Creationist child abusers close doors

Professor Baxter said:
What is meaningless and arbitrary?
Click to expand...

any chosen point you want to declare your bastion on the sliding scale between acknowledging that science shows evolution to be the process by which organisms change to adapt to their environment and the fantasy you have that all of life evolved from a single organism......

Who or what are you labeling a modernist?
Click to expand...
someone who thinks they can win an argument if only they can demand their opponent adopt their "definition" of a concept.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
any chosen point you want to declare your bastion on the sliding scale between acknowledging that science shows evolution to be the process by which organisms change to adapt to their environment and the fantasy you have that all of life evolved from a single organism......


someone who thinks they can win an argument if only they can demand their opponent adopt their "definition" of a concept.......
Click to expand...

You are the one who claims there is some magical point at which evolution or adaptation to environment (as you toothless morons call it) can explain the diversity in various gene pools and can not. It is somewhere above the level of species we know because you claim this "adaptation to environment" is even capable of spawning distinct species. Beyond that, you are just too much of coward to state where that point is.

So then you are the modernist? I know what your handle is and don't care, but you are the one claiming that we have not observed evolution that can be defined as "macroevolution." We absolutely have. You make this argument over and over again yet you will not define what it is you mean by "macroevolution," because apparently you don't really know or you are too scared to say it. You also insist on definitions in other arguments. I am asking for your definition in order to get you to take a firm stance and stop with the pusillanimous waffling. How can anyone prove macroevolution to you when you won't even state in certain terms what it is you would consider macroevolution. It is all a bluff so you can keep moving the goalposts and futilely trying to hide the fact that you are well out of your depth.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
shucks, to be a "distinct species" you only need two spots on your dorsal fin instead of one......
Click to expand...

A distinct species typically has a separate gene pool and can only produce viable and fertile offspring by mating with members of their species. The differences are most often more than just superficial variations in markings but rather their DNA sequences are distinct.

For instance, the difference between the variety of felines is more than just spots.

PostmodernProphet said:
you're older than you look......when did you start watching?......was it around the time the first mammals evolved?.....
Click to expand...

Why would we need to go that far back? Why not the variation in felines. There are distinct species of felines and separate gene pools which can not produce viable or fertile hybrids. That is explained by macroevolution.

Are you arguing that macroevolution only happens when a distinct class is formed? So then the variation between canines and felines (or between all mammals) is just adaptation to environment? This is why you need to define what the fuck you mean by macroveolution if you want to be taken seriously.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???......prove to me that peanuts and peacocks have a common ancestor.......I consider that to be macroevolution.....
Click to expand...

No.

We have observed macroevolution according to the ACTUAL definitions of macroevolution. If you have some other definition then YOU need to specify the definition and explain why it is relevant.

There is no reason for anyone to give a shit if some science denying conspiratard believes there is sufficient proof.
 
Professor Baxter said:
A distinct species typically has a separate gene pool and can only produce viable and fertile offspring by mating with members of their species. The differences are most often more than just superficial variations in markings but rather their DNA sequences are distinct.

For instance, the difference between the variety of felines is more than just spots.
Click to expand...
Liger....
hobbs_29m.jpg




Why would we need to go that far back?
Click to expand...
obviously because its an example of what you cannot do.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
to raise eyebrows at your statement about different species and their offspring....



what you said "no" to.....it was in the quote.....to save you time looking back...."prove to me that peanuts and peacocks have a common ancestor".....
Click to expand...

But the liger does not do that for you.

Have I claimed that a split in kingdom has been observed? Nope. That's just the strawman argument of an ignorant troll. There is no reason to take it serious and so I won't. I said macroevolution has been observed.
 
here's your explanation...."since we can observe the connection between lions and tigers, then OBVIOUSLY that proves peacocks and peanuts have a common ancestor".......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top