|
#1
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"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 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"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. :-)
__________________
www.oceanfreshaquarium.com/foz-down.html - Foz Down - an easy way to eliminate algae outbreaks caused by Phosphate and bring back the fun of reef keeping. |
#2
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis And regardless, it's not a belief. It's a well-founded theory with plenty of evidence and study: http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence...life-on-earth/ https://www.quora.com/What-scientifi...or-abiogenesis And here's what is most probably the most exciting hypothesis to arise in the past little while: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-10070114.html https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/ TLDR: Life is the most effective agent of entropy. Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...ral_relativity "By 1912, Einstein was actively seeking a theory in which gravitation was explained as a geometric phenomenon. At the urging of Tullio Levi-Civita, Einstein began by exploring the use of general covariance (which is essentially the use of curvature tensors) to create a gravitational theory. However, in 1913 Einstein abandoned that approach, arguing that it is inconsistent based on the "hole argument". In 1914 and much of 1915, Einstein was trying to create field equations based on another approach. When that approach was proven to be inconsistent, Einstein revisited the concept of general covariance and discovered that the hole argument was flawed.[15]" Quote:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviden...ved_speciation So any detractors can f-ck right off. Quote:
Quote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...2010.0923.full http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/fa...rimonabant.pdf http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...x-experiment/2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm http://www.livescience.com/7655-liza...adly-ants.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.abstract http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/sc...pagewanted=all Some creationists respond to the studies. " But once again, this rapid adaptation (which can lead to speciation) fits well within the creation model." Apparently, only one "kind" of thing changing into another "kind" of thing is evolution, whatever that means. To preemptively rebut this type of thing, I'm going to include this summary of observed examples of speciation. But really, if up to this point, these examples don't lend you pause, nothing going to change no matter what evidence I provide :P http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html - yes, a talkorigins.org link, LOL Quote:
I mean, hell, from that article: The site occurs in what is mapped as undifferentiated Upper Colville Group of Late Cretaceous age, which is overlain by the Plio(?)-Pleistocene Gubik Formation (Brosgk and Whittington, 1966). Recent studies, however, have indicated Paleogene rocks in this region (Carter et al., 1977; Nelson, 198 1; Marincovich et al., 1983). Pending resolution of the stratigraphy, beds underlying the Gubik Formation in the region are being referred to simply as "pre-Gubik" (Carter et al., 1977; R. V. Emmons, personal commun.). Hadrosaurs are exclusively Late Cretaceous and their presence limits the age of the pre-Gubik rocks. "This datum has allowed H. J. Clippinger to interpret somewhat contaminated pollen samples and establish a Maastrichtian or possibly Campanian age for the strata 28 feet above and 12 feet below the dinosaur bed. Foraminifera 2 feet below the bone bed indicate a shallow marine environment" (Shell Oil Company memorandum, with permission of R. V. Emmons and H. J. Clippinger) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And no, I haven't resorted to any bait/switch strawman arguments. The closest approximation you can make to that is when I used analogies to help illustrate a point in layman's terms. C'mon Tim, I'm not attacking you. We're having a debate. It is a back and forth. This is not meant to be an attack on your beliefs. But if you're going to take it as such, then I guess I'll duck out of this one also :P
__________________
This and that. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I am greatly enjoying this online debate. Not taking sides.
Just need to point out that no university would accept Wikipedia as a credible source. Stronger argument if using published academic articles from peer-reviewed journals rather than Wiki. Please continue |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
This and that. |
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
Wow, you guys must have a lot of time on your hands!!...
__________________
Reef Pilot's Undersea Oasis: http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/sho...d.php?t=102101 Frags FS: http://www.canreef.com/vbulletin/sho...d.php?t=115022 Solutions are easy. The real difficulty lies in discovering the problem. |