lol.....

PostmodernProphet said:
not at all....I have stated what I believe and I have defended it consistently......the fact that you find what I believe to be incomprehensible only speaks to your lack of comprehension,,,,,,
Click to expand...

That's what you said, i.e., that there is no evolution only simple adaptation but then that is supposed to explain the variety of felines. The difference between a tiger and a house cat are quite significant and simple adaptation can't explain it.

Your ideas remain incomprehensible because you are content to save time with a magical designer.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that is not true....I did not say there was no evolution....I said I did accept what YOU said about evolution....do you understand the difference?......
Click to expand...

Do you need a "not" in there?

You reject the ACTUAL theories concerning evolution for simple adaptation. You are a denier of the theory of evolution. Your equivocation and lies do not change that.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Isn't this a violation of the rules?

You seem to have a strong compulsion to troll such threads. If you actually discussed the topics then I would welcome a different opinion even if it is as astoundingly ignorant as yours. But I am not interested in having you make dozens of posts evading simple requests to clarify your position. There is no reason to be such a chickenshit and attempt to conceal your opinion.
Click to expand...
You hit that nail right on the head. Now deterministic evolution is a real scientific controversy about evolution which means your way over PiMP's head on that discussion.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, thanks...



I reject what you claim to be the "actual" theories of evolution.....I merely believe in evolution...
Click to expand...

If you think I have articulated it incorrectly then please state how and what you believe to be accurate. You are the one that has attempted to present an inaccurate picture of evolution with your ridiculous claims about it requiring speciation within single generations. You reject evolution.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You hit that nail right on the head. Now deterministic evolution is a real scientific controversy about evolution which means your way over PiMP's head on that discussion.
Click to expand...
says the guy who knows enough biology to fill a petri dish and has never dared engage in a discussion with me.....ain't that right, ringer....
 
Professor Baxter said:
If you think I have articulated it incorrectly then please state how and what you believe to be accurate. You are the one that has attempted to present an inaccurate picture of evolution with your ridiculous claims about it requiring speciation within single generations. You reject evolution.
Click to expand...

no you simpleton.....I did NOT say it required speciation within single generations....would you learn to fucking read!......I have stated what I believe often enough you ought to have it memorized by now.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your article, though not enough to completely convince even the author, comments on similarities of evolutionary development between different types of cichlids experiencing identical environmental stresses.....that in itself is not surprising....what is surprising is to ignore the fact that those environmental stresses are totally random over the "lifetime" of a species.....

shit happens.....while it is happening, it is happening to everyone in the immediate vicinity........not only does this article not "blow a hole" in random chance, its clear even the author isn't completely convinced Gould didn't have it right.....
Click to expand...
You need to read the article again. The article is specific in stating that the environmental conditions over large periods of time of isolated but similiar species are remarkably consistant yet these isolated, yet similiar species, evolve along similiar phylogentic lines. Why is that? Deterministic evolution could be a possible explanation.

This is a true controversy within evolutionary bioliogy. Is biological evolution deterministic or is it stochastic or does biological evolution have both deterministic and stochastic aspects?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't reject evolution because evolution, as science has observed it, IS simple adaptation......I reject macro-evolution because it is what people like you PRETEND science says about evolution.......it has, in fact, never been scientifically proved.....nor can it ever be......


you require proof of what you yourself believe occurs through the process of evolution?.....a strain of feline enters an isolated area where it experiences a different environment.....it adapts to that environment......a different type of feline results......

interestingly, with an Intelligent Designer involved it wouldn't have to take ten thousand generations.......just the touch of a divine finger on the DNA in utero and it could happen in a single gestation......simple observation shows you how much time can be saved when a Causer gets involved.....why, just in the last five thousand years or so, some small wild feline has been adapted by human manipulation into thousands of different varieties of housecat......think of what could be accomplished by a Causer who could manipulate the DNA with a thought......
Click to expand...
Been down this road before. Yet when pressed how to explain how divergent phylogonetic species have very similiar homologies you refuse to accept that is all the evidence that is required for both macroevolution and common descent. Why is that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
you refuse to accept that is all the evidence that is required for both macroevolution and common descent. Why is that?
Click to expand...

because it isn't all the evidence required...they could just have easily been created that way to serve a purpose of their own existence.....the presence of a bone in a whale's flipper isn't proof that it used to be a leg.....a bone could simply be an excellent way to provide rigidity to a a flipper......

and does this mean you're finally ready to engage in the discussion you've been hiding from since 2009?......
 
Professor Baxter said:
You reject evolution, but are too cowardly to say as much and so you dishonestly use it to represent your acceptance of simple adaptation. But then you use that to ignorantly claim that it explains differences between house cats and tigers. Division into these different types of felines is macroevolution, which you dishonestly redefine, without specificity, as some form speciation at a higher level in the hierarchy of evolution or tree of life.

Your use of the designer is lazy not interesting and demonstrates your wholesale rejection of science. Science is not about saving time and finding shortcuts too the tough questions.
Click to expand...
You're correct. The design argument was refuted in the time of William Paley and is an intellectual cop out.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Been down this road before. Yet when pressed how to explain how divergent phylogonetic species have very similiar homologies you refuse to accept that is all the evidence that is required for both macroevolution and common descent. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Oooooo, baby, talk science to me!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol....even though I have said half a dozen times that I don't reject evolution....
Click to expand...
You can't cherry pick this and that part of a theory as you do. You either reject a theory based on the evidence and you replace it with a model that provide predictive values that are testable and independently verifiable . That is how science works. You seem oblivious to this fact.

You can't say you believe in evolutionary theory yet reject "macroevolution" without rejecting biological evolutionary theory as a whole and replacing it with another valid model for speciation. The design argument hardly meets that threshold and is easily rejected based on the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top