Do you believe in evolution?

[ArmChair General]

Why do I get the feeling that paleriders supposed degrees are both made up? he is by far the most ignorant college graduate I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. He constantly makes stuff up, and if you provide evidence that completely contradicts the BS he just spewed, instead of debating the points, he attacks the source.

palerider, you make me puke.

 

[palerider]

Why do I get the feeling that paleriders supposed degrees are both made up? he is by far the most ignorant college graduate I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. He constantly makes stuff up, and if you provide evidence that completely contradicts the BS he just spewed, instead of debating the points, he attacks the source.

palerider, you make me puke.

Whats the matter, you have nothing to say on this subject? Sniping from the sidelines and calling names because you got your little hiney whooped on the other thread is childish at best? If you would learn what you are talking about before you type it out to the public, that sort of thing woudn't happen.

And kindly provide an example or two where I attack a source in lieu of arguing the points.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, don't you find it slightly bizzare that creatures would come into existence, die out, and then taking their place are extremely similair humans.

Extremely similar hominids didn't take their place. A. afarenis, Kenyanthropus playtops, A. garhi, A. bahreighazall and A. Africanus all overlap each other. That is, they all existed at the same time. Then A. africanus, P. aethiopicus, K.rudolfensis, A. (H.) hablis and P.boisel all overlap each other. Then P. boisel, P. robustus, H.ergaster, and H. erectus all overlap each other. There was no dying off and being replaced by very similar hominids. If you want to suggest that there was interbreeding among these different animals, then we might have something to discuss, but your notion that one led to another in a macroevolutionary way when many of them walked the earth at the same time is more storytelling than science.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

Following the crowd, or leading the crowd where they want you to lead them for that matter, hardly qualifies as scientific literacy.

And I find it somewhat sad that you would think that an unprovable, and unsupportable theory is one of the basic tenets of modern science. And understanding or not understanding whether or not macroevolution happened or not will not make a single contribution to anything. At best, it is trivia. Cold fusion, a cure for cancer, a simple and cheap way to process clean water for 2/3 of the people on earth that have never had a taste of it...those are important to the modern world. Evolution wouldn't even make the top 100 of things that are most important to the modern world.

Maybe in your world it isn't important but I would disagree. There is plenty of evidence and support for the theory of evolution. The modern theory of evolution is derived from evidence in zoology, molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, and other related scientific fields. Are those fields not important? Some of the very things you cited that are important on much of the science being used to support the current theory. If there is a better theory/explanation of who life and man came to be on this earth then it would be embraced by scientists with the proper evidence. So far there isn't any other scientific theory or evidence out there that is viewed as plausible by the scientific community.

 

[9sublime]

Extremely similar hominids didn't take their place. A. afarenis, Kenyanthropus playtops, A. garhi, A. bahreighazall and A. Africanus all overlap each other. That is, they all existed at the same time. Then A. africanus, P. aethiopicus, K.rudolfensis, A. (H.) hablis and P.boisel all overlap each other. Then P. boisel, P. robustus, H.ergaster, and H. erectus all overlap each other. There was no dying off and being replaced by very similar hominids. If you want to suggest that there was interbreeding among these different animals, then we might have something to discuss, but your notion that one led to another in a macroevolutionary way when many of them walked the earth at the same time is more storytelling than science.

I think that its a combination of both evolution and interbreeding (but only to an extent, because I don't think you and a chimp would have much luck making a child).

 

[Coyote]

Extremely similar hominids didn't take their place. A. afarenis, Kenyanthropus playtops, A. garhi, A. bahreighazall and A. Africanus all overlap each other. That is, they all existed at the same time. Then A. africanus, P. aethiopicus, K.rudolfensis, A. (H.) hablis and P.boisel all overlap each other. Then P. boisel, P. robustus, H.ergaster, and H. erectus all overlap each other. There was no dying off and being replaced by very similar hominids. If you want to suggest that there was interbreeding among these different animals, then we might have something to discuss, but your notion that one led to another in a macroevolutionary way when many of them walked the earth at the same time is more storytelling than science.

I don't understand how this "disproves" macroevolution? How do you define macroevolution?

 

[Coyote]

This is the definition I found of macroevolution - it doesn't seem like what Palerider states is in conflict with it:

Large-scale patterns and processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations, and extinctions. Macroevolutionary research is based on phylogeny, the history of common descent among species. The formation of species and branching of evolutionary lineages mark the interface between macroevolution and microevolution, which addresses the dynamics of genetic variation within populations. Phylogenetic reconstruction, the developmental basis of evolutionary change, and long-term trends in patterns of speciation and extinction among lineages constitute major foci of macroevolutionary studies.

 

[palerider]

I think that its a combination of both evolution and interbreeding (but only to an extent, because I don't think you and a chimp would have much luck making a child).

If you are arguing that inbreeding and microevolution are compatable arguments...OK. But as of today, there isn't any credible evidence that we are related to H. erectus, much less chimps.

 

[palerider]

Maybe in your world it isn't important but I would disagree. There is plenty of evidence and support for the theory of evolution. The modern theory of evolution is derived from evidence in zoology, molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, and other related scientific fields. Are those fields not important? Some of the very things you cited that are important on much of the science being used to support the current theory. If there is a better theory/explanation of who life and man came to be on this earth then it would be embraced by scientists with the proper evidence. So far there isn't any other scientific theory or evidence out there that is viewed as plausible by the scientific community.

There is no credible evidence to support the theory of macroevolution and lack of a "better" theory does not, by default, make the one that exists, true.

 

[palerider]

This is the definition I found of macroevolution - it doesn't seem like what Palerider states is in conflict with it:

Large-scale patterns and processes in the history of life, including the origins of novel organismal designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiations, and extinctions. Macroevolutionary research is based on phylogeny, the history of common descent among species. The formation of species and branching of evolutionary lineages mark the interface between macroevolution and microevolution, which addresses the dynamics of genetic variation within populations. Phylogenetic reconstruction, the developmental basis of evolutionary change, and long-term trends in patterns of speciation and extinction among lineages constitute major foci of macroevolutionary studies.

If you have multiple "decendants' walking around at the same time, then it stands to reason that one did not "decend" from the other unless you are talking inbreeding which isn't macroevolution. Inbreeding is how you get from a wild dog in africa to a french poodle, but that isn't macroevolution.

To accept macroevolutionary myth, you must accept that randomness produces fine tuning, and that chaos produces coherent information. I simply will not accept such without some credible proof.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

There is no credible evidence to support the theory of macroevolution and lack of a "better" theory does not, by default, make the one that exists, true.

What you yourself deem "credible" and what the scientific community deem credible obviously seem to be two different things. You're right, it is just a theory but right now with the evidence available it's the best and most widely accepted one out there by the scientific community because of the credible evidence.

 

[Coyote]

If you have multiple "decendants' walking around at the same time, then it stands to reason that one did not "decend" from the other unless you are talking inbreeding which isn't macroevolution. Inbreeding is how you get from a wild dog in africa to a french poodle, but that isn't macroevolution.

Actually....no, I don't see the logic here. Why can't Animal A lead to Animals B,C,D,E .... B,D,E fizzle out....C leads to another grouping in turn? If you have genetic isolation, or geentic drift for example, it's easy to see how it eventually leads to speciation and that would be macroevolution would it not? I don't see how the fact that you have multiple descendents walking around at the same time means one did not descend from the other - there are simply multiple descendents.

To accept macroevolutionary myth, you must accept that randomness produces fine tuning, and that chaos produces coherent information. I simply will not accept such without some credible proof.

I don't think evolution is totally about "randomness" - because environment is shaping what genetic attributes best suit survival. Genetic mutations are random - but what mutations survive or thrive, or what old genetic combinations die off is shaped by enviornment not random factors.

 

[ArmChair General]

Whats the matter, you have nothing to say on this subject? Sniping from the sidelines and calling names because you got your little hiney whooped on the other thread is childish at best? If you would learn what you are talking about before you type it out to the public, that sort of thing woudn't happen.

And kindly provide an example or two where I attack a source in lieu of arguing the points.

I dont need to say anything, Coyote and the others are already destroying and exposing your ignorance.

 

[palerider]

Actually....no, I don't see the logic here. Why can't Animal A lead to Animals B,C,D,E .... B,D,E fizzle out....C leads to another grouping in turn? If you have genetic isolation, or geentic drift for example, it's easy to see how it eventually leads to speciation and that would be macroevolution would it not? I don't see how the fact that you have multiple descendents walking around at the same time means one did not descend from the other - there are simply multiple descendents.

No. That is microevolution, not macro evolution and the "speciation" with regard to early hominids is in reality no more than a shuck and jive perpetrated by palentologists in an attempt to lend some credibility to the idea of macroevolution. Placing an A. or a H. in front of the different animals doesn't make them, in reality, different species.

In order to accept macroevolution, you must accept that reptiles eventually became mammals. That one species evolved into an entirely different species. You can inbreed a group all you like, but you will not end up with a different species.

I don't think evolution is totally about "randomness" - because environment is shaping what genetic attributes best suit survival. Genetic mutations are random - but what mutations survive or thrive, or what old genetic combinations die off is shaped by enviornment not random factors.

That is random. You are arguing that order can come out of chaos.

 

[palerider]

I dont need to say anything, Coyote and the others are already destroying and exposing your ignorance.

You say that like you understand what is being said. If you have a grasp of the subject, feel free to jump in.