DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Lestat]

You're right. This one caught me offguard. But I don't see why matters of religion can't be discussed from a point of logic. Although, I admit it's difficult depending on how much "magic" one wants to invoke. I'm still trying to figure out how to context my reply to you regarding spiritual matters without using words like "feelings", etc.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it has. It has been tested and demonstrated millions of times. The triply-redundant nested hierarchy of all life, phenotypic, genotypic and the fossil record, is trivially explained by common descent plus evolution. Did God produce this triply-redundant nested hierarchy that is so trivially explained by evolution and common descent just to trick scientists?

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have two questions:

1. Do you really think quoting one professor is tantamount to proving a claim? I'm sure I can find multiple professors who are leaders in their field and who work at reputable universities who disagree.

2. More importantly, could you define what a "birdtile" is so that I can find you an example of one? I pointed to the Archaeopteryx because it has many "reptilian" features.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have two questions:

1. Do you really think quoting one professor is tantamount to proving a claim? I'm sure I can find multiple professors who are leaders in their field and who work at reputable universities who disagree.

2. More importantly, could you define what a "birdtile" is so that I can find you an example of one? I pointed to the Archaeopteryx because it has many "reptilian" features.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the beauty of it all. Whenever you find a species that fills a gap, what have you really done? Why, created two more gaps! So, the Archaeopteryx fills in the gap between birds and reptiles, but he is going to claim it is a bird. Find a more reptile-like species, and he will claim it is a reptile. All the while, most of use look at the fossils and realize there are no lines! Since there are no lines, you cannot find anything that straddles a line...what would that even mean?

Inso, what exactly are the characteristics you are looking for in a birdtile? I mean, its obviously going to be somewhat birdlike, like the Archaopteryx. Its also going to be somewhat reptilelike....like the Archaopteryx. Intelligent minds can disagree about how many grains of sand are in a heap, right? Or how tall is 'tall?'

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, seriously, WHY? You can't just say one is testable and the other isn't. What PREVENTS macro from being testable? Your fiat?

Also, this is at least the second time you've 'threatened' to stop posting here. If you want to leave, we can't make you stay, but if you want to learn something, it takes a little work. I think I've been fairly patient with you, and I have no intention of stopping. This is always a fun discussion for me, and I like to think I have some chance at changing your mind, if only in small, subtle ways. If you want to leave, thats fine, but don't pin your wounded ego on us.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you essentially saying that, when put to the question of "What is Archaeopteryx MORE like, a bird or a reptile?" he answers bird? That is no biggie at all then. He's got to answer something! There isn't anything that is "halfway in between" or "exactly equally a bird and a reptile." I hope thats not what the anti-macroevolutionists are expecting. I know almost nothing about birds, so I will take his expert opinion that it is more birdlike than reptilelike. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional, far from it.