Reply With Quote
In books you haven't read.
Get crackin.
Where are all those different stages of evolution for the hummingbird?
In books you haven't read.
Get crackin.
dogs have only existed after humans. where did they come from? did the creator say "oh , i forgot an animal. there."
Where are all those stages of evolution is what I'm saying? We own a parrot, so where are all those stages of parrots before we got to this parrot?
Why do you keep talking about the Big Bang in a thread about evolution?
You do realize they are two separate theories, yes?
In the book you won't read.
I know. Which is why I am correcting his mistakes. The only way to get at the truth is to get at what is accurate and observed.
Because the evidence so strongly supports evolution, the people who want to push the kinds of supernatural explanations that such holy books talk about, MUST lie about it, and distort what it says.[emphasis post-edit mine-RG]
If they were honest about it, and understood it, they and their worldview would stand no chance, which is why they are so actively dishonest.
Also remember, that Avante has been lied TO. He and Rob have been actively given false information, and really bad arguments.
Once you realize that it isn't entirely his fault, it is easier to be patient about such things. He is simply shackled by his own ignorance, and that is easily changed.
The shackles of course, are invisible, but I am simply trying to point out that they exist, and that he is holding the key.
All he has to do is learn a little. The evidence, the REAL evidence, speaks for itself.
Thank you.
The link is a case in point, and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. My brief run through of the electrical engineer critiquing the biological sciences counted 12 factual mistakes, and two logical fallacies before I stopped trying to identify them all.
This is what is known as a strawman logical fallacy. Coyne would say nothing of the sort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer your question:
Because it gives gullible, lazy people quick links to post on message boards to make it seem like evolution is flawed. The only thing it really does though, is shows how completely ignorant creationists actually are about the evidence and theories.
Do you think it was a good critique of Coyne's book?
Not really an answer to my question. Just restating something already addressed.
Do you think that you posted a good critique of Coyne's book?
Again, I don't see it as a hard question.
You said it was easy to find. I was wondering how much time you spent reading it or spend any time evaluating whether it was a good source.
I will ask for a third time:
Do you think that you posted a good critique of Coyne's book?
You can if the changes are gradual.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...chanisms.shtmlFundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:
Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
The importance of genetic variation;
The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
How different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution.
Offspring inherit traits and genes from their parents.
I assume you understand and accept this happens.
That is all you need.
Heritable traits and time.
http://hihg.med.miami.edu/code/http/...=1&LessonNum=3
Click on the link above, for more info, I left about 80% of the lesson and material out.3.1 Modes of Inheritance
Inheritance patterns describe how a disease is transmitted in families.
These patterns help to predict the recurrence risk for relatives.
In general, inheritance patterns for single gene disorders are classified based on whether they are autosomal or X-linked and whether they have a dominant or recessive pattern of inheritance. These disorders are called Mendelian disorders, after the geneticist Gregor Mendel.
.2 Autosomal Dominant Inheritance
In autosomal dominant inheritance, only one copy of a disease allele is necessary for an individual to be susceptible to expressing the phenotype.
With each pregnancy, there is a one in two (50%) chance the offspring will inherit the disease allele.
Unless a new mutation has occurred, all affected individuals will have at least one parent who carries the disease allele.
Autosomal dominant inheritance is often called vertical inheritance because of the transmission from parent to offspring.
Across a population, the proportion of affected males should be equal to the proportion of affected females.
Male-to-male transmission can be observed.
Examples of diseases with autosomal dominant inheritance include myotonic muscular dystrophy and Huntington disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21933/
We have gained a huge understanding of the process of mutation that happens.
Once you understand the mechanisms that can be clearly shown to change DNA, you now have evolution, when you have natural selection picking out traits that offer benefits, or weeding out animals that have deleterious genes.
Intraspecific Polymorphism to Interspecific Divergence: Genetics of Pigmentation in Drosophila
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/32...0.figures-only
We have figured out what genes do what, and it is kind of not a big leap to say that if you are a moth whose species lives in a forest with trees that have white bark, and you inherit the mutations for dark coloration, your odds getting eaten before being able to reproduce go way up.
I'll give it a try:
"rat" includes a lot of different species.
The circular gif given did includ the order mamalia.
"rat" refers to a subclass of the family rodentia.
Early rodents branched off into two clads, and then further differentiated from there into quite a few different groupings that includes.
Rodentia->Superfamily-Muroidea> Family: Muridae> Subfamily:Murinae >Genus:Rattus
That is the order in which "rats" evolved from the original early family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent
Not hard to find if you know what you are looking for, and how things evolved from earlier "stages".
(edit)
Rattus is in the blue line most of the way down.
This picture is a much blown up section showing JUST the rodentia family.
"The fossil of Rugosodon eurasiaticus is preserved in two shale slabs in part (left) and counterpart (right). It is about 6.5 inches (17 cm) long from head to rump, and is estimated to have weighed about 2.8 ounces (80 grams)."
Ancient rodents, among the earliest mammals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3766913.html
Anybody want me to keep marching through the family tree of rattus?
I found a bunch of wonderful fossil pictures, and read a bunch more about it.
I guess, Avante, if you really wanted to know, you could have done the same thing. None of the stuff I found was hard to find, nor particularly difficult, I thought.
Here is an interesting excerpt from a paper on early Muroidea
http://link.springer.com/article/10....-0038-z#page-1
YOu can find pictures of the fossils of early types of muroidea here, mentioned in the above study:
http://www.authormapper.com/search.a...gy&size=20&P=2
We'd have to start with the very first hummingbird to be and then show where it evolved into this, that evolved into that, then this, then that and then.....the hummigbird we see today who is also evolving????
So all the creatures we see today are just in another stage of evolution? There is no end to it?
You didn't read any of his posts.
That is essentially correct in my opinion.
I know. Which is why I am correcting his mistakes. The only way to get at the truth is to get at what is accurate and observed.
Because the evidence so strongly supports evolution, the people who want to push the kinds of supernatural explanations that such holy books talk about, MUST lie about it, and distort what it says.[emphasis post-edit mine-RG]
If they were honest about it, and understood it, they and their worldview would stand no chance, which is why they are so actively dishonest.
Also remember, that Avante has been lied TO. He and Rob have been actively given false information, and really bad arguments.
Once you realize that it isn't entirely his fault, it is easier to be patient about such things. He is simply shackled by his own ignorance, and that is easily changed.
The shackles of course, are invisible, but I am simply trying to point out that they exist, and that he is holding the key.
All he has to do is learn a little. The evidence, the REAL evidence, speaks for itself.
Thank you.
The link is a case in point, and exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. My brief run through of the electrical engineer critiquing the biological sciences counted 12 factual mistakes, and two logical fallacies before I stopped trying to identify them all.
This is what is known as a strawman logical fallacy. Coyne would say nothing of the sort.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer your question:
Because it gives gullible, lazy people quick links to post on message boards to make it seem like evolution is flawed. The only thing it really does though, is shows how completely ignorant creationists actually are about the evidence and theories.
Do you think it was a good critique of Coyne's book?
Not really an answer to my question. Just restating something already addressed.
Do you think that you posted a good critique of Coyne's book?
Again, not really an answer.
For a forth time:
Do you think that you posted a good critique of Coyne's book?
No he did not. First it was rats, then dogs, now hummingbirds. I have given at least a dozen links, including links to very basic evolution courses and online material.
If he cared about what was true with any intellectual curiosity at all and wasn't a lazy , he would have done some reading.
Lazy and stupid.
I was talking about this topic 10 years ago on these boards, and been in many of these...."I know better, just read about it"......debates. Yet it is....The BIG BANG...theory, the theory of evolution......right? Nobody is lazy or stupid asshole...ok? It's just that you have no proof of any kind that there was a BIG BANG, or no MasterDesigner.
So you are dumb enought to think all those churchs that are filled on Sunday mornings are full of idiots and you know what realy went down, hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ten years and you are still conflating the big bang theory and the theory of evolution?
That is pretty stupid, dude.
all those people in church are there to worship the book that you yourself called bull . so what's your point?
this is why i never buy it when you keep denying your christianity when convenient during arguments
My point is most people realize this all didn't just happen, especially from...BANG!...so they are looking for the answer. The way most people do that is by accepting God or some God. That is the answer for them and I'm cool with it. I also think something was behind all this I just don;t have any need to think it was that God or any other we humans have come up with.
I don't know what happened, you don't know what happened and neither does anyone else. So we pick which theory/story makes us feel the best about it. Most go with some God.
no. they aren't "looking for the answer." they already have their minds made up without ANY regard for evidence. similar to what you have shown in this thread
The way most people do that is by accepting God or some God.[/quote]
its all from the same belief system that led a majority of the planet to believe the sun revolved around the earth, despite evidence to the contrary.
you've brought this up a few times and i dont get why you keep doing so. its just like when you say "well the idea of a god makes me feel better."That is the answer for them and I'm cool with it.
first of all, there is no such thing as being true "for them" or "for me" or "for you." if you and i walked down the street and we see a closed garage door, neither of us know whats inside. you can talk about how "i think there's a shiny red sports car. thats the truth for me. guess what, that's completely irrelevant. the only thing that matters is what is ACTUALLY inside the garage. so just because people get a warm fuzzy feeling over the idea of a loving god, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is factually true.
that's fine. there's no issue with holding a belief in a god. it can be rationally and philosophically argued for, as Chinook does.I also think something was behind all this I just don't have any need to think it was that God or any other we humans have come up with
ah yes, and this is where evidence and scientific theory comes in. unfortunately, you haven't even demonstrated an elementary level understanding of physics, astronomy, chemistry, or biology. all you say is "its complex" and leave it at that. the evidence overwhelmingly points to what we describe as the big bang theory. if you are going to cover your ears and eyes and say "blablablabla" in the face of evidence, then that's your choice and you can go live under a rock. just know that you are under a rockI don't know what happened, you don't know what happened and neither does anyone else.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.So we pick which theory/story makes us feel the best about it.
For the hundredth time, it has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with what "makes us feel the best about it." Our feeling is completely irrelevant. Do you think when people first came up with the big bang theory that it made them "feel better." do you think the theory of gravity made Newton "feel better?" do you think einstein's theory of relativity made him feel better?
you need to abandon this notion that your "feeling" makes something true or untrue.
again, that's fine. the concept of a god is completely compatible with the overwhelmingly supported big bang theory or the theory of evolution here on earth. the only time where those two ideas conflict are when you get religious and start subscribing to the books like the BibleMost go with some God.
How did they scientifically disprove the big bang theory?
I'd like to at least read the abstract.
As usual ya haven't a clue and it's frustrating wasting my time on you. I grew up around religion and those who believed in a God, and I know tons and tons of people totally unlike what you are "trying" to talk about. Obviously you know nothing about what real religion is, you make that obvious.
So there is no doubt of any kind that yes the BIG BANG is how we got all this.....right? That is a proven fact...right?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
It's the theory supported most by the available scientific evidence.
What is the scientific evidence backing your theory?
List it.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
