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

let's go back to where you first jumped into this debate....

Just asking me that question implies you don't understand evolutionary theory. For example look at animals that diverge phylogenetically like whales, bats and humans. Look at the bone structures of the flippers of whales, the wings of bats and the hands of humans. They are homologous. They have the same basic anatomical organization, patterns and arrangements. They consist of 8 sets of carpal bones (trapezium, trapezoid, capitate, hamate, schaphoid, lunate and pisiform) with four articulations. The distal ends of carpal bones form a singular carpometacarpal articulation with 5 metacarpal bones. This pattern of organization is identical in all three species. So you have these homologous structures in 3 different appendages (flippers, wings, hands) with radically different functions in creatures of diverging phylogonies (cetaceans, chiroptera, primates). Why would this occur? How can this occur? What naturalistic phenomena would explain this? Design? Hardly. In fact these homologies violate the very principle of design, that is, to produce the best design to optimize a specific function. None of these homologous appendiges are optimal, from a design standpoint, for the functions which they perform but they are adequate and they do work.

These very homologies would then be very powerful evidence for common descent and since they exist within these divergent phylogenetic groups it's very powerful evidence for macroevolution and since these homologies do not optimize function they are very compelling evidence against design.
Click to expand...

leaving aside your demand for a naturalistic explanation (that being a part of the debate I have already won), let's take a look at what you are asserting....

that homologies are powerful evidence of common descent, powerful evidence for macro evolution, and powerful evidence against intelligent design....

now, when you are speaking of homologies, you are speaking of those things which otherwise disparate creatures have in common.....those commonalities are observable, empirical data....

now, how do you logically make the transition from that to saying that common descent itself is empirical data?....what "evidence" do you have of common descent that leads you to believe in macro evolution?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle....here's your answer....fuck mitochondrial DNA.....now, let's talk about commonalities.......
Click to expand...
Well there you go. Running away from the question again. Damn, you are a light weight. As for commonalities, in case it escaped your knowldege, THAT"S WHAT HOMOLOGIES ARE! I mean, you got to be kidding me. OK, go ahead and talk about homologies and see if you can do so with out saying something completely ignorant.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let's go back to where you first jumped into this debate....



leaving aside your demand for a naturalistic explanation (that being a part of the debate I have already won), let's take a look at what you are asserting....
Click to expand...
Actually it's the part of the debate in which you demonstrated conclusively your ignorance of science and that, essentially, you don't know what your talking about. I mean face it dude, you don't even really know what science is if you think it's something other than "naturalistic explanations".

that homologies are powerful evidence of common descent, powerful evidence for macro evolution, and powerful evidence against intelligent design....

now, when you are speaking of homologies, you are speaking of those things which otherwise disparate creatures have in common.....those commonalities are observable, empirical data....

now, how do you logically make the transition from that to saying that common descent itself is empirical data?....what "evidence" do you have of common descent that leads you to believe in macro evolution?.....
Click to expand...

Dude, what are you dense? Those homologies in that exacting detail that I provided are the evidence, they are data that demonstrate common descent and macroevolution. What other naturalistic explanation would explain why these three different organisms from radically different phylogenies would share these homologies, what other scientific explanation do you have that could explain this other then your usual inane circular arguments? They share these physical traits I described because they had a common ancestor. You keep demonstrating time and time again that you do not understand what science is or evolutionary theory. You really need to do some studying on this topic and come back when you can make rational arguments.

I mean at least in this debate Dixie is factually wrong but you don't even know enough to elevate the discussion to that level, you just have some amourphous circular arguments that you're trying to use to hide your ignorance on the topic and dude, ask just about anyone here, you're not fooling anyone.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well there you go. Running away from the question again. Damn, you are a light weight. As for commonalities, in case it escaped your knowldege, THAT"S WHAT HOMOLOGIES ARE! I mean, you got to be kidding me. OK, go ahead and talk about homologies and see if you can do so with out saying something completely ignorant.
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that you spent our entire first debate trying to change the subject to homologies, then when we finished that debate and are ready to turn to homologies, you want to avoid that conversation and change it to something else.....and you accuse ME of running away?.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What other naturalistic explanation
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, that is not a requirement of this debate.....there are other potential explanations than "naturalistic" ones....the fact that you reject them does not cause them to go away....;

would explain why these three different organisms from radically different phylogenies would share these homologies, what other scientific explanation do you have that could explain this other then your usual inane circular arguments? They share these physical traits I described because they had a common ancestor. You keep demonstrating time and time again that you do not understand what science is or evolutionary theory. You really need to do some studying on this topic and come back when you can make rational arguments.
Click to expand...

you seem to misunderstand your responsibility here....we aren't here to listen to you repeat that it must be true because you can't imagine anything else.....you are the scientist here, remember?.....provide evidence of causation, not the repetition that you believe it because you can't believe anything else.....what is the empirical evidence of causation.....what causes homologies?.....

I had assumed you were using this time to search for it.....I realize, searching for the needle in a haystack can be difficult.....certainly compounded by the fact the needle doesn't exist.....but, hey, you're the one who thinks the evidence exists.....
 
Last edited:
Mott?.....we could solve all this very simply and eliminate the need for you to keep looking for evidence.....you could simply admit that your belief in macro evolution is a faith choice instead of science......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I find it interesting that you spent our entire first debate trying to change the subject to homologies, then when we finished that debate and are ready to turn to homologies, you want to avoid that conversation and change it to something else.....and you accuse ME of running away?.....
Click to expand...
How can you run away from someone that doesn't know what they are talking about?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The irony here is that the homologies argument is just one form of evidence of many that I can present and he can't even grasp that. It makes you wonder if he'll use the same circular arguments if I present another form of evidence?
Click to expand...

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you.....instead of bragging about how much evidence you have, why can't you just reveal some of it......one simple question that you seem to be afraid of trying to answer.....WHY are homologies evidence of macro evolution (and the fact you can't imagine any other explanation is NOT an answer)........I'll give you another day to stop avoiding the debate....after that I'm declaring double pwnage on this thread.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm sorry, that is not a requirement of this debate.....there are other potential explanations than "naturalistic" ones....the fact that you reject them does not cause them to go away....;
Click to expand...
I was waiting for you to say something like that. It just proves my contention that you don't know what science is. I never claimed there were no other explanations. I asked you to provide me a scientific, e.g. naturalistic explanation. This comment proves beyond doubt that you don't know what science is.



you seem to misunderstand your responsibility here....we aren't here to listen to you repeat that it must be true because you can't imagine anything else.....you are the scientist here, remember?.....provide evidence of causation, not the repetition that you believe it because you can't believe anything else.....what is the empirical evidence of causation.....what causes homologies?.....
Click to expand...

What causes homologies across divergent phylogonies? Common descent. Pretty clear you don't understand causation. It's what I've been talking about. It's apparent you don't grasp that or this topic.

I had assumed you were using this time to search for it.....I realize, searching for the needle in a haystack can be difficult.....certainly compounded by the fact the needle doesn't exist.....but, hey, you're the one who thinks the evidence exists.....
Click to expand...

Hehehehe, do you really want me to go there? Just say the word.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
They share these physical traits I described because they had a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

you know I missed this the first time around....

you began by arguing that homologies was evidence of macro evolution.....I asked you why that would be evidence.....the above is the only reason, beyond "I can't imagine any other cause", that you have presented....now tell me THAT isn't a circular argument.....you can prove that homologies are caused by evolution because they had a common ancestor?.......dude, I get all hot when you talk "science"......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What causes homologies across divergent phylogonies? Common descent. Pretty clear you don't understand causation. It's what I've been talking about. It's apparent you don't grasp that or this topic.
Click to expand...

come on Hoop.....you've stated your thesis before.....several times......what you are supposed to be doing is proving it scientifically.....show me it's more than a faith statement.....

Hehehehe, do you really want me to go there? Just say the word.
Click to expand...

no really, I've only been demanding it for two days.....PROVE THE CAUSATION, already......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know I missed this the first time around....

you began by arguing that homologies was evidence of macro evolution.....I asked you why that would be evidence.....the above is the only reason, beyond "I can't imagine any other cause", that you have presented....now tell me THAT isn't a circular argument.....you can prove that homologies are caused by evolution because they had a common ancestor?.......dude, I get all hot when you talk "science"......
Click to expand...
Dude, how many times do you have to be told you have it ass backwards. Damn, I thought Dixie was obtuse.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
come on Hoop.....you've stated your thesis before.....several times......what you are supposed to be doing is proving it scientifically.....show me it's more than a faith statement.....
Click to expand...
That's an impossible proposition. How can I prove to you anything scientifically when you (and your damend here by your own words) don't know what science is?



no really, I've only been demanding it for two days.....PROVE THE CAUSATION, already......
Click to expand...
Again, that's a question that demonstrates once again you do not understand what science is. You're just playing raise the bar. You want me to prove absolutely to you the truth of macroevolution and if you understood science and how it works and how all science is tentative you'd understand that's not possible. As for the causation of macroevolution it's the shift in allele frequency within a population over time, vast periods of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top