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.
Like macroevolution, you mean?
Please define Macroevolution.
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groupsPlease define Macroevolution.
I swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.Like macroevolution, you mean?
The scientific term referring to inter-species evolution (i.e., the genetic divergence between two taxa over time).Please define Macroevolution.
Please define Macroevolution.
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
... Google's define: is about as objective as it gets.
The scientific term referring to inter-species evolution (i.e., the genetic divergence between two taxa over time).
Except you've been contending for the last thousand pages that something that is true (or known to be true, not that that makes a difference) is not falsifiable. Falsifiability means the logical possibility of being proven wrong. So for all true statements to be unfalsifiable (you didn't distinguish between true and falsifiable, and true and unfalsifiable, things as far as I can remember), their negations must be logically impossible. Sorry, but that's equating truth and logical possibility.And of course I never said anything that contradicts that.
You said that the truth of a statement doesn't change if you change the tense. As far as I can tell, that is only universally true if changing the tense doesn't make it a different statement. That means "I was a baby" and "I'm a baby" (or "it's [date x]" and "it was [date x]"] are equivalent statements. And that means contradictions.No, I'm saying the fact of your existence as a baby in the 80's is just as true now as it was then.
Ok, then. Which one do you trust more: an interpretation of the tape recording, or an interpretation of someone's memories?A tape recording requires no interpretation, assuming its verbal content is the object of the inquiry. Experimental data and conclusions drawn from it do.
"Measurement" here being a general term for data collection.This isn't about measurements, for crying out loud.
Oh, sure. There's also the possibility that quantum physics is really deterministic. Luckily, I'm capable of accepting what seems most likely based on the information I have, and not worrying about the "might be" until it does come along. (Which is not to say I don't look for new information, before you "misunderstand" me again)Because any one that you don't read has the theoretical potential to contradict what you think you know.
Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes, and why can't evolution explain them?Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.
I did link Behe and Snoke 2004, didn't I? It came out in a peer-reviewed journal, and I hear it's been touted as support for irreducible complexity.Not that I would expect to find any anti-evolutionary literature coming out of scientific bodies any more than I would expect anti global warming literature to show up at realclimate.org unless they think they can shoot it down.
Wait, didn't you say you don't know a lot about the evidence and are not going into it? Then I highly suggest you don't land yourself in an argument about it. (Technically, my question was about common descent, but I don't suppose you mean "reproductive isolation" by macroevolution)Like macroevolution, you mean?
Will you play along? It would be so hilariousI swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.
I hope he doesn't say "soul"...Evidently you don't consider human beings a part of the living world, then, as our uniquely human attributes can hardly be accounted for by evolutionary theory.Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes, and why can't evolution explain them?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<QUOTE
This I do really have to hear, the human attributes that are unique and that cant be accounted for by evolution.
I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
Actually you're two posts away from my ignore list, by my estimate.I swear if you wink one more time here I'll think you're flirting with me.
You're a bit old to believe in fairy tails.claims others and I utterly destroyed a few pages back?
That may be; but as you can see above, that's not what you started out saying. Honest debate rules out baiting and switching, in case you're not aware of it....Sorry, but that's equating truth and logical possibility.And of course I never said anything that contradicts that.And false statement =/= logical contradiction.
Of course it does, viewing the matter subjectively from a particular point in spacetime, because the tense expresses your position in it relative to the event; but of course your position in spacetime doesn't affect that event in the slightest.You said that the truth of a statement doesn't change if you change the tense. As far as I can tell, that is only universally true if changing the tense doesn't make it a different statement. That means "I was a baby" and "I'm a baby" (or "it's [date x]" and "it was [date x]"] are equivalent statements. And that means contradictions.
I'm none of those things. I'm just right about what I said.Whether you're just dense, or dishonest, or a troll,
The question has no meaning without any idea of what truth is desired to be ascertained.Ok, then. Which one do you trust more: an interpretation of the tape recording, or an interpretation of someone's memories?
Based on what?Oh, sure. There's also the possibility that quantum physics is really deterministic. Luckily, I'm capable of accepting what seems most likely
Which according to Einstein was less than one trillionth of one percent of anything. That included all human knowledge in his time.based on the information I have,
What reason did Newton have to do otherwise when he observed the apple falling? Why ask why the moon doesn't fall when the question hadn't come along yet?and not worrying about the "might be" until it does come along.
Which you admit you don't know is an illusion.I don't need (the illusion of) absolute certainty
Self-awareness, the ability to ask why, and conscience - which is not, you may rest assured, socially inculcated.Do elaborate. What are these uniquely human attributes,
1. If it could we'd see it in other species.and why can't evolution explain them?
I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.
Actually, that's just it: it doesn't mean anything, beyond genetic deviation between species. Speciation is something different altogether, which is a well documented phenomenon (i.e., we've seen it happen).I can hang with everything but that last bit, which could include speciation, which occurence is uncontroversial. It has to be more of a shift than that for "macro" to have any meaning.
I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.Please elaborate. If speciation does occur (which you have admitted) where is this magical boundary that prevents higher taxa from forming?
I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.
I never claimed anything prevents it from happening, only that no one can observe it happening.
We can observe the effects of it happening on a species' genome, protein structure, developmental pattern, morphology, behavior, etc.
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?