Conker #fundie

Conker #fundie hardforum.com

lol you guys don't understand anything. I have 7 associate degrees and 6 certifications and a bachelors of science in computers. You guys don't understand anything when it comes to critical thinking. I was in geology, anthropology, chemistry, biology, and all the them. I know how evolution works. You guys just can't accept the doubt there is within this belief. I don't care if there's nothing science can fill it with. I rather it be nothing than for it to be a lie like "macro" evolution. I stand by what i say. So far animal species have only decreased. There were more animals in the past that have now become extinct. We started with a lot and now ended up with less now not due to evolution though. You can see fossils of 500 million year old crabs the same as now. The fossils evolution supporters don't want you to see. The fossil record is against evolution of anything. I've debated many times. It can go on forever. Endless battle. Just leaving it at that. I don't care about any foundations of your beliefs if you want it to be apes. If you can't accept it being false then that's your problem.

77 comments

old comment by Swede

You have that many degrees and certifications and bachelors, and you can't even distinguish between then and than? What's your first language? Mine isn't English.

Macro evolution is a creationist lie, not a scientific one. The difference between micro and macro is the same as between a few steps and a walk.

There have been numerous mass extinctions that have each left the field open for new kinds of animals, which have then filled up the Earth, the niches left empty after the mass extinction. The number of animals is fluctuating, stupid.

A species perfectly fit for its niche has no inclination to evolve, until the niche changes. If the niche doesn't change - no evolution.

You spewing stupid strawmen is not a debate, it's the very opposite of a debate.
The foundation is scientific evidence, which you ought to know if you have all these degrees, bachelors and what-have-yous.

old comment by David B.

*sigh*

All it takes is one funtard to say the word "macroevolution" and you get people falling other themselves to prove how little better than he or she they are...

"But macroevolution is a creationist lie!"

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were coined by biologist and evolutionist Yuri Philipchenko, in 1927.

The terms were widely used by Theo Dobzhansky, a pupil of
Philipchenko and co-framer of the "modern synthesis" (also called neo-Darwinism).

"Nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation"
-- T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1951.

Of course, where we find Dobzhansky, we also find his co-co-framer, Ernst Mayr.

"Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levelsthat what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided."
-- E. Mayr, Toward a New Philsophy of Biology, 1988.

old comment by David B.

"But macro- and micro-evolution are the same thing!"

No, there's a technical difference between micro-evolution, which refers to evolutionary processes operating within a species, and macro-evolution, which refers to patterns that emerge as species and lineages branch through time, including the rate and pace of evolutionary change, adaptive radiation, morphological trends in lineages, extinction or branching of a lineage, concepts such as species sorting, and the emergence of major new morphological features (such as segmentation, or shells, or the fusion or loss of bones) {Nick Matzke, PNAS 2007}.

While "microevolution + time = macroevolution" is generally true, it is a broad and imprecise statement. Not all microevolution leads to macroevolution (i.e. morphological change), as the very long lineages of some groups show. Nor even is all macroevolution a product of microevolution, since there are several known instances of new species emerging from hybridisation of existing ones (many of the examples of observed macroevolution listed on talk.origins are of this type). These are cases where the 'evolution' took place above the species level, and it was not a result of the accumulation of small changes over time. Hybridisation is even thought to have played a part in our own evolution.

old comment by David B.

A second problem with claiming all macroevolution is just microevolution plus time is evidence. We frequently infer "macroevo" from fossil lineages (which we have lots of, hence we win), and can do so with enough accuracy to predict where an when specific intermediates occurred, hence identify the best places to look for them. However we can't show what microevo was responsible for these changes, DNA doesn't fossilise and while parsimonious genetic trees can help confirm common descent in living species they are no help for extinct ones.

So while it is generally okay to say that "microevolution + time = macroevolution", the two terms are not (IMO) exactly synonymous.

It's all evolution, but it's not necessarily all micro/macro-evolution.

References:
"Hybridization, ecological races and the nature of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation"
- James Mallet, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, September 2008, 363:2971-2986.

"Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution"
- Douglas H. Erwin, Evolution & Development, March 2000, 2:7884.

old comment by Agahnim

I have a single associate's degree in applied science as a microcomputer support specialist, yet I still understand science way better than you do (I took an astronomy class as my required science class; wanted to take biology as well but there was no room in my schedule). By any chance did some of your degrees come from diploma mills? I got mine from a local branch of a legitimate group of community colleges here in southeastern Illinois (specifically, the Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, or IECC).

I can probably write better as well because I had to take an English class and it was for writing, so I can probably write better than you as well.

Perhaps you're telling a lie as big as Betelgeuse (the star, not the movie character named after the star).

“You can see fossils of 500 million year old crabs the same as now.”

Wait. You KNOW how evolution works, but you think it’s a sticking point if a 500myo crab hasn’t evolved?
Heh.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, you done been to them collge things.

Conker #fundie hardforum.com

77 comments

Confused?