[TimT]

Originally Posted by albert_dao

That's not how science works. Theories are revised as more/better data becomes available.

Except when it comes to the holy grail of evolutionary belief in the beginnings of life. This theory can never be challenged or discredited otherwise you get academically bullied. It still all boils down to a basic belief that: some elements got together and created some molecules which created some proteins which then started to replicate and over billions of years we have life on the planet and humanity. Unless you have billions of years to make this even remotely possible the idea is patently absurd.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Think of the things that have happened since Darwin's time. Our understanding of biology and genetics has increased thousandfold through good science.

That would be through observable and repeatable science. Such as Gregor Mendel and his pea research.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Einstein is dead. He won't be making any revisions to anything.

Relativity is based on hard science and consequently doesn't need lots of revisions.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Regardless, this is a strawman, no one is arguing for relativity. Science is additive and if new and better information supplants older information, then it adopts the best fit. This is how the knowledge pool is expanded.

You totally missed my point and accused me of intellectual dishonesty. I'm not arguing about relativity, I'm using it as proof that good science doesn't need billions of revisions.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Macro and micro evolution are just red herring phrases. There's no such thing as either.

Are you sure.

"The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution." In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology. Lewin reported, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.) "

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09...h_2004215.html


Regardless, I'm sorry, I missed the definition change... Micro Evolution has become Epigenetics while Macro Evolution has become Punctuated Equilibrium and Speciation. Punctuated Equilibrium is just Gould's attempt to reconcile the fact that there is no fossil evidence to support macroevolution. From Nature magazine,
"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. ... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.

(Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)

Speciation is just inbreeding on a large scale. We all know how good inbreeding is for weird genetics. ;-D

Originally Posted by albert_dao

One is just the other extended over longer periods of time.

See above for your correction to this comment.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Think of it this way, if I was to take a picture of you when you were 12 and compare that to now, there would be very clear delineation (a macro change). However, if we did the same thing by comparing a picture of you as a toddler as a gradient of every day of your life to the present, day-by-day comparisons would show little, if any variation (micro). Same thing applies to speciation ---- Which is different than evolution, btw, people get this mixed up all the time.

Comparing aging(something known to be true) to PE and Speciation(something that is not true) is commonly known as Bait and Switch and is a logical fallacy. Much worse than a strawman. LoL

Originally Posted by albert_dao

I think you're setting up a strawman here Tim :P

Somehow I don't think so.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pull a "source or it didn't happen" here, haha.

Get ready for it...
http://www.toriah.org/articles/Davies-1987.PDF

Here's the juicy bits. From the last paragraph on page 198.

"The bones, catalogued as TMM 42475-1, apparently represent a quick surface collec-
tion by Liscomb, and consist of fragments of limb bones, ribs, and vertebrae. The quality
of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise dis-
play little permineralization, crushing, or distortion."

Originally Posted by Albert_dao

This is incorrect, the correct statement would be "DNA will not remain intact for x years", not "DNA only last a so-so amount of time".

Straw manning semantics here Albert. How about responding to the argument.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Will do!

It IS observable. It happens in hospitals (superbugs), it happens in transplanted populations. It happens in the lab:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Wow, another Bait and Switch. What does Epigentics have to do with Macroevolution/punctuated equilibrium/speciation.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

It is not hypothetical and it does not violate thermodynamics... Which has bloody absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is a common trope of creationist to discredit the theory (which is the highest level an idea can be elevated to within science, btw). Here's a quick summary:

Speciation relies on random genetic mutation that must be "Beneficial" to the organism. This violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that everything decays(and does not get better).

Originally Posted by albert_dao

No, Richard Dawkins is not running from evolution. ben Stein edited and cherry picked that interview to match his narrative. He's scum for doing it too.

Well, this is what Richard Dawkins said based on the written transcript.

"Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "


Prof Dawkins is smart enough to know what he believes and how to properly express it.

Anyways, after being accused of setting up a Strawman argument and then having you try a few Bait and Switch and your own Strawman. I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere positive so it's not worth continuing. I think we can agree to disagree and still be good reefers. :-)