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.
Good point Targ. That'll be my final hurrah.
Changing speed settings is the proposed mechanism for fan to race car
Reproduction with chance and necessity is the proposed mechanism for microbe to man
Are you under the impression that the proposed mechanisms are not experimentally tested in both cases?Are you under the impression that this changes the fact that ceiling fans do not reproduce with variation?
All that's been presented is the proposed mechanism, which like the fan, is testedI'm sure the actual mechanisms of evolution (reproduction with variation and selection) have been explained to you here before many a time. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with Greg; a desire to be wrong is not.
Lurker
Are you under the impression that the proposed mechanisms are not experimentally tested in both cases?
All that's been presented is the proposed mechanism, which like the fan, is tested
It is called the YEC shuffle.What is not honest about asking questions?
So you say you don't personally need the evidence to show every single species in the transition. Yet in you reply to me, you said "this proposed transition from reptile to mammmal is not actually a species to species transition" as if this was a problem for you.
Yet somehow you know enough to say that the reptile to mammal sequence is not an example of species evolving.
On what basis did you come to this conclusion?
"what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution"
First, I think the onus is one the evolutionist to prove that it can, not that others disprove it.
Secondly, I think the fact of stasis in the fossil record is worthy of mention here. Species in the fossil record, when we have a fossils over a long period of time, do not actually behave as you state. They exhibit little change. They don't evolve, which suggests to me, that the capacity for micro-evolution to make the jump to macro-changes is not there.
He is asking us to believe that evolutionist evidence is cicular, but he isn't doing a good job of pointing out how it actually is.
No, this is a typical question posed by evoltionists, of the kind Talkorigins uses, to set up a false dichotomy, and try to state that critics of evolution must porve that micro-evolution cannot create macro-evolution. It is a completely bogus argument, and propoganda technique.
Thus far, mutations have not been shown to add to the limited potential already there. I won't say can't add information because for instance, they can add back information that was lost in earlier mutations.
However, they have not been shown to add to the potential in a way that creates macro-evolution, and this is the point.
I am certainly not an expert on genetics, but have waded through some articles on both sides of the issue, some of a technical nature, but I do understand that in a argument, one side has to prove a positive, or try to, before they can egitimately demand the other disprove it.
What is a 'meaningful way'? Is the acquisition of insecticide resistence a meaningful thing for mutation to produce in insects?The issue is existing potential. Evolutionists must show that mutations can add to that potential in a meaningful way that can add up to macro-evolutionary changes. That hasn't been shown from my reading, though it is a hot topic.
The limits then, the mechanism you ask for, is the same mechanism for change, the existing genetic material. The question is if evolutionists have shown how that genetic material can add genes in a manner to produce macro-evolutionary changes.
Why woul dthey have to be "unlimited"?Evolutionists haven't demonstrated that mutations are sufficinetly unlimited in potential to create all of life.
Shown through experimentation. Limited. Man remains man. You accept experimentation results for this but not adaptation.Randman, Yeah, you are obviously right.
You know, I heard that some people believe that an old man, was once a child. Can you believe it?
Shown through experimentation. Limited. Man remains man. You accept experimentation results for this but not adaptation.
Yeah, the same people that claim they "proven" evolution, how can we trust these people? Just because they say they got evidence, and then gives us thousands upon thousands of thesis's that we have to read? I don't think so, i'm not reading all does things just to learn about it, gives me a headache, they have to prove it some other way that I find acceptable.
Don't you agree Greg?
The experimentation speaks for itself. The results are shown, no need to speak. Like that on adaptation.
I'd like to know what people consider a macroevolutionary change if not speciation. Are we talking about the origin of a new organ or metabolic pathway of some sort, or are we talking about the development of a new taxonomic level?
Indeed. But it's not the observation of experimentation results that's the problem.Not only are they shown, they are left for others to test them and so we have, for several decades over 420 THOUSAND studies have studied evolution and when it comes to peer review each and every one have been found to observe what they observe.
So another creationist joke.By all over the world i mean even outside of Kansas.
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?