There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01
-
In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am
Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Interbane wrote:There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01
I didn't broach gradualism. not once.
Try to keep up.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
It was directed at Flann.
Flann wrote:The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
This appears to be similar to the finches on different islands where you get variations in beak sizes and speciation.Interbane wrote:There are bandwagoners here, but you'll need to look in the mirror to find them. Why are you talking about gradualism only? The question is where the balance lies between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. I never mentioned gradualism. You're bringing up non-issues.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ctuated_01
And in the end what have you got? Slightly different finches and mollusks which have changed into mollusks.
Great!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/th ... 74741.html
Last edited by Flann 5 on Wed May 25, 2016 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
You were wrong about gradualism being an issue. Now your issue is that small changes do not add up to the large changes required by macro evolution. This subtle shift from one non-issue to another is endless. It's denialism.Flann wrote:This appears to be similar to the finches on different islands where you get variations in beak sizes and speciation.
And in the end what have you got? Slightly different finches and mollusks which have changed into mollusks.
Great!
Macro evolution is shown to be true through a number of crucial experiments. It's been tested and supported independently of the mechanisms found in micro evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And, as long as Coyne is being referenced:
“Many who reject darwinism on religious grounds . . . argue that such small changes [as seen in selective breeding] cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals. This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma’s train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida.”
– Coyne, Jerry A. 2001 (Aug 19). Nature 412:587.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Yeah but the train grandma's riding on and the route it takes is intelligently designed.
Doh!
Doh!
Last edited by ant on Wed May 25, 2016 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- DB Roy
-
Beyond Awesome
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
- 9
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 602 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
I told you guys--they are the SAME PERSON!! One answers for the other because it forgets which member ID it's using. It can't get consensus or agreement any other way than to create different IDs that sound so much alike everybody here confuses them and it confuses itself. Just because it gave the forum money doesn't make it worth wasting time arguing with it.Interbane wrote:It was directed at Flann.
Flann wrote:The problem is Interbane that it's Gould,Stanley and many other paleontologists who were the "deniers" of gradualism whether you like it or not.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Uh, yeah.., I think you're finally on to something, Roybot.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
Flann 5 and Ant are extremely dissimilar personalities. One likes to disagree agreeably while the other is a flamethrower. I'd never confuse the two.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose
That is the key issue Interbane,whether you can extrapolate from micro-to macro-evolution and whether the evidence supports it.Interbane wrote:You were wrong about gradualism being an issue. Now your issue is that small changes do not add up to the large changes required by macro evolution. This subtle shift from one non-issue to another is endless. It's denialism.
What experiments might these be? On the contrary, experiments with bacteria,fruit flies, crops and plants show distinct limits to evolutionary change. Bugs stay bugs,fruit flies stay fruit flies and the law of recurrent variation of mutations kicks in with plants and crops.Interbane wrote: Macro evolution is shown to be true through a number of crucial experiments. It's been tested and supported independently of the mechanisms found in micro evolution.
Douglas Theobald at Talk Origins makes Universal common descent foundational to his case. Now even if this was clearly disproved, such is the elasticity of the theory it would easily accommodate multiple lines of separate descent.Interbane wrote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI
http://www.discovery.org/a/24041
It's not at all surprising that various life forms should have similarities if they have the same creator or designer.Interbane wrote:And, as long as Coyne is being referenced:
“Many who reject darwinism on religious grounds . . . argue that such small changes [as seen in selective breeding] cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals. This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma’s train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida.”
– Coyne, Jerry A. 2001 (Aug 19). Nature 412:587.
Unquestionably many living things are related, quite obviously. Whether a whale is related to a hippopotamus is an entirely different proposition.
There is sharp discontinuity between the higher order animals in the fossil record.
Universal common descent and relatedness is assumed by the theory as axiomatic rather than proven.
Supposed convergent evolution if true does not suggest an unguided purposeless process but clear direction and goals in it.
It couldn't be that they have the same designer of course.
Here's a creationist response to Theobald's 29 "evidences" for macro-evolution.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.php
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu May 26, 2016 7:04 am, edited 3 times in total.