Fossil Record Shows Complete Record of MACROevolution (if you want to use that word)

[Mott the Hoople]

present it.....

I just did. At least some compelling evidence on homologies. There's very much more that I could present. Nested Heirachies, ontogeny, convergence of independent phylogenies, unity of life, chronology of common ancestors, anatomical vestiges, atavism, molecular vestiges, etc, etc, how big a glutton for punishment are you?

 

[ib1yysguy]

I just did. At least some compelling evidence on homologies. There's very much more that I could present. Nested Heirachies, ontogeny, convergence of independent phylogenies, unity of life, chronology of common ancestors, anatomical vestiges, atavism, molecular vestiges, etc, etc, how big a glutton for punishment are you?

Lay it on good and thick. Show no mercy.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You're supposed to show us the science. Show us the fossils. You have tens of thousands of them, after all.

I don't think he's going to answer your question. But give him credit. At least he's not playing "wack-a-mole" or "raise the bar" like Dixie does. At least not yet.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I don't think he's going to answer your question. But give him credit. At least he's not playing "wack-a-mole" or "raise the bar" like Dixie does. At least not yet.

If he doesn't run away, I'd be surprised.

But remember that in another thread he called evolution "a joke." If that doesn't invest you in this argument, nothing will. He's at least a good sport about it so far, even if he does ignore questions.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'd like to point out that evidence has negative credibility amongst these strange conservative specimens, and that by debating them you increase their confidence in their non-evidence based positions.

But that would be pointlessly obvious.

1/3

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I'm shocked to find yet another thread where lefty's are promoting science, and conservatives are denying evolution and defending creationism.

I 100% support science and think religion is stupid.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

mott has super pwned this thread. I am going to create a youngins pwn - senior addition just for him. and all old people that continue to pwn into their twilight years.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

mott has super pwned this thread. I am going to create a youngins pwn - senior addition just for him. and all old people that continue to pwn into their twilight years.

Mott has pwned nothing but your mouth around his dick. You already biased yourself with your previous post, your opinion is non-objective. Nothing in science "proves" macroevolution, it is a theory without any relevant basis. In fact, it is contradictory to the principles of Darwin and anything we've ever observed in biology.

 

[Beefy]

mott has super pwned this thread.

Agreed.

 

[Beefy]

Mott has pwned nothing but your mouth around his dick. You already biased yourself with your previous post, your opinion is non-objective. Nothing in science "proves" macroevolution, it is a theory without any relevant basis. In fact, it is contradictory to the principles of Darwin and anything we've ever observed in biology.

Show me where Mott has said anything false, or where he claimed that macroevolution was "proved".

And try not to make a spazzy "you're a LIAR! out of CONTEXT!!! I never SAID THAT!!1" novel out of your response.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nah, I pass. I already presented my argument, and it hasn't been refuted. Thanks

 

[Beefy]

Nah, I pass. I already presented my argument, and it hasn't been refuted. Thanks

Well then, Jesus wins!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

*jizzes over beefy's response*

 

[Mott the Hoople]

mott has super pwned this thread. I am going to create a youngins pwn - senior addition just for him. and all old people that continue to pwn into their twilight years.

LOL Well thanks for the compliment grind but I"m kind of a ringer on this topic. LOL

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Sure I can. I never even heard of the author or his book. What's his credentials?

http://www.mcremo.com/

 

[PostmodernProphet]

At least some compelling evidence on homologies.

homologies simply ARE....like fossils, they do not provide evidence of transition....they could as easily have been separately formed creatures....it is the faith structure of the secularist that provides the transition, not evidence....

the point I have been trying to make.....and I see no reason to suspect you treat the issue any differently, is that there are those who begin with the assumption that God does not exist and did not, even MUST NOT, be involved in the origins of the universe, of life and of the various species.....

when someone of that mindset comes up against an anomaly, it is immediately rejected.....hoax, bad science, etc, etc.......but it is certainly never studied.....thousands upon thousands of unconsidered data that is never considered scientifically....because you have already reached your conclusions.....(that was the theme of Forbidden Archeology, and you can and likely will, reject everything about it, thus affirming my point).....

so homologies exist.....are there a variety of explanations for WHY homologies exist?.....of course.....will you consider any of them other than evolution?......no....because you have already made your faith choices.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But remember that in another thread he called evolution "a joke."

that isn't true.....I suggest you go back and read again the post which you misread before....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I 100% support science and think religion is stupid.

a common claim among seculars.....not very accurate, but a common claim....generally made by those who TREAT science as a religion.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

where he claimed that macroevolution was "proved".

true enough...that was the idiot who started this thread.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

and what paradigm do you believe that to be?

That one cannot have secular or scientific views that contradict yours and not be a person of faith.

not at all....I am saying that the typical secular incorrectly believes it does.....

And just who and what exaclty is the "Secular" bogey man you keep talking about? How are they relevent to this discussion on macroevolution?

no, common descent is merely the faith assumption you make to explain the similarity......it is not a proven or provable assumption....

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Common descent is an established and accepted fact and the fact of it is not even really debated in science. It's really only debated by those with a reliqeous agenda.

Could not an Intelligent Designer create this change? Sure, under the philosophy of "Anything is possible" but from a scientific standpoint there are some problems with that.

#1. An Intelligent Designer creating such changes implies supernatural causation and places such a causation outside the realm of science.
- macro evolution is equally outside the realm of science, being untestable....

Please explain to me, in scientific terms, how macroevolution is not scientific? I have just provided you easily testable, independantly verifiable and, in principle, falsifiable, observations demonstrating evidence for macroevolution using anatomical homologies across divergent phylogonies. Did you not read my post? Did you not understand them? I'm really not only begining to question your understanding of evolutionary theory but your understanding of what science is as well. I've only provided one small example, that is eminently testable, of the evidence for macroevolution. There is a vast amount of other scientific evidence available that easily meets the standards of the scientific method.

#2. As I've shown with the fact that homology creates phylogeny the physical evidence provides compelling evidence against design.
- just the opposite, homology makes intelligent design MORE compelling...

Please defend that argument scientifically. I've provided compelling scientific evidence that it does not.

That and there is little physical or natural evidence that supports intelligent design. - and none that compels a belief in macro evolution....one faith choice versus another....

This is true Captian Obvious. Discrediting Intelligent Design does not provide evidence in favor of macroevolution. You're argument here is a strawman. I can defend macroevolution and have defended it, emperically and based upon observable and independantly verifiable facts. No faith is required. You, however, cannot do the same with Intelligent Design.

#3. The fact that this intelligent designer is not identified is very problematic.
why?.....you don't seem to have a problem with an unidentified non-designed origin....

You're changing the subject. I've not even discussed the origins of life and you've failed to address the problem of identifying who and what this Intelligent Designer is. Until that is done, ID will always remain a psuedoscience.

#4. What independently verifiable test or observation can be made demonstrating the existence of this (these) design(s) and the designer? None that I"m aware of. - which means it differs not at all from both macro evolution and abiogenesis.....

You're quite wrong. I can go into voluminous detail scientifically demonstrating the evidence for macroevolution. As I said previously, how big a glutton for punishment are you?