DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I completely agree. I've never seen that exact question posed to him, but I assume he would say "bird". I'm merely pointing out that Dr. Feduccia's conclusions about archaeopteryx being a bird, even if we grant it's NOT a transitional form, says nothing about the (in)validity of evolution.

But yes, I do think anti-macroevolutionists are expecting exactly that. Even more, they are expecting that AND using their own definition of "50/50 birdtile" thus making the claim always refutable.

Link to Dr. Feduccia's Science abstract about archaeopteryx

[m_the0ry]

If written history had existed for one macroevolutionary epoch then it most certainly would be provable. It's a classic argument of scale versus probability; the probability of continuous fossil record over a large timespan and species development is incredibly low. Of course it's not easy to demonstrate macroevolution. That doesn't mean it's impossible to prove.


I'm surprised the species differentiation discussion is still going. It you can't see the futility here, create a Venn Diagram, label it 'cellular life' and try and complete it. Evolution defines species differentiation as a function of time. Life can only be classified when time is frozen, or else we're classifying based on arbitrary connections to parent life forms.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you don't have any chance of convincing him, people like me get a lot out of these debates you engage in, so please continue for my sake if nothing else. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[daman123]

i have not read this entire thread, but David and anyone interested in his OP should take a look at The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It deals with mutation and probability quite a bit.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about the apple? That happened to me this afternoon.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to your arguments if NotReady admits that All such accounts in the Bible were allegorical and making use of symbolic language?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to your arguments if NotReady admits that All such accounts in the Bible were allegorical and making use of symbolic language?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its off to other forums. Where some people still think they should play AJ offsuit under the gun. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cop out. At least give me the definition of a "birdtile".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cop out. At least give me the definition of a "birdtile".

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that was my off-the-cuff invention, but I am interested to know what the anti-macroevolutionist crowd thinks that it is.