macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[For_The_Kingdom]

There are no moving goal posts here, could it be that your attempts to date have, in fact, been inadequate and that, also, in fact, you really don't know what you are talking about?

Regardless of the "bio-babble" that is used to define it, the bottom line is simple; evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds. Point blank, period. That is what I reject. I don't care whether you believe it occurred suddenly or gradually...I am saying it didn't occur at ALL.

Do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about? You toss the word "kind" off easily and continuously as a bulwark against the advance of evolutionary thinking, yet you can't tell us what it means.

Dude, I clearly stated what was meant by "kind". Now, either you didn't see it, or you have a serious lack of reading comprehension skills.

See, what is, "the same kind"? If you use your reptile to bird definition: then all mammals are, "the same kind." Are you advocating or accepting that all mammals share a common ancestor in the therapsids of the middle permian and that all mammals today arise from nothing more than microevolution changing, "the therapsid kind"? At the same time, are you arguing that there was no, "synapsid kind," because that would have required macroevolution?

Please go back and read what I said about "kind". It is in there.

OK, so all dogs are the same species and, "the same kind," but that does not define "the same kind," just its lower limit.

In your whole life, have you ever saw a dog produce a non-dog? Yes or no.

OK, do you think you can rationally explain your statement? Which is science and which is not ... and why?

This is the second thing that you are asking me to provide, that I already provided.

[H.sapiens]

There are no moving goal posts here, could it be that your attempts to date have, in fact, been inadequate and that, also, in fact, you really don't know what you are talking about?

Regardless of the "bio-babble" that is used to define it, the bottom line is simple; evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds. Point blank, period. That is what I reject. I don't care whether you believe it occurred suddenly or gradually...I am saying it didn't occur at ALL.

Do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about? You toss the word "kind" off easily and continuously as a bulwark against the advance of evolutionary thinking, yet you can't tell us what it means.

Dude, I clearly stated what was meant by "kind". Now, either you didn't see it, or you have a serious lack of reading comprehension skills.

Let's see, you said:

"Speciation is not macroevolution, it is microevolution. A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are all different species, but they are all obviously the same "kind" of animal. "

and:

"Macroevolution is the term we use to describe the large scale changes between two "kinds" of animals. By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."

I already demonstrated that both your comments were woefully inadequate. All I want to know is what taxonomic level a "kind" equilibrates to. That should not so hard and without a clear definition everything you've had to say is just so much unintelligible mush.

See, what is, "the same kind"? If you use your reptile to bird definition: then all mammals are, "the same kind." Are you advocating or accepting that all mammals share a common ancestor in the therapsids of the middle Permian and that all mammals today arise from nothing more than microevolution changing, "the therapsid kind"? At the same time, are you arguing that there was no, "synapsid kind," because that would have required macroevolution?

Please go back and read what I said about "kind". It is in there.

Answer my question please rather than reference your past faceplants.

OK, so all dogs are the same species and, "the same kind," but that does not define "the same kind," just its lower limit.

In your whole life, have you ever saw a dog produce a non-dog? Yes or no.

No, have you? That would be a miracle. But that has nothing to do with the conversation, no one ever made such claim, you're just grasping at strawmen.

OK, do you think you can rationally explain your statement? Which is science and which is not ... and why?

This is the second thing that you are asking me to provide, that I already provided.[/quote]
No, I asked for a rational explanation. This is something you failed to clarify: Which is science and which is not ... and why.

[Elijah John]

[quote="H.sapiens"]]

everything you've had to say is just so much unintelligible mush.....
Answer my question please rather than reference your past faceplants.

Moderator Warning


I call "foul" on this for demeaning, antagonistic and condescending tone. "Uncivil" would be an understatement.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Instead of giving a definition of it, how about I give an illustration? Because we all know that no matter how a theist (a person that doesn't believe in evolution) defines the term, it is never good enough for the evolutionist.

And that will bring forth the "See, you don't even know what evolution is", or "But that's not what evolution says". That will bring forth a whole barrage of those, wouldn't it?

So instead of playing that game, I will just give you a simple/basic illustration of what evolution is; imagine a reptile....slowly...evolving...into a bird.

I don't see how this illustration is supposed to be helping, it's still going to bring forth the "see, you don't even know what evolution is" or "but that's not what evolution says" because frankly that is not what evolution says.

And you can't say that's not what evolution is, because the whole concept is embedded into the theory. It is part of the theory, it is what you believe occurred.

Have you considered the alternative that your have the concept wrong? Individual organism does not evolve, populations evolve. A reptile doesn't evolve ever, a species of reptiles evolve. Granted that's somewhat nitpicky. The following however, is not a nitpick but corrects a fundamental misconception.

Macroevolution is the term we use to describe the large scale changes between two "kinds" of animals. By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family. The whole reptile-bird thing would be an example of this. This concept is not science. It hasn't been observed, experimented, has not predictory power.

See? You don't even know what macro evolution is. An ancient species of "reptile" to modern birds can be explained without evoking macro evolution. Linear changes one generation to the next is enough.

Microevolution is the term we use to describe the small changes between animals of the same kind. As we look at all the different varieties of dogs, we can see microevolution in full effect every single day. This is science. We can observe it, we can experiment with it...and it has predictory power (leonberger breed).

See? You don't even know what micro evolution is. Different varieties of dogs is macro evolution. That is splitting one branch into two, as opposed to the linear changes above.

You have been mislead by the "creationists think tank" into believing macro necessarily mean big changes and micro necessarily mean small changes; when the actual distinction is micro means linear path no matter how large a change, and macro means splitting path no matter how small a change.

An analogy: Me and my friend walking from Paris to Istanbul, then to Mumbai and finally to Beijing, that's "micro" movement even we travelled ten thousand miles from our starting point. On the other hand, me walking to the post office while my friend walks in another direction to the grocery store, that's "macro" movement even though the trips only took us 15 minutes, because my friend and I split path and ends up in two separate locations.

Evolutionists too, are sometimes guilty for playing to creationists' terms, rather than hammering this point home at every opportunity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For this to be a valid point it would necessarily need be consistently true, and not simply true when you need it to be true, and not necessarily true when you need it to be not necessarily true.

Now, explain why it is necessarily true that evolution requires a divine orchestrator and why it is not therefore necessarily true that the divine orchestrator requires a divine orchestrator.

It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.

And to ask "why doesn't the divine orchestrator require a divine orchestrator" would be like asking "What was the cause of the uncaused cause".

It is nonsensical.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let's see, you said:

"Speciation is not macroevolution, it is microevolution. A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are all different species, but they are all obviously the same "kind" of animal. "

and:

"Macroevolution is the term we use to describe the large scale changes between two "kinds" of animals. By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."

I already demonstrated that both your comments were woefully inadequate. All I want to know is what taxonomic level a "kind" equilibrates to. That should not so hard and without a clear definition everything you've had to say is just so much unintelligible mush.

"What taxonomic level a "kind equilibrates to"..

Answer: "By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."

I told you it was in there.

Answer my question please rather than reference your past faceplants.

I repeat;

Answer: "By "kind", I guess that would mean either the genus or family."

No, have you? That would be a miracle. But that has nothing to do with the conversation, no one ever made such claim, you're just grasping at strawmen.

So it would be a miracle if a "dog produced a non-dog", but it is perfectly natural for a "reptile to evolve into a bird"?

Makes no sense. Taxi cab fallacy.

No, I asked for a rational explanation. This is something you failed to clarify: Which is science and which is not ... and why.

I did provide a rational explanation. I said that of the two types of evolution that we can distinguish (macro/micro), it is the micro evolution that is science. Why? Because we observe it, we can experiment with it, and we can make predictions.

Observation, experiment, and prediction <---what science is all about, and microevolution passes all three tests.

With macroevolution...that has never been observed, experimented on, and no prediction can be made in regards to it. So it is basically an unscientific notion.

[Bust Nak]

It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.

Haven't we been though this? Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis being true, if abiogenesis is false, evolution could still be true (and vice versa, evolution could be false and abiogenesis could still be true.) There is no need to show how life came from nonlife before we can explain how life began to change forms.

You are also begging the question, what made you think it impossible for life to originate from non-living material naturally?

And to ask "why doesn't the divine orchestrator require a divine orchestrator" would be like asking "What was the cause of the uncaused cause".

It is nonsensical.

Again, that begs the question, what made you think a divine orchestrator is necessarily uncaused?

[Goat]

For this to be a valid point it would necessarily need be consistently true, and not simply true when you need it to be true, and not necessarily true when you need it to be not necessarily true.

Now, explain why it is necessarily true that evolution requires a divine orchestrator and why it is not therefore necessarily true that the divine orchestrator requires a divine orchestrator.

It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.

And to ask "why doesn't the divine orchestrator require a divine orchestrator" would be like asking "What was the cause of the uncaused cause".

It is nonsensical.

Would you please provide evidence for the statement of 'the impossibility of life naturally originality from non-living material'? How do you know that?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Haven't we been though this? Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis being true, if abiogenesis is false, evolution could still be true (and vice versa, evolution could be false and abiogenesis could still be true.) There is no need to show how life came from nonlife before we can explain how life began to change forms.

Please explain how on the naturalistic worldview, abiogenesis can be false, and evolution be true.

You are also begging the question, what made you think it impossible for life to originate from non-living material naturally?

Because there is no mechanism in nature that will allow the life "force" to come into existence. That is no different than trying to make all of the furniture in your house "come to life". Where will you get the "life" from to embed it into those material objects? You can't do it.

It is the same way with organisms. The "life" had to come from something exterior to it. It had to come from the exterior, not the interior.

Again, that begs the question, what made you think a divine orchestrator is necessarily uncaused?

Because of the arguments against infinite regression. An uncaused cause is necessary.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Would you please provide evidence for the statement of 'the impossibility of life naturally originality from non-living material'? How do you know that?

Same answer I gave Bust:

Because there is no mechanism in nature that will allow the life "force" to come into existence. That is no different than trying to make all of the furniture in your house "come to life". Where will you get the "life" from to embed it into those material objects? You can't do it.

It is the same way with organisms. The "life" had to come from something exterior to it. It had to come from the exterior, not the interior.