Is there evidence for MACRO-evolution?

[balladechina212]

Kazoo, how long are you going to wait for the PGers to debunk the OP? If you get impatient and plan to do it yourself, let me know. I would LOVE to be there when that happens.

Also, I remember you mentioning that you had already done so in another thread. Improve it a little, and impress us all a little more. Yeah that's a challenge.

 

[Wrath`]

The link In the OP is just confusing me.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Kazoo, how long are you going to wait for the PGers to debunk the OP? If you get impatient and plan to do it yourself, let me know. I would LOVE to be there when that happens.

Also, I remember you mentioning that you had already done so in another thread. Improve it a little, and impress us all a little more. Yeah that's a challenge.

I only say this because there are some peeps (and possibly peepettes) who wanted in just as much as I did. When you give them an opening yay big with the nonsense that is the OP and they don't take it, that's tp not mp.

I won't post a debunking reply because DHers who meddle in the PG can (at the very least) could easily be accused of grandstanding, feeling their nuts, tooting their own horn, & the like. In addition, don't think I am the only person in the DH who can do this. Keep in mind that you are trying to get into the DH, not us.

 

[balladechina212]

You would think that someone who has recently been admitted into the debate hall after 6 weeks of proving himself would know about such skills. You would also think that the said person would know what and what isn't a good argument better than someone who has just joined. Could it be because I do?!?!?

Not to toot my own horn, but any criticism I (or any DHer) gives you is probably for the better. We aren't here to berate you, but we will call you out on your bull sh!. It's called constructive criticism--pass it on!

Lawl toot your horn much?

Keep in mind that you are trying to get into the DH, not us.

No I am not trying to get into the DH. You imply as if the only reason we debate in the PG is to get into the DH. Then what do debaters in the DH debate for?

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Lawl toot your horn much?

If you are accusing me of grandstanding, you need to go %uck yourself.

I worked hard to get in the DH, and I am trying to work hard to help others get in. If you can't see this--the next reply you get may not be censored...

No I am not trying to get into the DH. You imply as if the only reason we debate in the PG is to get into the DH. Then what do debaters in the DH debate for?

Us DHers debate because we love to debate. PGers may as well, but the purpose of the PG is to prove that you can debate on a competent level. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. If you are just in the PG just to be here, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

 

[hillbillyhick]

Argh, I actually promised myself not to look at threads debating creationism, because I feel it's just a waste of time. Creationists can do nothing but criticize and everybody knows that's easy. Giving or constructing alternatives is where the real challenge lies. A comparison of the evidence for creationism and the evidence for evolution tells you all you need to know.

Saying macroevolution has no evidence is a manifest lie.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I could give more sources from reliable peer reviewed journals, but I don't have access to databases on this pc, I'll maybe edit it later.

Some creationists seem to have the worst case of confirmation bias.

Just something to think about:
Look at dogs, you have little cute dogs and big scary ones. They all came from wolves and in such a short time such a diversity has arisen (through selective breeding of course). When you look at the variability in dogs, can't you somewhat imagine different species branching from one single species over the course of thousands of years?

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Good job Hillbilly--now work on debunking his OP link and you are going places.

 

[Mewter]

Good job Hillbilly--now work on debunking his OP link and you are going places.

Stop winking!
And almost every other post in this thread for the past couple pages are yours. :O


We had better set some terms here, though, so it doesn't turn into an argument over semantics:

-What would micro-evolution classify as?
-Macro-evolution?
-Does it meet the standards of science?
-Is there a better explanation for the development of complex life-forms?


It just isn't interesting to read a Yossarian debate with constantly shifting, redefined terms. :embarrass

Edit:
I am also trying to work on my debate-helping/clarifying. Please tell me anything I need to improve on.

 

[GoldShadow]

I don't even know if it's necessary to "debunk" the OP because, well, it's not really a debate. It's like somebody saying "the sky is neon green." You don't really debate to prove him wrong; you simply point outside and say "no, actually it's blue."

So here's your "blue sky":

A few selected stages in hominid (macro)evolution from an intro bio textbook. Transitions galore. Even more transitions have been excluded for the sake of saving space. Excuse the scan quality.

Homologous structures in human, cat, whale, bat from the same textbook.

Alignment diagram for a gene found in numerous plants (thale cress, castor bean, corn, black cottonwood, barrel medic, grape vine, soybean, sorghum, asian rice, tomato, field mustard, moss, and others), parasites (plasmodium, the one that causes malaria), humans, and even in bacteria. The macroevolution of the gene (and thus, species) can be traced by comparing similarities and differences between species. This has been done for literally thousands, perhaps tens or even hundreds of thousands of genes. Red means the most matches and black the fewest, and the length of the bar shows the sequence that aligned with the original gene. Each line is one species.



I'm all for letting PGers duke it out and hone their debating skills, but this isn't a debate.

 

[Crimson King]

And that, PGers, is how you end a topic.

I recruited Goldshadow because other than the fact that he is really knowledgeable about all things related to biology (at least in my opinion), he understands that his opinion doesn't mean anything so he posts credible links and sources.

Before I close this, I'd like Hooblah to respond.

 

[hillbillyhick]

Good job Hillbilly--now work on debunking his OP link and you are going places.

What is there to debunk, the way I read the article it's actually an argument against people opposing Ambulocetus being used as a transitional fossil. If I'm right then the OP-link contradicts the OP claim, which means this debate was solved from the beginning.

Ambulocetus Has No Pelvis
and is Largely Incomplete?

This is the title, the article then goes on giving evidence of how it is more complete than the nay-sayers thought it was. So that it indeed can be used as a transitional fossil.

And even if Ambulocetus was not a transitional fossil, how would that debunk macroevolution? It'll take more than that.

Now I might be wrong, I only read it once. If I am, please correct me.
And sorry for continuing the thread, but I really wanted to say this.

I also agree with GoldShadow that there's no real debate to be had over this.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Oh, then you're good. (Insert wink here to p!ss RDK off).

 

[AltF4]

I don't even know if it's necessary to "debunk" the OP because, well, it's not really a debate. It's like somebody saying "the sky is neon green." You don't really debate to prove him wrong; you simply point outside and say "no, actually it's blue."

Umm, I don't know what world YOU live in, GS.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Wow 4 pages! Sorry been away for the past few days.

So here's your "blue sky":

Tricky tricky. You got a blurred picture so I couldn't debunk each individual fossil.

GoldShadow will you please explain to me why similar looking fossils proves they came from one another?

And lastly will you better explain the last diagram?

 

[hillbillyhick]

Wow 4 pages! Sorry been away for the past few days.


Tricky tricky. You got a blurred picture so I couldn't debunk each individual fossil.

GoldShadow will you please explain to me why similar looking fossils proves they came from one another?

And lastly will you better explain the last diagram?

I know I'm not GoldShadow
Here's my link I posted earlier again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#correct

Please just read it (especially the part on anatomical parahomology) , it's only 8 pages or so. It'll solve a lot of your questions.

Also you can't debunk a fossil any more than you can debunk the bottle of water in my hand, you can debunk a theory. Even if you rightfully concluded these fossils don't give enough evidence for evolution, you still haven't disproven the theory, it'll take far more than that.

 

[Mewter]

Wow 4 pages! Sorry been away for the past few days.
Tricky tricky. You got a blurred picture so I couldn't debunk each individual fossil.

Yes, because GS is trying to be deceiving. Come on GS, give us some real evidence, not some tampered with pictures! Besides, they're drawings. Can't you give us some real photographs?

The same goes for the rest of the post. Seriously, step your game up.

 

[RDK]

Yeah! What the hell are you thinking, GS? We want a real live Ambulocetus! Not some crummy photo you copied out of a left-wing rag!

 

[Aesir]

Judging by the way you guys countered GS's claims I think it's safe to say there is no evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

Also you can't debunk a fossil any more than you can debunk the bottle of water in my hand, you can debunk a theory. Even if you rightfully concluded these fossils don't give enough evidence for evolution, you still haven't disproven the theory, it'll take far more than that.

Well that was an interesting article you sent me. I read it, I promise, but I'm not the least convinced.

I know that it takes more than that, and that is also why you haven't convinced me. You have sent me some pictures of bones, and an article that is geared to make the reader confused (ultimately so they can't use the, "don't dismiss it because you can't understand it" trick).

Edit: Crl-F (search): "phylogen"
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

Edit 2: Sherlock Holmes

“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing,” answered Holmes thoughtfully; “it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different” . . . “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.”

Try that and see a few reasons why phylogenetics fail.

Yes, because GS is trying to be deceiving. Come on GS, give us some real evidence, not some tampered with pictures! Besides, they're drawings. Can't you give us some real photographs?

The same goes for the rest of the post. Seriously, step your game up.

Haha yeah I was joking. But seriously, if I could read the names, I could show up with more valuable information.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

OMG. CK close this thread...Hooblah doens't have a rebuttal.

 

[Hooblah2u2]

OMG. CK close this thread...Hooblah doens't have a rebuttal.

If you don't wanna accept my rebuttal, that's fine, but you don't gotta ruin it for those who really have an open mind.

 

[Crimson King]

That was a rebuttal?

You basically posted a link to a site, quoted Sherlock Holmes, and promised that you read an article. If you can't understand the article (which I have started reading and I understand it with a novice knowledge of biology), then you are in the wrong argument. If you are going to oppose something, you need to have knowledge of it because your argument right now is this:

"Disney World rollercoasters are physically impossible. I have never looked into the mechanics of them nor do I understand a basic idea of how mechanics and engineering work, but I do not believe them to be possible."

In short, the failure of this argument is on you. Educate yourself about biology, read the article, THEN create a topic with actual information debunking evolution.

Until you do that, closed.