Jump to content


Photo

Well, since I'll be in the forums for a while why not make another thread.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#51 Justin B.

Justin B.

    Damage Control D5 EPL Paintball 2014!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:15 PM

O god this is gonna be good.


PAP Family - Damage Control #77

My Feedback: http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=210995

"CP anything should immediately reduce the value to zero, its painful to see nice guns with CP regs."

- Cookybiscuit


#52 Klub

Klub

    i haz a pickle

  • TechPB Players Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alaska


Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:24 PM

Macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same thing: evolution. When scientists use the "macro" or "micro," it's just for descriptive purposes, to clarify the time scale being talked about. Microevolution is just macroevolution when viewed on a small scale. Similarily, evolution is not something that requires belief. Like I said before, it's what happens. No amount of belief is going to change that.

 

Plus, you know, the whole scientific evidence for evolution thing...

 

I understand that belief is something that won't change anything. But, there is a difference between the two, the process may be theoretically the same. But, there is no evidence for macro evolution. We don't see any missing link, or half species of animal, alive, or fossilized 



#53 andrewthewookie

andrewthewookie

    Pull start me and I'm yours ;)

  • Chat Coordinator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,630 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Your bedroom


Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

No, there is no difference. There aren't two kinds of evolution, just two kinds of looking at it. Microevolution is the study of evolution on a small scale, macroevolution is the study of evolution on a large scale. The process is the same. And we have lots and lots of proof. Did you read the link at all? I know it's quite a long link, but please at least read it. You can't just say we have no proof, because we have lots of proof.

 

There are two main logical issues with the "missing link" argument.

  1. The absence of evidence fallacy: This fallacy holds that just because we don't have 100% of the fossil record means we're wrong about evolution. This is not true. "Missing links" are expected because of the sparse nature of fossil evidence. However, we have enough examples of species changing over time through the fossil record that we don't need every single "missing link" to prove the theory.
  2. Fallacy of division: The class of "missing links" has variation in the significance of its members. A single group of organisms clearly not connected with the rest of life would call evolution into question. A large number of trivial "missing links" means nothing, when we still have the pattern from the rest of the fossil record.

Here's an article I particularly like.


Edited by andrewthewookie, 12 July 2013 - 05:36 PM.

RebelSignaturejedicode-1.jpg
Hybrid SFT • 09 Impulse • HB REV-i • Macroless Mech Ion
Rotor • Grillz • PE 70/45 • Feedback - 23/0/0

Fear is the mind-killer


#54 IPlaySoccer

IPlaySoccer

    Resident Chelsea fan

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami, Florida

Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:41 PM

Does it make sense that micro evolution is possible? Yes, does that mean macro evolution is possible? I guess. But there is ZERO definitive evidence to back macro evolution, not to mention the flaws with carbon dating. Given enough time I do believe that macro evolution is possible, but the earth has not existed long enough for macro evolution to occur. Possible? Maybe. Has it happened? No.


I can be a bit of a smartass and even an a-hole. Please bear with me.

 

9ca1b1c13c8d04ea.png


#55 andrewthewookie

andrewthewookie

    Pull start me and I'm yours ;)

  • Chat Coordinator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,630 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Your bedroom


Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:43 PM

Please stop saying there is no evidence for macroevolution. You are just plain wrong when you say that, as well as with the age of the earth. And since it is apparent your views are based off religion, there is literally no point in arguing further. I'm going to lock this thread, since we're venturing into that side of things, and I'd rather things not get out of hand.


Edited by andrewthewookie, 12 July 2013 - 05:46 PM.

RebelSignaturejedicode-1.jpg
Hybrid SFT • 09 Impulse • HB REV-i • Macroless Mech Ion
Rotor • Grillz • PE 70/45 • Feedback - 23/0/0

Fear is the mind-killer


#56 Justin B.

Justin B.

    Damage Control D5 EPL Paintball 2014!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 12 July 2013 - 05:44 PM

Holy cow, I wonder how long the evolution debate can go on. The comments have gotten so lang about it that I have stopped reading them. lol


PAP Family - Damage Control #77

My Feedback: http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=210995

"CP anything should immediately reduce the value to zero, its painful to see nice guns with CP regs."

- Cookybiscuit





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users