[_ Old Earth _] POST HERE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE DEBATE

[SyntaxVorlon]

would appreciate someone discussing the decay difference in bones between 6,000 years and, say 60,000,000 years.

Would depend on the enviornment they are existing in. Most 6,000 year old bones are long gone...

BL

A far greater amount from 65 million years ago and before are gone, the fact that almost all of our fossil record is made up of largest animals of the time.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":85a96]Well, the debate is slow, and if BL accepts Tua's 10 questions game, then we have an even slower debate to look foward too. Sounds like a diversion, a setup, or both by Tua. Not that I think BL will allow himself to be set up for assault by Tua.

Why would it be slow? After our last exchange, with my conclusion, BL lists 10 questions. I answer them, then list 10 questions of my own.

Then we both post concluding paragraphs...that's it...

......And Tua's last post was essentially the same one, just changed a little bit?

Not really, I answered his question (natural selection, and mutation).[/quote:85a96]

First of all, why do you need questions? Sounds like a setup...and really, why not just conclude with the paragraph instead of questions too? you have a chance to redeem yourself in other arguements. IIRC, you get to start the next one, right?

Secondly, you technically answered his question, but, you failed to do one simple(or in your case, apperently, difficult) thing...explain in detail, the how factor. Natural selection and mutation doesn't say anything unless you explain "how" in detail.....Nevermind, I was going to give you an example, but you must get my drift by now.

Waiting for the "how" explanation.

 

[Asimov]

First of all, why do you need questions? Sounds like a setup...and really, why not just conclude with the paragraph instead of questions too? you have a chance to redeem yourself in other arguements. IIRC, you get to start the next one, right?

A set up? As to how it could be a set up, I have no idea. They are cross-examining questions. Many debates I've listened to have these sessions, and I find that it's good for clarification and further questions. They only require one answer.

Secondly, you technically answered his question, but, you failed to do one simple(or in your case, apperently, difficult) thing...explain in detail, the how factor. Natural selection and mutation doesn't say anything unless you explain "how" in detail.....Nevermind, I was going to give you an example, but you must get my drift by now.

I do get your drift, but we don't know exactly how it evolved, that doesn't mean anything. In order to do that, we would need to observe millions of years directly, which is impossible, hence the theoretical application of Evolution.

 

[Featherbop]

What exactly, do you want to find out about BL by asking him questions? What I meant by setup was that you may try to make two or more of his answers to the question(whatever they may be about) contradict.

Now, not knowing how something evolved does make a huge difference. No, I take that back, we don't even know if anything really evolved according to various explanations. We don't know if man evolved from a lower ape(The evidence is circumstancial at best, I'll give you that.), we have absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis(This seems to be avoided), we only know what we have observed. Microevolution does not indicate Macroevolution having occured over a millions of years period. We observe population changes, but I've still seen nothing to indicate millions of years of a process in the works. The unobserved is theory(unproven idea in this instance), guesses, predictions for the past, putting together borken pieces of a puzzle, etc.

And, I do not care if you don't have the ability to let me observe what supposedly happened millions of years ago. Not my problem.

 

[Asimov]

What exactly, do you want to find out about BL by asking him questions? What I meant by setup was that you may try to make two or more of his answers to the question(whatever they may be about) contradict.

No, cuz he's asking me questions too. I just want to know some things based on what he said, if they contradict, that's not my fault.

Now, not knowing how something evolved does make a huge difference. No, I take that back, we don't even know if anything really evolved according to various explanations. We don't know if man evolved from a lower ape(The evidence is circumstancial at best, I'll give you that.), we have absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis(This seems to be avoided), we only know what we have observed. Microevolution does not indicate Macroevolution having occured over a millions of years period. We observe population changes, but I've still seen nothing to indicate millions of years of a process in the works. The unobserved is theory(unproven idea in this instance), guesses, predictions for the past, putting together borken pieces of a puzzle, etc.

And, I do not care if you don't have the ability to let me observe what supposedly happened millions of years ago. Not my problem.

It's not my problem either. Microevolution and macroevolution are concepts of the human mind. There is no magical barrier, Marck.

We have fossils of organisms from 3.5 billion years ago, we have more fossils spanning these 3.5 billion years, I think it's safe to "assume" that the process is a result of evolutionary changes.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I am aware of no fossils even presumed to be more than a billion years old.

BL

 

[Featherbop]

No, cuz he's asking me questions too.

I never said he wouldn't do it. In fact, I would expect BL to be more aware of what you say that may contradict more than you of he.

It's not my problem either.

If you claim something happened over millions of years, expect people to accept it as fact, and then fail to back this up except with guesses and assumptions(and don't forget the ol' circumstancial evidence), then it is your problem. By claiming evolution over millions of years results in macroevolution, and that this did happen over that period of time, then you have removed the ability for anyone to see if what you claim is true. you have made an "invincible" arguement. But really, it is a great way to push your agenda: Make up something that supports your worldveiw/religion, claim evidence that backs it up, and belittle those who disagree with the idea. Incidentally, I observe most atheists do belittle those who do not beleive in the TOE(mostly common descent, abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc.)

Microevolution and macroevolution are concepts of the human mind.

As far as I know, microevolution is observable. Macroevolution, just an unproven idea(theory) in the mind;an imagined concept.

Or perhaps you meant that we simply define, and that is what becomes the concept of the human mind?

We have fossils of organisms from 3.5 billion years ago,

You may think you do, but that alas, is a guess as well. Guesses based on guesses. I am unconvinced that the testing is accurate and that the results are presented to be misleading, and that those who make such dating claims are honest. I'm a little cynical.

_____

Why assume anything? Why not just not beleive anything until you know for sure? Or if it is impossible, just get your mind right to be unsure.

 

[Asimov]

I am aware of no fossils even presumed to be more than a billion years old.

BL

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/AAO/local/www/ ... _life.html

 

[Asimov]

If you claim something happened over millions of years, expect people to accept it as fact, and then fail to back this up except with guesses and assumptions(and don't forget the ol' circumstancial evidence), then it is your problem.

I don't expect people to accept it as fact, I expect people to analyze and criticize everything they learn. What guesses? What assumptions? What circumstancial evidence?

By claiming evolution over millions of years results in macroevolution, and that this did happen over that period of time, then you have removed the ability for anyone to see if what you claim is true.

I didn't claim evolution over millions of years results in macroevolution. Macroevolution has been observed.

But really, it is a great way to push your agenda: Make up something that supports your worldveiw/religion, claim evidence that backs it up, and belittle those who disagree with the idea. Incidentally, I observe most atheists do belittle those who do not beleive in the TOE(mostly common descent, abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc.)

I've never met an atheist who does not accept ToE, so I wouldn't know. However, I don't make up anything. What kind of worldview is based on evolutionary theory?? Or even a religion???

As far as I know, microevolution is observable. Macroevolution, just an unproven idea(theory) in the mind;an imagined concept.

What is macroevolution, marck??

You may think you do, but that alas, is a guess as well. Guesses based on guesses. I am unconvinced that the testing is accurate and that the results are presented to be misleading, and that those who make such dating claims are honest. I'm a little cynical.

How is it a guess?? People who make the dating claims come from different companies, who do multiple tests....what is a guess about the dating claims, marck? Would you even accept that you were related to your grandma, cuz honestly...how would you know?

Why assume anything? Why not just not beleive anything until you know for sure? Or if it is impossible, just get your mind right to be unsure.

Because it's not necessary to be critical of EVERYTHING, marck. I don't often see you being critical of religion on this board, marck. Since you obviously seem to be unable to criticize anything that contradicts your worldview, maybe you need to step down a bit.

 

[Tiger]

As far as I know, microevolution is observable. Macroevolution, just an unproven idea(theory) in the mind;an imagined concept.

What is macroevolution, marck??

Allow me to answer for him...

Macroevolution is Microevolution with more time. That's the only difference between them.
They use EXACTLY the same theory... If someone accepts Micro as possible, then they are also accepting that Macro is possible. (ain't that a kick in the teeth?)

Now, there's no doubt that Micro happens and has been observed. (if someone argues that, they've got a real roblem there : ) Given that, and the use of the exact same proccess, the only problem with Macro is the length of time. That means that all those arguements about Macro boil down to whether there has been enough time for it to happen...


Any questions?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Tua go ahead and explain. No offense Tiger, but that didn't clear up anything.

 

[Asimov]

Tua go ahead and explain. No offense Tiger, but that didn't clear up anything.

Tiger is saying exactly what I said. Macroevolution and Microevolution are the same thing, the only difference is time.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Come on Tua, you can't defend that any better?

 

[Asimov]

Come on Tua, you can't defend that any better?

What??

 

[Blazin Bones]

You two have clarified nothing and usually you are better than this.

 

[Asimov]

You two have clarified nothing and usually you are better than this.

What do you need clarification of??? You have already been given the definition of evolution.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I don't want to get into this debate as I'm involved in the official one... but I would like to clarify that Tiger is obvliviously incorrect. Microevolution could occur for another 10 billion years and dogs would still be dogs. Macroevolution could occur once in those 10 billion years and suddenly you would have something different. What Tiger fails to understand or recognize is speciation.

BL

 

[Tiger]

I don't want to get into this debate as I'm involved in the official one... but I would like to clarify that Tiger is obvliviously incorrect. Microevolution could occur for another 10 billion years and dogs would still be dogs. Macroevolution could occur once in those 10 billion years and suddenly you would have something different. What Tiger fails to understand or recognize is speciation.

BL

Unfortunately, the difference between Micro and Macro evolution is only in our minds.
It is only the human mind that insists on drawing a line and saying "Micro to this point, and Macro afterwards"
But like I said, they both use the same theory, the same mechanism. The only difference is time, nothing else.


A good anology, and it's been used before, is giving someone a penny.

It doesn't make them rich.
Give them a penny... Are they rich?
Give them a penny 100 times... Are they rich?
Give them a penny 10,000 times... Are they rich?
Give them a penny 1,000,000 times... Are they rich?
Give them a penny 100,000,000 times... Are they rich now?

At the fifth step, they have become a millionaire. That is a huge difference and they are no longer what they were in the beginning. They have become rich... They have "macro" evolved, and all through small change.

Now, swap the penny for a very small biological "micro" evolution...
It results something that has 100,000,000 differences to the original, and that is very, very unlikely to be anything similar to the original.

We have seen Microevolution, it happens and denying it is denying reality. Add all those small changes up over millions of years, and you get the organism with those millions of differences.
So what happens with these dogs? The ones with 100,000,000 differences from any other dog. Are they still dogs? Or are they so different that you have a new species? Lets face it, just a few changes gives us breeds that are barely in the same species, and that's in just a few thousand years...

Anything with that amount of difference is not even remotely similar to the "parent" organism. It has become a new species, it has undergone speciation.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I don't want to get into this debate as I'm involved in the official one... but I would like to clarify that Tiger is obvliviously incorrect. Microevolution could occur for another 10 billion years and dogs would still be dogs. Macroevolution could occur once in those 10 billion years and suddenly you would have something different. What Tiger fails to understand or recognize is speciation.

BL

You've got a bit of a logical leap here:
You're saying that Dogs ->any sort of macroevolution-> Not dogs. This is incorrect as macroevolution is simply a large amount of microevolution happening, enough so that a new species is formed. And they might still be called dogs, as speciation doesn't really change an incredible amount, just that they don't have genetic material moving back and forth.
Over 10 billion years, if the group of dogs is divided placed in different environments, with different animals to feed on, different climates, then macroevolution is very likely to occur as the parts of the two groups become less like the other group. If it's one group of dogs with a constant food supply a locked area with an unchanging climate, then microevolution may occur, not much as there is only the matter of the species itself adapting to the climate, but macroevolution is less likely.
However it would be ignorant to say that the latter hypothetical is more representative of life on earth. Furthermore, if 10 billion years of evolution occured in any way shape or form, then a very large chunk of the genetic material would be different at the end either way and the dogs +10^10 might not be the same species as original dogs, though this is not necessarily true.

 

[Featherbop]

I don't expect people to accept it as fact, I expect people to analyze and criticize everything they learn.

Mission accomplished then. I don't accept large parts of evolutionary theory, and I analyze and criticize what I learn.

What guesses?

Regarding evolution, evolution that is claimed to happen that hasn't [yet] been observed.

What assumptions?

Whatever is assumed. Do you assume that humans had a common ancestor with a lower ape that they evolved from? Do you beleive you have evidence that this did indeed happen? Did you observe this happening? If you answered 'yes' to the first two, and 'no' to the last one, you are assuming it did actually happen.

What circumstancial evidence?

What I meant was evidence that may support an evolutionary theory, but not neccisarily, in this instance. Similarities among or between lifeforms. one could assume many theorys regarding their relation(s). But it is still circumstancial. Scientifically concerning this, I do not understand why one theory is regarded as any more true or false than any other theory.

I didn't claim evolution over millions of years results in macroevolution.

Fine with me. What do you claim regarding evolution over millions of years? Or nothing?

Macroevolution has been observed.

All depends on the definition(s) of macroevolution. Some would say yes, and some no. I guess this is another "human mind problem" right? :

I've never met an atheist who does not accept ToE, so I wouldn't know.

Me either. But it seems to me this is because of neccesity.

What is macroevolution, marck??

According to those who belevie that it has/does happen, microevolution over long periods of time seems to be what macroevolution is claimed to be.

Because it's not necessary to be critical of EVERYTHING, marck.

Well, I choose to be critical. You don't have to be, that is fine. But you seem to have a problem with me being critical.

I don't often see you being critical of religion on this board, marck.

This is an evolution/creation board. There is a religions board, but I have little interest in it.

Since you obviously seem to be unable to criticize anything that contradicts your worldview, maybe you need to step down a bit.

What is my worldview?