So Old Yet So Modern

[electroid]

So? Whatever evolved is just a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.

That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Again, irrelevant to the subject material being presented.

Ok, how about this...

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the prosecution would have you believe that the defendant is guilty, simply because of the blood on his hands, the fingerprints and DNA on the knife, the letter from the defendant saying, "I am going to stab you", the video of the defendants statement at the scene, standing over the victim holding the knife in which he said, "I did it, I killed him, and I'm glad I did", and other assorted 'evidence'. But I say to you, members of the Jury, you weren't there, you didn't see it, and therefore you must return a verdict of Not Guilty."

Sound reasonable?

 

[Magnus Vile]

That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.

Which is why you look exactly like everyone else in the world.

 

[electroid]

I'm sorry. I really want to talk to you, if you answer me just one question.

Here goes:
What is evolution and what are its mechanisms? Please give me a concise and simple answer to that.

We'll take it from there.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution

 

[michabo]

electroid,

Would you agree with the following statements:

1. Not all offspring will survive and reproduce.

2. Not all offspring have an equal chance of surviving and reproducing.

3. Offspring are not identical to their parents


?

 

[c'mon sense]

That cannot be proven. =)) Genes do not mutate! Our DNA is steadfast.

So dogs don't by any chance come from wolfs?
Maize doesn't come from teosinte?
Wheat doesn't come from grass?
Genetic disorders do not exist?
Viruses and bacteria don't exist anymore because they never mutated?

 

[electroid]

Ok, how about this...

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the prosecution would have you believe that the defendant is guilty, simply because of the blood on his hands, the fingerprints and DNA on the knife, the letter from the defendant saying, "I am going to stab you", the video of the defendants statement at the scene, standing over the victim holding the knife in which he said, "I did it, I killed him, and I'm glad I did", and other assorted 'evidence'. But I say to you, members of the Jury, you weren't there, you didn't see it, and therefore you must return a verdict of Not Guilty."

Sound reasonable?

That scenario has been used, this was my reply:

Ah, but you see, such a conclusion is not based on a species or entity outside humanity or time, is it?

Darwin writes because he is only a man who lived the normal length of a human, the evidence brought up of the past is limited, so therefore, the evidence needed to prove his theory is out of our range and can't prove evolution at reach.

You see, murder is a good metaphor but not good enough. Solving a murder case involves a murderer, at least, does it not? Without a murder suspect, do we randomly start accusing people of murder? Without a valid record of the past, do we start randomly bringing up facts and associating them with evolution? Hmm...

Since we have no proper evidence to put on the murder suspect we have no one to accuse and with no one to accuse we have no case.

Darwin brought a murder suspect without proper evidence. Evidence is being used today to prove the suspect guilty but is it proving the suspect guilty or a pack of anxious anti-creationists with the need to settle justice of any kind under any circumstance on anyone?

 

[electroid]

electroid,

Would you agree with the following statements:

1. Not all offspring will survive and reproduce.

2. Not all offspring have an equal chance of surviving and reproducing.

3. Offspring are not identical to their parents


?

Sure.

 

[c'mon sense]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/macroevolution
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/microevolution

Sorry, babe. But your words are the only priceless thing we all want to hear. We know what evolution is and how it works. Show us what you know so we know how bad it is and how much work we have on our hands with you.

Thanks!

 

[electroid]

So dogs don't by any chance come from wolfs?
Maize doesn't come from teosinte?
Wheat doesn't come from grass?
Genetic disorders do not exist?
Viruses and bacteria don't exist anymore because they never mutated?

They do. That is the demonstration of microevolution and not macro.

 

[electroid]

Sorry, babe. But your words are the only priceless thing we all want to hear. We know what evolution is and how it works. Show us what you know so we know how bad it is and how much work we have on our hands with you.

Thanks!

I have no different a definition of evolution than you, I simply refute it.

 

[michabo]

They do. That is the demonstration of microevolution and not macro.

What prevents micro from becoming macro? Are you aware of ring species?

 

[c'mon sense]

They do. That is the demonstration of microevolution and not macro.

I beg you, what do you understand under "macro-evolution"?

 

[c'mon sense]

I have no different a definition of evolution than you, I simply refute it.

I don't know if you have the same definition as we do until you put it in your own words and tell us what it is.

You meant to say you "simply reject" it. To refute is something entirely different.

 

[michabo]

Would you agree with the following statements:

1. Not all offspring will survive and reproduce.

2. Not all offspring have an equal chance of surviving and reproducing.

3. Offspring are not identical to their parents

Sure.

Curious. So you agree with all of the necessary elements of evolution.

Given the above, what can stop evolution from happening?

 

[electroid]

"Appearance is too subjective. Reasonable people might disagree as to whether or not two critters look enough alike to be the same species. Scientists need an objective (testable) definition of species. The common definition of "species" is "related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding." 1

Biologists classify individual organisms at the basic level of the species, which is the only category that can be regarded as occurring in nature. The higher categories are abstract groupings of species. A species is composed of organisms that resemble one another in many important characteristics. Moreover, in organisms that have sexual reproduction, a species is made up of interbreeding populations that, ideally, cannot produce fertile offspring with members of any other species.


Species that do not interbreed with each other but are clearly related by important shared traits are grouped into a genus (plural, genera) … To construct the hierarchy of classification, one or more genera are grouped into a family, families are grouped into orders, orders into classes, classes into phyla, and phyla into kingdoms. 2

The weasel-word "ideally" is used because one would like a definition of "species" that is transitive (in the mathematical sense of the word). That is, a mathematician would like to be able to reason, "if Critter A is the same species as Critter B, and Critter B is the same species as Critter C, then Critter A is the same species as Critter C." In almost every instance, the interbreeding test satisfies this condition, but there are a few "circular overlaps. This is where there is a chain of intergrading subspecies forming a looping or overlapping circle whose terminal links, although inhabiting the same geographical region, do not interbreed even though they are connected by a complete chain of interbreeding populations. The classic case of this is the two species of European gull." 3 The interbreeding test isn't perfect."

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/topics.htm

I didn't define species any differently than the dictionary did.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
Main Entry: spe·cies
Pronunciation: 'spE-(")shEz, -(")sEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural species
1 a : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of the genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name b : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species
2 : a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion <production>

Interbreeding doesn't even necessarily define a species from one another. Notice the use of "potentially" preceding "capable of interbreeding".

Mumbo jumbo put aside,

Defining a species is not what's at fault with evolution. Definition is meaningless without what it's defining. So, if you're trying to back up macroevolution by formally defining a species so that you can make the switcheroo verbally, I know how it's done.

 

[electroid]

Proof. Proof without the need for theoretical speculation. Then evolution can be validated as true.

 

[Edx]

Proof. Proof without the need for theoretical speculation. Then evolution can be validated as true.

How do you define proof?

 

[c'mon sense]

I didn't define species any differently than the dictionary did.

Yeah, I can see that now. Quoting the dictionary hardly will result in contradicting it.

Interbreeding doesn't even necessarily define a species from one another. Notice the use of "potentially" preceding "capable of interbreeding".

The impossibility of interbreeding between two population is a reliable sign of them being different species.


You say this

Mumbo jumbo put aside,

and then

Definition is meaningless without what it's defining.

What is that? Mumbo jumbo?

So, if you're trying to back up macroevolution by formally defining a species so that you can make the switcheroo verbally, I know how it's done.

I'm dying now to hear the definition of macro-evolution from your mouth.

 

[electroid]

How do you define proof?

Macroevolution cannot be "shown". It can only be "speculated" to have happened. There is no foundation for its occurrence but that of an old man's writing. You're as faithful as the creationists. Welcome to reality.