron112 said:

fwiw, maybe nothing to you,
drugs have long been known and proven to change behavior, often not for good.

You might argue against a thousand 'studies' worldwide proving the causal relationship
that
the druggies publish ten thousand 'studies' to disprove - so it boils down to
if you even can learn the truth of either side, or none.

You know well enough how to use the internet , albeit the internet is exceedingly deceiving and deceptive on purpose, and discovering what is true is harder than any scavenger hunt you've ever seen or participated in.

The motives and intents of men's hearts, including the druggies, is exposed by the "sharper than any sword" Word of the Creator,
and is never accepted by the world , rather is rejected by the world.

Click to expand...

No way you can just admit to having zero
evidence huh?

Aaron112 said:

If evidence matters so much to you,
look for it.
It has been readily available for decades, as well as covered up for decades, but still is findable to those who look.

Just like, perhaps, the effects of alcohol on a persons brain/mind/behavior,
so also the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal, are documented or reported/ observed daily.

Click to expand...

"Do it yourself" is very much a copout answer.

Aaron112 said:

So what ? That's your opinion. If you have a painful toothache, it is up to you, yourself, to find help for it. I won't .

Click to expand...

It's a copout answer. You make the claim, it's on you to back it up with evidence. That's how it goes.

Aaron112 said:

If evidence matters so much to you,
look for it.
It has been readily available for decades, as well as covered up for decades, but still is findable to those who look.

Just like, perhaps, the effects of alcohol on a persons brain/mind/behavior,
so also the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal, are documented or reported/ observed daily.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that it's a thing with fundamentalists
to just say things. Who knows why.

But I do know, they will never ever back down,
admit to any error. Never in my experience,

I don't figure you to be the first..

You have zero. Invoking God, conspiracies,
irrelevant warning label from who knows where,
changing the subject, saying I should do your
homework etc etc is all just garbage.
You have zero.

Admitting it would be a display of intellectual integrity.


Anyway, enough. I've seen your hand. Aces and eights.

Aaron112 said:

Have you ever seen what's called "a mean" drunk ?

Click to expand...

See? Change the subject.

Aaron112 said:

So what ? That's your opinion. If you have a painful toothache, it is up to you, yourself, to find help for it. I won't .

Click to expand...

See?
Change the subject,

And

" you do my homework"

Aaron112 said:

The similarity is astonishing.
"mean" drunk
"suicidal" on brain alternating medicine or drugs
"shooter"
Not surprising really.

Click to expand...

Not even remotely similar. And Klebold and Harris were not on drugs when they shot up Columbine. To suggest they were is to try and side-step the issue that these were young men who needed help, were failed by the society they lived in, and ultimately committed the worst sin and worst crime: first degree murder.
To blame it all on drugs is head in the sand behaviour.

Aaron112 said:

In a short search a little while ago I discovered, or re-discovered, they were on or had been on drugs./medicine/ like many other shooters.

How may in the military and flying jets for the usa were given drugs to stay awake or 'enhance' their performance , btw ?

Click to expand...

While there is evidence they were on anti-depressants, there is no evidence at all linking the fact that the planned, orchestrated and carried out a mass shooting.
To focus solely on the drugs is a clear sign that you don't care about the actual problems like so many people in these situations do and only focus on knee-jerk band-aid solutions.