Gman wrote:Why are you deleting my posts?
?????? I've done no such thing. I didn't even know I could delete any posts other than my own.
Gman wrote:Again.. A majority of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis...
Do you have some statistics to back up this assertion?
Gman wrote:This does not require a deity...
Is that what ID is about, alien seeding? Is that the view you hold to? The view most of those on this board hold to?
Gman wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:Science does not "totally prove" things. Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?
I disagree... There are many scientist that believe that evolution is an undeniable FACT.... It has already been proven... End of story.
Evolution is a "fact" because we see it happen, right before our eyes.
Gman wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:That may be your opinion, but the overwhelming opinion of the earth and life sciences community has been the exact opposite for over a century.
Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion...
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Gman wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:See the post above; we've seen it happen. And you still haven't answered the question: What makes macroevolution unscientific?
No, that is the point. We have not seen it happen. Our web site challenges that opinion, not fact,
here.
Well, now you're moving the goalposts on me. Earlier, you posted a link that gave the following definition for "macroevolution":
"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"
I operated in good faith from that definition (and even stated, "If you define macroevolution that way....."). You did not immediately point out that you defined "macroevolution" differently. But now that I've given an example that fully satisfies the above definition of "macroevolution" (that
you provided), you suddenly present a new link that offers a completely different definition: "Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc."
Why did you do that?
Gman wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:Can we stay focused on the topic at hand? I'd be happy to discuss the Cambrian in another thread, but for now I'd prefer to fully address the current topics before we start throwing in more (especially given that you have yet to answer some of my questions).
No... You have not provided any concrete evidence. What about the Cambrian explosion then? That is about all you can do it seems is ask questions...
I provided an example of the evolution of a new species, which is "macrovevolution" as defined by the link
you provided.
As I said, I would be happy to discuss the Cambrian with you, but I would prefer to cover the topics we are discussing now first. Would you like to start another thread on the Cambrian?
Gman wrote:Gerald McGrew wrote:Can you provide a citation or reference to a scientific source claiming that "a fish morphing into a human" is what macroevolution entails? Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of
argument via straw man?
That was the way it was taught to me.
By whom? Please be specific. And can I take it then that you are unable to provide a citation to a scientific source that claims "macroevolution is a fish morphing into a human"?
Gman wrote:How else to you propose that humans came into being?
Homo sapiens evolved from their primate ancestors.
Gman wrote:Ok, then show us how the first cell created itself via chemical evolution.
As I said, I would prefer to cover the topics at hand before we introduce all manner of new topics.
Gman wrote:Are you familiar with logical fallacy of an invisible man argument? These one's don't even exist...
No, I'm not familiar with what you're referring to.
Gman wrote:Misquoted? Are you denying the fact that Gould wrote that?
Of course not. But it's obvious S.J. Gould held the opinion that transitional fossils are "abundant" and that he was very annoyed when creationists took his quotes out of context to make it seem as if he held the opposite view. Earlier, David stated that "transitional fossils" were evidence for macroevolution. You responded:
"Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould."
Now, why would you quote a man who believed that transitional fossils are "abundant" and claim that he believed otherwise?
Gman wrote:Ok maybe you would prefer Richard Dawkins. When he was recently asked how life got started he calmly replied, "No one really knows how life got started."
I agree with Dawkins' statement. But it has nothing to do with the subject Gould was talking about.