| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2004 10:46:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
---
Anti-War / Anti-Fascism protest: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/awp.htm
"The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women
and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda,
and that is lies." -- Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt, Nazi
"...since when is fighting invaders in your own country terrorism?" - Tempest
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 08:23:39 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his
area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena
not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no
such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly
following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro &
macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we
see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the
same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was
the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know
it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been
directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have
admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has
no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the
first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new
species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with
speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is
evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter
within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is
formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to
be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume
evolution as they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are
trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the
last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude
there have been change in the number, shape, and size of the
buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline
100 years ago is different from the skyline today.
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a
"snapshot" of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils, we can see that change has occured in the morphology of the
organisms. It doesn't require that we assume any particular
mechanism of change, just a recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
As long as you mean "all the available evidence points to the fossilized
creatures we've found living at different times" when you say "assume".
The fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
Why do you presume that?
I assume
that the animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species
are dying of each day.
Why?
You can not assume anything in the fossil
record if you wish to be open minded. They are just dead critters, how
they died is the question, over a long time or very fast.
But you have just said you are *not* open minded on the subject. Why
should you bring it up now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 12:34:17 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
The fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
STUPID STATEMENT ALERT!
Basically, Randy is saying forensic science can tell you nothing.
You don't watch CSI, do you?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
24 Apr 2004 07:22:59 AM |
|
|
R. Tang gets an answer from me...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
The fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
STUPID STATEMENT ALERT!
Basically, Randy is saying forensic science can tell you nothing.
You don't watch CSI, do you?
"But that's created by human beings"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 08:32:01 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 11:37:43 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6p_hc.18957$l75.1729@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms.
It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change,
just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying
of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those
species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 06:33:26 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" wrote:
..could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^ ^
Prima facie evidence of a 2-digit IQ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 11:52:01 AM |
|
|
"Dan Luke" <c172rg@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:108hvtvmggjf5b4@news.supernews.com...
"Randy Story" wrote:
..could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^ ^
Prima facie evidence of a 2-digit IQ.
Hey! Don't insult the rest of us with 2-digit IQs!
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 12:07:02 PM |
|
|
"Dan Luke" <c172rg@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Randy Story" wrote:
..could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^ ^
Prima facie evidence of a 2-digit IQ.
No. More of an indication that the writer learned spoken English
before written English (as native English speakers do).
Noelie
--
Pascal programmers make integeresting typos.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 01:03:03 PM |
|
|
In article <108hvtvmggjf5b4@news.supernews.com>,
Dan Luke <c172rg@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote:
"Randy Story" wrote:
..could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^ ^
Prima facie evidence of a 2-digit IQ.
Feeling generous today?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwangung@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 09:30:53 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108h7iero7ub0a5@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil
formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly
decomposed.
I guess you never heard of natural mummies? The amount of preservation has
nothing to do with how quickly the animal died, and everything to do with
how quickly it was buried, or dried out, or frozen. It normally takes
three days for putrefication to set in, and months for body to be reduced to
a skeleton. It would take longer for large megafauna, like a dinosaur
carcass For a fossil to form the body must be covered with sediment
relatively quickly, ie. within a few days or months.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/mummy.htm/printable
ha
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
Not all fossils could have been fast burial, as many fossilized bones show
signs of scavenger action. Fossils form when bodies get covered with
sediment, either slowly, or quickly in a localized flood, or a volcanic
ashfall. Most fossils are formed by the animal or plant being preserved in
sediment in and along streams and rivers, or in sea bottoms.
http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/facts_fossilization.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html
DJT
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 12:47:12 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message news:<uP9ic.7446$gH6.5196@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108h7iero7ub0a5@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil
formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly
decomposed.
I guess you never heard of natural mummies? The amount of preservation has
nothing to do with how quickly the animal died, and everything to do with
how quickly it was buried, or dried out, or frozen. It normally takes
three days for putrefication to set in, and months for body to be reduced to
a skeleton. It would take longer for large megafauna, like a dinosaur
carcass For a fossil to form the body must be covered with sediment
relatively quickly, ie. within a few days or months.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/mummy.htm/printable
ha
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
Not all fossils could have been fast burial, as many fossilized bones show
signs of scavenger action. Fossils form when bodies get covered with
sediment, either slowly, or quickly in a localized flood, or a volcanic
ashfall. Most fossils are formed by the animal or plant being preserved in
sediment in and along streams and rivers, or in sea bottoms.
http://www.rainbowdolphin.com/dinosaurs/facts_fossilization.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html
DJT
DJT
On the subject of exceptional preservation, how about this?
http://www.plesiosaur.com/somerset_ples/somerset.htm
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
30 Apr 2004 06:55:17 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Richard Forrest <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
On the subject of exceptional preservation, how about this?
http://www.plesiosaur.com/somerset_ples/somerset.htm
Naah, that's just a basking shark! :-)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
"You ever think about .signature files? I mean, do we really need them?"
-- alt.fan.andy-rooney
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 05:20:56 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<108h7iero7ub0a5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6p_hc.18957$l75.1729@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms.
It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change,
just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying
of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those
species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy.
Why not check it out?
Then you won't look like someone who is deliberately ignorant.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 03:25:56 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<108h7iero7ub0a5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6p_hc.18957$l75.1729@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms.
It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change,
just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying
of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those
species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy.
Why not check it out?
Then you won't look like someone who is deliberately ignorant.
I'd recommend a course in remedial English as well. It could have
helped you get into college.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
24 Apr 2004 07:30:26 AM |
|
|
Richard S. Crawford gets an answer from me...
Richard Forrest wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<108h7iero7ub0a5@corp.supernews.com>...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6p_hc.18957$l75.1729@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms.
It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change,
just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying
of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those
species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy.
Why not check it out?
Then you won't look like someone who is deliberately ignorant.
I'd recommend a course in remedial English as well. It could have
helped you get into college.
You didn't ought of said that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 12:40:48 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of a organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils, we can see that change has occured in the morphology of
the organisms. It doesn't require that we assume any particular
mechanism of change, just a recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the animal kingdom was much fuller at creation
since many species are dying of each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all
those species dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the
question, over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We
have evidence that allows a trained observer to piece together how
the organism lived and died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils
and fossil formation, it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
Not in freezing climates, for one. In a protracted hyper-cold snap, herd
members can succumb to hypothermia one after another. Death is slow
for individuals, and spread out for the population as a whole, and the
flesh-on carcasses can be preserved until a burial event occurs.
Some fossil beds (such as ancient tar pits in California and a famous
shale bed in Messen, Germany) correspond to long-term accumulation
of organisms which have fossilized at different times.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
The Guadalupe Mountains of west Texas are the remains of an
ancient giant reef, dating from a time when much of the North
American continent was covered by a shallow sea. A modern
coral reef can grow as fast as several centimeters a year, perhaps,
but this one is hundreds of meters tall, and is hundreds of kilometers
from the nearest modern shoreline. The varied disciplines of
biologists, paleontologists and geologists all have a consistent
explanation for why that particular type of reef is there.
How about you?
Noelie
--
Nothing can be proven beyond an unreasonable doubt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Derek Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
24 Apr 2004 07:28:51 AM |
|
|
Randy Story gets an answer from me...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6p_hc.18957$l75.1729@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gm4qnrjfage9@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot"
of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual
fossils,
we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms.
It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change,
just
a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time.
No, I'm not assuming that. We know all those fossils did not live at the
same time. They could not have lived at the same time, we find marine
sediments above terrestrial sediments, above desert sediments, etc. All
those enviroments could not have existed at the same time.
The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
I don't have to be there. I can read the clues left behind. In the same
way that a trained forensic scientist can piece together a crime with no
witnesses.
I assume that the
animal kingdom was much fuller at creation since many species are dying
of
each day.
What evidence do you have for that assumption? Why were all those
species
dying off each day?
You can not assume anything in the fossil record if you wish to be
open minded. They are just dead critters, how they died is the question,
over a long time or very fast.
We have evidence that some died quickly, some died slowly. We have
evidence
that allows a trained observer to piece together how the organism lived
and
died. There is a whole scientific study of fossils and fossil formation,
it's called taphonomy. See:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htm
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is observed
then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is quickly decomposed.
For the ones with only bone is observed ther is no way to know if slow or
fast. It all could of been fast but it all could not of been slow.
A whole lot of sedimentary rocks are composed entirely of living
remains. The earth is covered to an average depth of hundreds of
meteres of the stuff. Thus if they all died at once, living creatures
must have covered the planet to a depth of several kilometers. That's
an *awful* lot of rotting meat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 06:06:40 AM |
|
|
With total disregard for any kind of safety measures "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> leapt forth and uttered:
If any remains of anything other the bone or dental material is
observed then it died quickly as flesh and all other material is
quickly decomposed. For the ones with only bone is observed ther
is no way to know if slow or fast. It all could of been fast but
it all could not of been slow.
Could /have/ been. Could not /have/ been. What did they teach you at
school?
I'm still waiting for you to explain how "species dying off every
day" explains away species that exist *now* that did not exist *then*
--
Phil Roberts | Dork Pretending To Be Hard | http://www.flatnet.net/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 11:16:20 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume evolution as
they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude there
have been change in the number, shape, and size of the buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline 100
years ago is different from the skyline today.
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot" of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils, we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just a
recongnition that change has occured.
You are assuming that all these fossils did not live at the same time. The
fossils can tell you nothing because you were not there.
Tell that to the police detective investigating the discovery of a dead body.
By investigating the body, skeleton, the ground around it, etc, he can often
prove who the murderer was. Even though he wasn't there, he's proven what
happened.
<snip>
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roadrunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 05:37:04 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume evolution as
they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude there
have been change in the number, shape, and size of the buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline 100
years ago is different from the skyline today.
Still buildings, no? The relevance to macro evolution?
Same way with the fossil record. The fossil we see is a "snapshot" of
a
organism that lived at one time. As we observe the individual fossils, we
can see that change has occured in the morphology of the organisms. It
doesn't require that we assume any particular mechanism of change, just a
recongnition that change has occured.
And that's exactly we can not do, we can assume it, but that's about all.
To change as per macro evolution, you have to gain new information, this as
far as I know has not been observed. You are still in the assuming
business, i.e. religious grounds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 08:38:36 PM |
|
|
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
news:1RXhc.90555$dP1.274950@newsc.telia.net:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his
area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena
not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no
such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly
following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro &
macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we
see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the
same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was
the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know
it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been
directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have
admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has
no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the
first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new
species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with
speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is
evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter
within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is
formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to
be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume
evolution as they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are
trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the
last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude
there have been change in the number, shape, and size of the
buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline
100 years ago is different from the skyline today.
Still buildings, no?
And all known life are still carbon-based life forms. Thus, everything
from man to protocell is not a "fundamentally different sort of life."
The relevance to macro evolution?
The dishonest can pick a further and further away goalpost every time you
have conclusive evidence of reaching another one.
You need to find a new one, btw. Macroevolution is a fact from direct
observation now.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 11:32:18 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D3D27CDC3E9ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
news:1RXhc.90555$dP1.274950@newsc.telia.net:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his
area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena
not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no
such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly
following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro &
macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we
see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the
same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was
the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know
it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been
directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have
admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution "has
no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from the
first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new
species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with
speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is
evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter
within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is
formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues to
be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume
evolution as they look at the fossil record. To assume what you are
trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over the
last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude
there have been change in the number, shape, and size of the
buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the skyline
100 years ago is different from the skyline today.
Still buildings, no?
And all known life are still carbon-based life forms. Thus, everything
from man to protocell is not a "fundamentally different sort of life."
The relevance to macro evolution?
The dishonest can pick a further and further away goalpost every time you
have conclusive evidence of reaching another one.
You need to find a new one, btw. Macroevolution is a fact from direct
observation now.
You know this is untrue, why do you propose this falsity. Show us current
direct evidence not from the fossil record. The fossil record is *assumed*
to prove evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 12:45:56 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108h78fc6q7hcdb@corp.supernews.com:
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D3D27CDC3E9ericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in
news:1RXhc.90555$dP1.274950@newsc.telia.net:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net..
.
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of
his area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena
not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no
such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both
the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related
theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly
following
what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro &
macro
then
I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we
see is
*change*
withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward
or
downward,
just
change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the
same
idea
in
sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that
was the
whole
debate
no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
You want a distinction ?
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is
so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Macro evolution, no observable proof at all and you know
it!
Actually, Randy, we know that macroevolution has been
directly
observed.
Speciation is how macroevolution occurs, and you you have
admitted
that it
happens. Therefore your assertion that macroevolution
"has no
observable
proof" is false on it's face.
Macro evolution requires that *all* creatures evolved from
the first
single
cell organism.
Incorrect. It just means that species evolve, and that new
species
develop
along the way. A lot of people equate macroevolution with
speciation,
but
the
term really has no scientific meaning, IIRC. Evolution is
evolution -
the
micro
or macro labels are pretty much meaningless.
That "developing from the first single cell organism" thing is
abiogenesis, a
different topic entirely.
Speciation within fanily or kinds is a absolutely no matter
within
this
whole debate.
As a population evolves over time, eventually a new species is
formed.
As
that
species evolves further and further and further, and continues
to be
more
and
more different from its ancestors, eventually they are
different
enough
that we
classify them as being in different "families". Same concept.
And the fact is no one has observed this unless they assume
evolution as they look at the fossil record. To assume what you
are trying to prove
is
circular.
Tell me, Randy. If you see a series of photographs, taken over
the last
100
years, showing the skyline of New York, is it circular to conclude
there have been change in the number, shape, and size of the
buildings?
After all, you are assuming that the pictures are an
accurate
reflection of the actual shape of the buildings, and that the
skyline 100 years ago is different from the skyline today.
Still buildings, no?
And all known life are still carbon-based life forms. Thus,
everything from man to protocell is not a "fundamentally different
sort of life."
The relevance to macro evolution?
The dishonest can pick a further and further away goalpost every time
you have conclusive evidence of reaching another one.
You need to find a new one, btw. Macroevolution is a fact from direct
observation now.
You know this is untrue,
I do? The evidence of this is...what?
why do you propose this falsity.
If you cannot show that to be a true statement, do you have the moral
fibre to apologize?
Show us
current direct evidence not from the fossil record.
You were presented with the Observed Instances of Sopeciation faq from
the T.O. website. Since you haven't addressed it, why are you asking
again?
The fossil record
is *assumed* to prove evolution.
Are you going to support this bald assertion or not?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
23 Apr 2004 02:44:01 PM |
|
|
In article <108h78fc6q7hcdb@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story wrote:
You need to find a new one, btw. Macroevolution is a fact from direct
observation now.
You know this is untrue, why do you propose this falsity. Show us current
direct evidence not from the fossil record. The fossil record is *assumed*
to prove evolution.
Read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
After reading, you are left with a couple of alternatives.
1. You could argue that such instances listed aren't really macroevolution.
You'd be wrong, but you could argue.
2. You could admit that you were mistaken.
No bets on which line you will take.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 06:49:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:37:04 +0000, Roadrunner wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eYWhc.18782$l75.17833@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gd2ssb8nev72@corp.supernews.com...
"Hank" <Hank@application.com> wrote in message
news:408830EF.B4E95F32@Company.com...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bkVhc.18676$l75.13594@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqpf8njtcbd5@corp.supernews.com...
"Sverker Johansson" <lsj@hlk.hj.se> wrote in message
news:4c9281ba.0404220312.1fe1a56b@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com>...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild"
<FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area
of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not
subject
to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such
thing
as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the
observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories
which
attempt
to describe the observed phenome | | |
