DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Inso0]

Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yer the best, NR.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so.

[Inso0]

Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ 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.