Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

Recommended Posts

Anyway, look what I coincidentally found, right on cue!

They're now saying that dogs are not related to wolves! And all this time scientists were saying the closest living relatives of dogs were wolves! :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/science/wolf-to-dog-scientists-agree-on-how-but-not-where.html

Let's see how fast evolutionists will try to salvage that, and come up with "likely scenarios."

You gotta hand it to evolutionists - they're quite adept with the good old band-aid for plugging holes.

They don't need a band aid for plugging holes. Any scientist worth his or her diploma will love a hole. It gives them a chance to do science. Where would be without the holes?

And for the record, my dogs came from the SPCA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, look what I coincidentally found, right on cue!

They're now saying that dogs are not related to wolves!

Betsy dear ... it doesn't say that at all.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't need a band aid for plugging holes. Any scientist worth his or her diploma will love a hole. It gives them a chance to do science. Where would be without the holes?

And for the record, my dogs came from the SPCA.

You see!

They didn't come from wolves at all!!

😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another thread where Betsy shows she has no idea what science is or what methods it uses.

I suppose you know about science....and a top chemist like James Tour, doesn't. :rolleyes:

And FYI, if you read, and understand what you've read....you'd see that I'm quoting a scientist.

If you can't even figure that out, how am I suppose to believe you know what you're talking about?

What in your opinion is macro evolution?

Why? Are you hoping my "own" opinion will change the scientific definition of macro evolution?

What "opinion" are you wanting to hear? :lol:

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GostHacked

Betsy, just how DO we manage to stay feet planted on this rock we call Earth? Why can't I ever get to space by myself? I've tried jumping and such, but still can't get there. Now give me a rocket ...

Gosthacked

Yup, have you been thrown off this rock we call earth yet? That's not just anecdotal.

Exactly! There's evidence for gravity..........but there's no evidence for macro evolution.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! There's evidence for gravity..........but there's no evidence for macro evolution.

Other than fossils and everything related to them. Or were all fossils created in a Biblical flood? Placed their by a supernatural demon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than fossils and everything related to them. Or were all fossils created in a Biblical flood? Placed their by a supernatural demon?

There are no fossils that shows macro evolution!

Read about it. Scroll down.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't macro evolution just intelligent design sneaking in the back door?

Speaking of Intelligent Design.....

Evolutionists make disparaging remarks when someone uses Design arguments, and yet they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space!

NASA's SETI program sends signals into outer space. Why? If intelligent life happens to detect SETI's signals, the intelligent life will recognize the intelligent design of its creation and they (intelligent alien life), will then conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe!

Obviously, evolutionists recognize the validity of Design arguments!

Radio signals in narrow, focused bands area possible indication of intelligent life, given that humans generate such signals here on earth.

http://www.space.com/19703-intelligent-alien-life-exoplanets-seti.html

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a Paleontologist from McGill University, Canada....rejecting macro evolution!

Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species—though that is the central tenet of Neodarwinism. So says Robert Carroll in this stimulating article, in which he calls for an expanded concept of the evolutionary synthesis.

Robert Carroll is in the department of biology and is curator of vertebrate palaeontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada.

Darwinism, he notes, “was based on the primarily uniformitarian concept” that the processes behind observable variations are sufficient to explain all diversification in the living world. Yet Carroll rejects this widely held thesis.

The data from his own field of palaeontology count against it, he argues, noting that the observed “large-scale patterns and rates of evolution are not comparable with those hypothesised by Darwin on the basis of extrapolation from modern populations and species.”

Using arguments familiar to regular readers of Origins and Design, Carroll explains that what we find in the fossil record is the opposite of Darwinian gradualism.

Instead of the Darwinian emphasis on smooth and continuous divergence, we find discontinuities.

Populations and species “are clearly distinct in all taxonomic groups.”

The final point covered by Carroll is the role of natural selection.

Despite numerous reports of apparently fast morphological change, Carroll points out that they are not linked to unidirectional transformations. Hence, they do not provide evidence of a mechanism that can explain large-scale evolutionary phenomena. “The relatively rare events involving the origin of major new taxa or significant morphological divergence at the species level require much greater than normal consistency of directional selection” (p. 31).

“Towards a new evolutionary synthesis”. Robert L. Carroll, Trends in Evolution and Ecology, 2000, 15(1),:27-32.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/ls201.htm

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! There's evidence for gravity..........but there's no evidence for macro evolution.

From your other thread, you questioned there was empirical evidence for gravity.

Oh?

Is there empirical evidence for gravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no fossils that shows macro evolution!

Read about it. Scroll down.

Sure there are. You just do not acknowledge they exist.

Say....what's Charnia? Where can I buy some today?

Was the whale ever a land dwelling creature?

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there are. You just do not acknowledge they exist.

Say....what's Charnia? Where can I buy some today?

Was the whale ever a land dwelling creature?

None. That's why you're having a hard time giving a straight answer.

You'll find multitudes of assumptions like, "maybe"...."could be"...."likely"...."possibly"......BUT you won't find an evidence.

That's right. Just keep asking questions about them!

So.......where's the evidence for the whale?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None.

That's right. Just keep asking questions about them!

So.......where's the evidence for the whale?

Was the whale ever a land dwelling creature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, obviously this thread is a religious focused creation versus evolution topic; accordingly, it should not be in the Health, Science and Technology Forum.

request to MLW moderators: please move this thread to the appropriate forum

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's detrimental to my health...

even for you that's a bit of a reach to suggest your health is affected; however, considering the OP is actively "arguing" the exact same thing in the religious forum based 'NAS' related thread... perhaps this thread should be rolled on into it. Surely, if nothing else, the detriment to your health would be dealt with!

.

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even for you that's a bit of a reach to suggest your health is affected; however, considering the OP is actively "arguing" the exact same thing in the religious forum based 'NAS' related thread... perhaps this thread should be rolled on into it. Surely, if nothing else, the detriment to your health would be dealt with!

.

Yes, I was kidding. Trying to lighten the mood, and all that.

I actually enjoy these arguments, because, you can't lose!

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the whale ever a land dwelling creature?

Based on what my credible sources have to say about evolution....the answer is a resounding, NO!

Take the example of whales — using evolution as their guide and knowing how natural selection works, biologists knew that the transition of early whales from land to water occurred in a series of predictable steps. The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html#sthash.O0cw6DjG.dpuf

"MIGHT HAVE."

I tell you, you'll find a lot of assumptions - "could have,"....."may have"........"likely"......"possibly"........

No evidence. Only speculations.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your other thread, you questioned there was empirical evidence for gravity.

:rolleyes:

I asked the poster if there is evidence for gravity! I want to see his answer!

Myself, I was thinking of the apple from the tree, falling and landing on someone's head!

Obviously you couldn't see where I was going with that question!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

I asked the poster if there is evidence for gravity! I want to see his answer!

Myself, I was thinking of the apple from the tree, falling and landing on someone's head!

Obviously you couldn't see where I was going with that question!

I'll just ignore you for now, Waldo.....

For shiggles, I would love to hear your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For shiggles, I would love to hear your answer.

What do you think the falling apple was all about? :blink:

betsy

I asked the poster if there is evidence for gravity! I want to see his answer!

Myself, I was thinking of the apple from the tree, falling and landing on someone's head!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what my credible sources have to say about evolution....the answer is a resounding, NO!

http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html#sthash.O0cw6DjG.dpuf

"MIGHT HAVE."

I tell you, you'll find a lot of assumptions - "could have,"....."may have"........"likely"......"possibly"........

No evidence. Only speculations.

Incorrect. Whales started out as land dwellers. They evolved into their current forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...