The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[DeitySlayer]

I like to think before I respond. How does that work for ya?

You talked crap about baramin and 'macro'evolution and the failure of genetics to map out the phylogenetic tree for the first twenty pages. To me, that doesn't demonstrate a great deal of thought.

 

[Danmac]

Danmac. As a biologist, I am keen to find out what you define as ' microevolution'. The number of times I've heard "Ah, but that's MICROEVOLUTION..." as if it is somehow divorced from the overall evolutionary process. Please tell me what you think microevolution is, and how it, as it appears to you, is a stand-alone concept.

Microevolution is observable science. Macro is not. I know you scientists hate the micro macro thing, but I think we need to separate what is observable from what is not.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not sure. I haven't looked into it. Looks like a case of microevolution at work to me.

What does? What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, that's what we usually see with YEC. The further you go, the less you know. Kind of the opposite of science. Science knows things that YEC doesn't.

So I hope you see how our "kind" notion is utterly useless? Here is one of the largest number of species, and you can't tell us whether it consists of a single kind or 450,000 kinds.

Well, let's do it either way.

If you say it's a single kind, then we should have seen at least a million new species of beetles come into existence in the last 6000 years, with at least half of those going extinct. So that would be around 166 new species of beetles every year. Let's take the last 100 years, when we've really been looking. Have we seen almost 2000 new species of beetles come into existence in the last 100 years?

If you say it's 450,000 kinds, then what you're saying is that Noah took almost a million beetles on the ark. I haven't gotten into ants, spiders, and so forth. Just beetles. A million of them.

As you see, math is a great help to science. It enables us to falsify hypotheses. Like yours.

ToE predicts that speciation events will be rare and slow, and would take a few hundred million years to produce the many species of beetles we have today. And lo, that is exactly what we have. Another data point to support the theory.

 

[Danmac]

What does? What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, that's what we usually see with YEC. The further you go, the less you know. Kind of the opposite of science. Science knows things that YEC doesn't.

So I hope you see how our "kind" notion is utterly useless? Here is one of the largest number of species, and you can't tell us whether it consists of a single kind or 450,000 kinds.

Well, let's do it either way.

If you say it's a single kind, then we should have seen at least a million new species of beetles come into existence in the last 6000 years, with at least half of those going extinct. So that would be around 166 new species of beetles every year. Let's take the last 100 years, when we've really been looking. Have we seen almost 2000 new species of beetles come into existence in the last 100 years?

If you say it's 450,000 kinds, then what you're saying is that Noah took almost a million beetles on the ark. I haven't gotten into ants, spiders, and so forth. Just beetles. A million of them.

As you see, math is a great help to science. It enables us to falsify hypotheses. Like yours.

ToE predicts that speciation events will be rare and slow, and would take a few hundred million years to produce the many species of beetles we have today. And lo, that is exactly what we have. Another data point to support the theory.

ToE "predicts" because they are going on probability and not factual science. It will probably be sunny tomorrow, cause the weather man said so. Never question the experts.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't claim to be anything. The set of standards that I have chosen to live by are not my standards. They are God's. You live by your own standards because you do not want to be held to a higher standard. Your issue is with God, not me.

What you mean is, "I believe they are God's." And "Your issue is with what I believe to be God." Also very interesting how you have the power to read minds. I find that when trying to learn what someone else thinks, and why, it's helpful to ask them, rather than tell them.

As for a higher standard, I find mine to be higher than theist's, as a rule.

 

[Autodidact]

Microevolution is observable science. Macro is not. I know you scientists hate the micro macro thing, but I think we need to separate what is observable from what is not.

I think what Danmac means is that he accepts evolution, but believes it is restricted to something indefinable he calls a "kind." By "macro-evolution," he means evolution from a single common ancestor, or evolution beyond the indefinable boundary of a "kind." He believes that evolution happens until it hits that imperceptible, undefined, unobserved wall.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

He believes that evolution happens until it hits that imperceptible, undefined, unobserved wall.

Ah, yes, the Creationist's 'Gandalf gene'.

Evolution hits a certain point and then, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"

 

[fantome profane]

ToE "predicts" because they are going on probability and not factual science. It will probably be sunny tomorrow, cause the weather man said so. Never question the experts.

Did you actually read the post you were responding to with this comment? I can see no indication that you did read it.

Read it again (or for the first time)

What does? What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, that's what we usually see with YEC. The further you go, the less you know. Kind of the opposite of science. Science knows things that YEC doesn't.

So I hope you see how our "kind" notion is utterly useless? Here is one of the largest number of species, and you can't tell us whether it consists of a single kind or 450,000 kinds.

Well, let's do it either way.

If you say it's a single kind, then we should have seen at least a million new species of beetles come into existence in the last 6000 years, with at least half of those going extinct. So that would be around 166 new species of beetles every year. Let's take the last 100 years, when we've really been looking. Have we seen almost 2000 new species of beetles come into existence in the last 100 years?

If you say it's 450,000 kinds, then what you're saying is that Noah took almost a million beetles on the ark. I haven't gotten into ants, spiders, and so forth. Just beetles. A million of them.

As you see, math is a great help to science. It enables us to falsify hypotheses. Like yours.

ToE predicts that speciation events will be rare and slow, and would take a few hundred million years to produce the many species of beetles we have today. And lo, that is exactly what we have. Another data point to support the theory.

 

[Danmac]

Did you actually read the post you were responding to with this comment? I can see no indication that you did read it.

Read it again (or for the first time)

You see that little parentheses thingy on the word "predicts"? That means it is a quote.

 

[Autodidact]

ToE "predicts" because they are going on probability and not factual science. It will probably be sunny tomorrow, cause the weather man said so. Never question the experts.

You do realize the correct predictions are the gold standard of scientific confirmation, right? Have you ever studied any science whatsoever?

ToE predicted that speciation would happen in this way, and it turns out that it did. What does your hypothesis predict about how speciation events will happen?

Try to focus, Danmac, you chose speciation events as the subject. So what can we predict about speciation events, using your model?

 

[tumbleweed41]

He attacks the scientific method of predictability because that is a major component missing from Creation Pseudoscience.

 

[Danmac]

You do realize the correct predictions are the gold standard of scientific confirmation, right? Have you ever studied any science whatsoever?

ToE predicted that speciation would happen in this way, and it turns out that it did. What does your hypothesis predict about how speciation events will happen?

Try to focus, Danmac, you chose speciation events as the subject. So what can we predict about speciation events, using your model?

The problem with macroevolution is, science tells us they have a movie, but they can only show it to us a frame (microevolution) at a time. When all I want is to set down and watch the whole movie. Then and only then will I agree with macroevolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The problem with macroevolution is, science tells us they have a movie, but they can only show it to us a frame (microevolution) at a time. When all I want is to set down and watch the whole movie. Then and only then will I agree with macroevolution.

Fortunately, the facts and evidence do not rely on your personal acceptance.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem with macroevolution is, science tells us they have a movie, but they can only show it to us a frame (microevolution) at a time. When all I want is to set down and watch the whole movie. Then and only then will I agree with macroevolution.

So what you're saying is that you do not accept the scientific method? If you can't observe it happening in real time yourself, you do not accept it? Like say for example heliocentrism--you don't accept that?

 

[Autodidact]

Danman: Reminder. This thread is not about what you believe. It's about the evidence. You can choose to disregard the evidence if you so desire.

 

[Autodidact]

Alright. So we have seen that no matter what definition of "kinds" Danmac settles on, the evidence regarding speciation events does not support it. Speciation clearly happens, and not at the rate that HoK (Hypothesis of Kinds) predicts.

We can do it again if you like, Danmac. Again, you do assert that all members of canidae belong to a single doggie "kind," correct? [Again, the actual definition of "kind" = category that a 5-year old knows, such as doggie, horsie, birdie and fishy.]

 

[DeitySlayer]

Danman: Reminder. This thread is not about what you believe. It's about the evidence. You can choose to disregard the evidence if you so desire.

NOTE: This makes you stupid

 

[Autodidact]

NOTE: This makes you stupid

And your life very difficult. But it's up to you, and not of particular interest to us. Here we're just trying to figure out what that evidence shows.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Here we're just trying to figure out what that evidence shows.

I think it would be an accurate judgement to say that most of us have already figured it out; we're just prodding the last person across the finish line.

 

[Danmac]

Fortunately, the facts and evidence do not rely on your personal acceptance.

Probability based on assumption is not fact.