lol.....

Mott the Hoople said:
Hell PiMP....you don't even know what macroevolution is. Macorevolution is the aspect of evolutionary THEORY that models biological evolution at and above the taxonomic level of species.
Click to expand...

that is where you make your error....you attribute the theory of evolution to include something which is less than an hypothesis.....macro-evolution is not observable, testable, or experiment-able.....it quite simply is not science.....

and if you keep calling me Pimp, may I call you Cunt?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
precisely.......macro-evolution would have meant Noah only needed an amoeba and an pair of floaties.....macro-evolution is the hypothesis that all known life evolved from that original life which first crawled out of the primordial slime......(and it can only be termed an hypothesis if you use the scientific term loosely).......
Click to expand...

No.... Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. Microevolution is evolution within a gene pool. In order for "Noah's feline" to become lions, tigers, snow leopards, house cats, etc., quite a bit of macroevolution is required.

It's a theory. You have no business dictating scientific terminology to others. You are nothing but a brainwashed cultist.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hell PiMP....you don't even know what macroevolution is. Macorevolution is the aspect of evolutionary THEORY that models biological evolution at and above the taxonomic level of species. I mean for christ sakes this is high school shit and you don't even know it.

You're spouting some absolute nonsense you've read from some idiotic creationist site or worse, The Discovery Institute, that you can't even begin to defend in a honest, scientific discussion. You're just making an idiotic argument from authority that you can't defedt. In fact I defy you too without stooping to circular arguments and the intellectual dishonesty you are renound for.

Please, oh please, Mr. Layperson, please explain to those of us who have actually studied the life sciences at accredited Universities and graduate programs how macroevolution isn't even a hypothesis. It's been a boring day and I could use a good laugh! :)
Click to expand...

I finally figured out he and ditzy get their bullshit from answersingenesis.org. This is the group that was brainwashing kids to believe that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time (an argument ditzy made).

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp

Thttp://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asphis goes beyond stupid. These people are attempting to warp minds with their lies.
 
Professor Baxter said:
No.... Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. Microevolution is evolution within a gene pool. In order for "Noah's feline" to become lions, tigers, snow leopards, house cats, etc., quite a bit of macroevolution is required.

It's a theory. You have no business dictating scientific terminology to others. You are nothing but a brainwashed cultist.
Click to expand...

a theory is an hypothesis that has survived testing.....typically, in order to qualify as an hypothesis, the idea has to be capable of testing.....macro-evolution is neither.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that is where you make your error....you attribute the theory of evolution to include something which is less than an hypothesis.....macro-evolution is not observable, testable, or experiment-able.....it quite simply is not science.....

and if you keep calling me Pimp, may I call you Cunt?.....
Click to expand...
And I've proven to you several times that it is. In fact profoundly so. That fact that you refuse to recognise the evidence is again just you being intellectually dishonest. Hell you can't even back up your accusation.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that is where you make your error....you attribute the theory of evolution to include something which is less than an hypothesis.....macro-evolution is not observable, testable, or experiment-able.....it quite simply is not science.....

and if you keep calling me Pimp, may I call you Cunt?.....
Click to expand...
You can call me Mott and some people call me "Psuedointellectual horses ass" but you can call me anything but late for dinner PiMP....I don't care. :)
 
Professor Baxter said:
No.... Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. Microevolution is evolution within a gene pool. In order for "Noah's feline" to become lions, tigers, snow leopards, house cats, etc., quite a bit of macroevolution is required.

It's a theory. You have no business dictating scientific terminology to others. You are nothing but a brainwashed cultist.
Click to expand...
At worst. At best he's an uninformed lay person. He is a master at circular agruments though. :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
a theory is an hypothesis that has survived testing.....typically, in order to qualify as an hypothesis, the idea has to be capable of testing.....macro-evolution is neither.....
Click to expand...
Good lord. How many times do you have to be told that this is not the scientific definition of a theory.

The United States National Acadamy of Science defines a scientific theory as: "A scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Again, this is 9th grade high school shit.

As for being able to not test macroevolution. You're dead wrong. Previously I've cited you two examples (transitional species and anatomical homologies) both of which can and have been tested and support evolution at or above the species level. Other methods of testing macroevolution that provide profound support for it are the testable evidence of;

The unique phylogentic tree of life, which includes;

The unity of life.
Nested hierarchies.
The convergence of independent hierarchies.
Transitional forms of species (previously noted).
The chronology of common ancestors.

The past history of life, including;

Anatomical vestiges
Atavism
Molecular vestiges
Ontogeny and developmental biology.
Present biogeography
Past biogeography

Evolutionary opportunism, which includes;

anatomical parahomology (previously noted)
molecular parahomology
anatomical convergence
anatomical suboptimal function
molecular suboptimal function

Molecular evidence, which includes;

Protien functional redundancy
DNA functional redundancy
Transposons
Redundant psuedogenes
Endogenous Retroviruses

and Change, which includes;

Genetic change
Morphological change
Functional change
The strange and very different past
Stages of speciation
Speciation events
Morphological rates
Genetic rates

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

These are all easily testable and they all support evolution on a grand scale at or above the level of speciation.

So your argument having just been eviscerated what facts do you have to defend it?
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
We have observed macroevolution.
Click to expand...
Indeed we have. PiMP's fallacy, which is a creationist fallacy, is to try to divide biological evolution into two different theories. It's not only fallacious it's intellectually dishonest as micro and marco evolution describe the same process (biological evolution), the only difference being one of scale.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And I've proven to you several times that it is. In fact profoundly so. That fact that you refuse to recognise the evidence is again just you being intellectually dishonest. Hell you can't even back up your accusation.
Click to expand...

I know you can't back up the claim you've ever proven it.....I recall you saying it was so and I was too ignorant to understand......that, young man, isn't proof of anything except your foolishness.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You can call me Mott and some people call me "Psuedointellectual horses ass" but you can call me anything but late for dinner PiMP....I don't care. :)
Click to expand...

when you call me Pimp I will call you Cunt.....obviously we've reached the stage where lighthearted charges of being engaged in the sex industry are all among friends....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I know you can't back up the claim you've ever proven it.....I recall you saying it was so and I was too ignorant to understand......that, young man, isn't proof of anything except your foolishness.....
Click to expand...
Ahh well excuse me for presenting you with empirical evidence. If that makes me a fool, than all us scientist are fools. :)

Now, what is your response to post #92?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good lord. How many times do you have to be told that this is not the scientific definition of a theory.

The United States National Acadamy of Science defines a scientific theory as: "A scientific theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Again, this is 9th grade high school shit.
Click to expand...
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
and if you had gotten beyond 9th grade you might have learned more....
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
Click to expand...

As for being able to not test macroevolution. You're dead wrong. Previously I've cited you two examples (transitional species and anatomical homologies) both of which can and have been tested and support evolution at or above the species level.
Click to expand...

as pointed out, neither homologies nor "transitional" species can be taken as evidence of macro-evolution....they can as easily be understood as separately created individual creatures.....

These are all easily testable
Click to expand...

nothing on that list except for genetic change can be tested at all, and that is merely micro-evolution.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top