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

[Mott the Hoople]

do those who do not believe in a creator reject evidence or argument that does not fit their mind set as "unscientific", regardless of whether they have spent any time looking at the data scientifically?......your posts and those of the others like you have affirmed my thesis.....

That's an irrational argument and again demonstrates that you don't know what science is or how it works. I'll try to explain it to you, please try to keep up. Wether one believes in a creator or not is not germain to a discussion of science. It's only relevence is that if you try to imply some unnatural causation, some supernatural causation, you are no longer in the realm of science but are in the realm of philosophy and religion. Hell you don't even know how to use the term thesis in it's proper scientific context. The only thing that you've proven so far is that you do not understand what science is nor do you understand what evolutionary theory is. Next your going to say something incredibly stupid like "Well it's just a theory."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

well, you have certainly made that conclusion without examining the evidence....is that because I do not fit within your religious preconceptions?......

And there you go again, changing the subject again. You have the attention span of a gnat. Please focus and stay on topic here. We are discussing the evidence for macroevolution not religion and again, for the 5th time, I've drawn conclusion based upon very profound evidence which I listed for you in a concise, reasoned, rational and factual manner that you can easily and independantly verify assuming you have the wit to do so. You have done absolutely nothing to provide evidence to support your view. You just keep going off topic and making one circular argument after another.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

quite simply, they were created that way....

Fine, now demonstrate that emprically and scientifally? I was right. You don't know what science is. This is a waste of time. You're a fool.

??...I am on topic....read my posts on this thread, from the first to the last....I haven't changed anything....we are talking about seculars rejecting evidence which doesn't comply with their beliefs.....

No your not. You're a bigot attempting to marginalize others over a concept which you do not comprehend and when repeatedly asked do demonstrate and understanding of the topic you have refused, time after time to answer the question. Do you understand what science and evolutionary theory is? If so, please enlighten us as to what you think it is? Don't tell us you know what science and evolutionary theory are, demonstrate to us that you do and quite evading the question.



thank you for proving my point.....

I am glad you have made your faith choice....but since you cannot provide a method of testing, you should at least have the grace to admit it isn't science....what you are observing empirically is the commonality, the "descent" is your faith choice.....I had expected you to be more familiar with the principles of science.....

Sorry PiMP, but you fail and fail badly the only choice being made here is your choice to be obtuse, ignore facts presented to you, to keep repeating yourself as that by doing so often enough it will make you correct. As a scientist and a biologist, it's clear to me your just not up to this debate.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

at least you are honest about your religious prerequisites.....but when discussing the possibilities, why am I limited to YOUR religious choices?....

That's what I thought. You don't know what science is. It's sad PiMP, really sad, that in this day and age you can't take the time to educate your self to be at least functionally literate in science. To bad.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

???.....apparently I understand it better than you.....

Then why won't you provide evidence to back up your claims? Why do you keep refusing to answer the questions asked of you when I've easily answer the ones you've proposed?

The real reason you won't answer the questions and that you evade them and keep trying to change the subject is that you can't. Well I'll keep on you till you do.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I just did! Haven't you been reading? Don't you understand what I've been saying?

not if you think you've described a test to verify descent......

Good God Almighty! I've just presented you evidence and explained it to you three or four times now that macroevolution does meet that requirement.

this is getting lame....you have done nothing more than repeat your opinion that commonality is explained by descent.....you have NOT provided any evidence.....I thought you were supposed to know what you were talking about, ringer....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The only thing that you've proven so far is that you do not understand what science is nor do you understand what evolutionary theory is. Next your going to say something incredibly stupid like "Well it's just a theory."

time to climb off your pillar of superiority, you haven't earned it...it seems to me that I understand it better than you, since you apparently think you have proved something here, even though you haven't even begun....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And there you go again, changing the subject again. You have the attention span of a gnat. Please focus and stay on topic here. We are discussing the evidence for macroevolution not religion and again, for the 5th time, I've drawn conclusion based upon very profound evidence which I listed for you in a concise, reasoned, rational and factual manner that you can easily and independantly verify assuming you have the wit to do so. You have done absolutely nothing to provide evidence to support your view. You just keep going off topic and making one circular argument after another.

apparently you have such a high opinion of yourself that you imagine yourself doing things you haven't even attempted.....show me the test you have dreamed demonstrates the scientific "why" of commonality....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You're a bigot attempting to marginalize others over a concept which you do not comprehend and when repeatedly asked do demonstrate and understanding of the topic you have refused, time after time to answer the question. Do you understand what science and evolutionary theory is? If so, please enlighten us as to what you think it is? Don't tell us you know what science and evolutionary theory are, demonstrate to us that you do and quite evading the question.

talk to me about marginalizing....you have done nothing to defend your claim that commonality is due to descent, yet you do nothing except accuse me of not understanding you....you got a test, shake it out....don't just keep repeating "its true and you don't understand it!".......

As a scientist and a biologist, it's clear to me your just not up to this debate.

you have done no debating....you have answered none of my questions, you have presented nothing except your claim and opinion....you have refused to support your claims....you have done nothing except ridicule.....

that is precisely what I expected you to do......it was the point I raised initially and you have fulfilled it.....if something doesn't fit within your faith assumptions you could not bring yourself to even examine it.....

you've lost this debate....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That's what I thought. You don't know what science is.

let's make this real basic....we were discussing commonality.....you insisted commonality was evidence of macro evolution.....instead of trying to prove that descent was the cause of commonality (which I can sympathize with, since it is unproveable).....you asked me to come up with an alternative explanation for commonality......

however, you insisted it had to be an explanation that complied with YOUR religious preconceptions....that it be naturalistic......you refused to even consider the possibility of any other explanation.....

that WAS our debate....

apparently, in your mind, I don't understand science unless I am prepared to restrict my explanations to your religious beliefs.....

you are pwned......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

now, if you want to start a second.....there is NO evidence, or scientifically acceptable method of testing the theory that descent is the "why" of commonality.....

 

[Cancel5]

now, if you want to start a second.....there is NO evidence, or scientifically acceptable method of testing the theory that descent is the "why" of commonality.....

No, it was just a popular model at Duckworth's that year.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

not if you think you've described a test to verify descent......




this is getting lame....you have done nothing more than repeat your opinion that commonality is explained by descent.....you have NOT provided any evidence.....I thought you were supposed to know what you were talking about, ringer....

You're certainly right. This is lame. You need to go study up PiMP and come back when you can discuss this topic intelligently from an informed perspective. Even Dixie with all his easy to refute wack a mole arguments is more of a challenge then you and your pointless circular arguments.

I'll give you another test besides homology which you so convienantly ignore. All organisms inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers. Only common descent makes this possible. To falsify this concept only one easy test is required. Find a multicellular organism, in which cellular respiration occurs, that does not inherit its mitochondrial DNA from it's mother. That's one test. Need more? As in the case of macroevolution, how big a glutton for punishment are you?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Y All organisms inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers.

I thought I recognized your posting style....we've had this debate before on another board....

I suspect from your approach you are a clinical biologist and have never studied the philosophies of science.....here is your problem.....

the empirical data which is available to us with respect to macro evolution are the fossils......let's take your creatures A, B, and C.....A has a fin, B has a flipper, C has a paw.....your conclusion is that common descent shows us that creature C descended from creature B, descended from creature A....

but, the empirical data is limited to the creatures themselves....when you begin to believe that your theory of descent is the equivalent to the empirical data you cross over the line from science into the realm of religious belief.....

faith is belief without evidence.....there is in fact no empirical data regarding descent, there is no evidence.....there is only your conclusion.....it is belief, without evidence.....

do you recall our earlier debate....I believe this is approximately where you ran away and said you were never coming back.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

now, if you want to start a second.....there is NO evidence, or scientifically acceptable method of testing the theory that descent is the "why" of commonality.....

1. You're completely uninformed and dont' know what you're talking about there's tons of evidence, if you wish to ignore it that's your problem and 2. For the umpteenth time, would you at least attempt to defend one of your claims with some or even any verifiable facts or data. Look I know your on the far right extreme and that it's exceptable on the far right to believe just about anything if it's what you want to beleive and it's repeated often enough but that's not how it works in science PiMP. Are you ever going to step up to the plate?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I thought I recognized your posting style....we've had this debate before on another board....

I suspect from your approach you are a clinical biologist and have never studied the philosophies of science.....here is your problem.....

Nope, wrong person, I've never ran into you before, that I'm aware of, other than here. I don't blame you for making that error as the scientific evidence I've provided is only common information to anyone with a basic biology education and I do have a graduate level education in biology which is what I was referring to when I told Grind I'm a bit of a ringer on this topic. As for studying the philosophies of science, I seriously doubt your even remotely in my league of education in that area but I'm not about to enter a pissing contest with you about my curriculum vitae.

the empirical data which is available to us with respect to macro evolution are the fossils......let's take your creatures A, B, and C.....A has a fin, B has a flipper, C has a paw.....your conclusion is that common descent shows us that creature C descended from creature B, descended from creature A....

You're quite wrong here and your basing conclusion on a false assumption, that the only evidence available to us on macroevolution is only fossils. You're also wrong about the conclusion I and other life scientist have drawn. We don't draw the conclusion based on the evidence of homologies that creature C is descended from creature B whom is descended from creature A. We draw the conclusion that creatures A, B and C have a common ancestor. Again, you've demonstrated you don't understand the information and the concepts presented to you. There is much more information available to support macroevolution then just from the fossil record. Would you like me to present you with some, as I did with homologies (note the examples I presented there were all presently living organisms and not fossils of extinct creatures, again showing that your not paying attention to the evidence I provided.)? I can certainly do that. As I said before, how big a glutton of punishment are you?

but, the empirical data is limited to the creatures themselves....when you begin to believe that your theory of descent is the equivalent to the empirical data you cross over the line from science into the realm of religious belief.....

Again, that's a false premis. The empirical data is not just limited to "the creatures themselves" but are shared by a multiplicity of organisms, phylogenetically, above the species level. There is loads of empirical evidence that demonstrates this. Do you want me to provide you such evidence? I can do so easily.

faith is belief without evidence.....there is in fact no empirical data regarding descent, there is no evidence.....there is only your conclusion.....it is belief, without evidence.....

You are correct. Faith is belief with out evidence but again, your basing your argument from the false premis. "That their is no evidence for macroevolution." There your sadly mistaken. Their is a vast amount of empirical data for macroevolution. Dixie challenged me on that and I gave him pages of it, like I keep saying, how big a glutton for punishment are you cause I can give you that evidence if you want?

do you recall our earlier debate....I believe this is approximately where you ran away and said you were never coming back.....

Now you're making false statements. I'm still here. I'm still challenging to provide evidence for your claims and you've ran away from that challenge each and every time and have refused to answer these questions where as I've welcomed that challenge from you. You've also put words in my mouth. I never stated I was never coming back. You're either mistaken or dishonest. I said, and correctly so, that you are wasting my time. I think it only considerate that you stop doing so and that you answer the challenges that I've issued to you to back up your claims and to stop changing the subject and/or giving circular arguments.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I thought I recognized your posting style....we've had this debate before on another board....

I suspect from your approach you are a clinical biologist and have never studied the philosophies of science.....here is your problem.....

the empirical data which is available to us with respect to macro evolution are the fossils......let's take your creatures A, B, and C.....A has a fin, B has a flipper, C has a paw.....your conclusion is that common descent shows us that creature C descended from creature B, descended from creature A....

but, the empirical data is limited to the creatures themselves....when you begin to believe that your theory of descent is the equivalent to the empirical data you cross over the line from science into the realm of religious belief.....

faith is belief without evidence.....there is in fact no empirical data regarding descent, there is no evidence.....there is only your conclusion.....it is belief, without evidence.....

do you recall our earlier debate....I believe this is approximately where you ran away and said you were never coming back.....

Oh and I almost forgot. You did it again here. You changed the subject and you failed to answer my challenge on mitochondrial DNA. It's an easy enough test. What's the problem here? Why won't you answer the question?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nope, wrong person, I've never ran into you before, that I'm aware of, other than here.

my apologies then....I thought I recognized the unwarranted sense of superiority.....

We don't draw the conclusion based on the evidence of homologies that creature C is descended from creature B whom is descended from creature A. We draw the conclusion that creatures A, B and C have a common ancestor.

fluff to avoid the question....

Would you like me to present you with some, as I did with homologies

I would prefer it if you actually put some effort into trying to show how the homologies actually prove macro evolution.....something you haven't even bothered to attempt so far....all you have done is keep repeating your hypothesis and accusing me of ignorance.....let's try again....WHY do the commonalities require a belief in descent.....

As I said before, how big a glutton of punishment are you?

obviously glutton enough to keep asking you to actually do what you pretend you have already done....

Again, that's a false premis. The empirical data is not just limited to "the creatures themselves" but are shared by a multiplicity of organisms, phylogenetically, above the species level. There is loads of empirical evidence that demonstrates this. Do you want me to provide you such evidence? I can do so easily.

if is is simply evidence of more commonality, it isn't necessary....the commonality is the given....the question is the cause....

There your sadly mistaken. Their is a vast amount of empirical data for macroevolution.

as I said, provide the evidence you claim to have provided on commonalities first.....

I'm still challenging to provide evidence for your claims and you've ran away from that challenge each and every time and have refused to answer these questions where as I've welcomed that challenge from you.

I have been consistent in my claims since my first post....I repeated my claim frequently during our debate....you, for some reason kept accusing me of trying to change the subject....I didn't, I debated, I won.....what's your problem?....

or dishonest

lame ploy.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

1. You're completely uninformed and dont' know what you're talking about there's tons of evidence, if you wish to ignore it that's your problem and 2. For the umpteenth time, would you at least attempt to defend one of your claims with some or even any verifiable facts or data. Look I know your on the far right extreme and that it's exceptable on the far right to believe just about anything if it's what you want to beleive and it's repeated often enough but that's not how it works in science PiMP. Are you ever going to step up to the plate?

if you have chosen not to debate, just admit it, but don't pretend I haven't.....and if you really desire to get juvenile (PiMP) I suppose I could play games with your name as well...then we could watch the thread deteriorate as so many have....your choice....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh and I almost forgot. You did it again here. You changed the subject and you failed to answer my challenge on mitochondrial DNA. It's an easy enough test. What's the problem here? Why won't you answer the question?

there is no purpose to beginning on mitochondrial DNA when you won't even address the problems with your arguments on commonalities.....