Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ya every time I use the term micro to macro I am told by many here scientist do not use those terms. I have tried to show them they in fact do but they think it is a term creationist use as some kind of defense. So if nothing else come from this thread those nay sayer will have to finally admit scientist in fact do use those term.
The big question is will they admit they were wrong.
there is more than one thing going on here. It seems to be a thing with these discussions.
one: the terms macro and micro are fine and they are used. Erwin say is a macroevolutionist. I have no idea why it was important to attack that part. It kind of gives us look into what we are dealing with.
two: it doesn't matter to these atheist here what is going on. They are so focused on attacking that which scarred them they (The good hearted people just trying their best) just don't care about thinking through this. And what the loud mouths are saying and doing. It all based on their faith. as well meaning as it is, its just faith to me.
three: none of that matters to the claim about ID.
I am just happy that you use actual data and that milkyway is using data to. Its a start to forming a base belief.
there is more than one thing going on here. It seems to be a thing with these discussions.
one: the terms macro and micro are fine and they are used. Erwin say is a macroevolutionist. I have no idea why it was important to attack that part. It kind of gives us look into what we are dealing with.
two: it doesn't matter to these atheist here what is going on. They are so focused on attacking that which scarred them they (The good hearted people just trying their best) just don't care about thinking through this. And what the loud mouths are saying and doing. It all based on their faith. as well meaning as it is, its just faith to me.
three: none of that matters to the claim about ID.
I am just happy that you use actual data and that milkyway is using data to. Its a start to forming a base belief.
Yup and as far as I am concerned they can view that data differently then I do, but that is not what takes place on this forum. Its the you have to conform to my view of the data or else mentality. It is exactly the same mentality we see in the Christian fundy's you have to believe as I do our you are toast.
Hell view are all over the place on just about every topic, but lets all be quite and don't speak about them.
Anyway my vacation is almost over so I really should get back to more important things. Always good to see some of you guys, yourself, Mystic, Harry (yes I like Harry even though we disagree on just about everything.)
Its even worse pneum, they don't care.
They are stopping religion and good people, well meaning people, just don't care about the truth.
They bought into "just get out of our way".
This thread sure looks like that Arach, especially that post of Matadorea's. If a Christian said anything close to that just about everyone would jump all over them and it would be well deserved yet what did we hear here. crickets.
Point 1. I realize that Mike, but the book if I remember correctly was ID's views against some of theistic evolution views.
Yes.
Quote:
2. I can't say that as I simply do not know, but it is possible. I know they hold to a range of different beliefs.
I could be wrong but I think Behe believes in theistic evolution.
Michael Behe is a proponent of Intelligent Design but is not one of the contributors of the book Theistic Evolution, which again argues against that view.
However, Francis Collins is a Theistic evolutionist.
According to geneticist Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project, and is a Christian and a theistic evolutionist, Intelligent Design is putting God into a gap in scientific knowledge that is now getting rapidly filled (20:15 in video below).
Francis Collins: Evolution and Christianity are both true
Yup and as far as I am concerned they can view that data differently then I do, but that is not what takes place on this forum. Its the you have to conform to my view of the data or else mentality. It is exactly the same mentality we see in the Christian fundy's you have to believe as I do our you are toast.
Hell view are all over the place on just about every topic, but lets all be quite and don't speak about them.
Anyway my vacation is almost over so I really should get back to more important things. Always good to see some of you guys, yourself, Mystic, Harry (yes I like Harry even though we disagree on just about everything.)
Don't be a tranger, pneuma. Keep stopping by in your off time.
in other words yes we use those terms and you will see another word there that I am told scientist never use " neodarwinian" . seems I have been correct all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
The phrase "neo-Darwinism" is not widely used by scientists, and may reflect a desire by creationists to dismiss Darwin's ideas merely as another "-ism," rather than a robust scientific theory.
The UCLS professor used the term "neodarwinian synthesis" NOT "neo-Darwinism"
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I used the book because it was from scientists most here would believe. And the dates in the book of 10Ma is a lot lower then the time line you and Mike gave. And yes the book is 7 years old and things have changed in those 7 years as some scientist are now saying it is closer to a 5Ma time period.
You keep stating this but have yet to post any supporting evidence. Can you please provide supporting evidence that's credible? Keep in mind that because some outliner scientists are claiming something does not mean it's accurate. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So when he confirms what I said he wrote is that going to be your new defense he is a closet ID proponent. You don't seem to realize you just took a cheep shot towards him.
Being skeptical is a cheap shot? Simply because I wondered about the Discovery Institute promoting his book....this is a cheap shot? Hardly not! It's smart to be skeptical. It's a tool to prevent one from being gullible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
In other words if he turned out to be an ID advocate then what he wrote in the book is all incorrect according to you. Not very open minded are you.
In fact it's very open minded of me because I've already done my homework on ID. There is nothing credible about ID...especially when it comes to science. Recall the Dover trial?
Recall the critique of Stephen C. Meyer's book titled Explore Evolution? There's plenty of evidence as to why no one should trust anything claimed by the ID camp when it comes to the topic of science. ID promotes distortions and misrepresentations of modern evolutionary science. Why would I purchase a book written by an ID proponent with a track record like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I could have told you that. But that did not answer your question to him or did you forget to post his whole reply.
His reply said it all. He's not interested and "rarely bothered with what the creationists are doing." He's not going to respond to anything else I ask if it pertains debunking creationists. You need to learn to read between the lines. When I read that response I knew it would be the last time he would reply to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
eek gad the US fought against that type of mentality in the wars and you want to bring it back in.
Can you please point to to the war the US fought to protect us from being manipulated by AI? A war that fought against AI steering the thoughts and actions of people’s minds every day?
they are very cool. and he is right, evolution is evolution. Like football is football. And talking to a science professor about what people are actually claiming is very cool. Most of them are spot on talking about interpretations in science.
Indeed they are!
My old retired plant biology professor friend responded to my macro and micro question He's a cool old hippy from UT Austin and worked as a traveling Biology professor in Japan up until 2017 when he retired to take care of his 90 something year old mother in San Antonio, TX. Below is what he messaged me of FB. We've know each other since the early 90's.
To start, I'm old school on the topic of evolution (and by no means an expert), so I can't speak to how the topic has changed over recent times (as presented in a college textbook today). Classically, the 3 major types of evolution are: divergent, convergent, and parallel. I don't recall using micro- and macroevolution in my basic lectures (the chapters following genetics in a general biology textbook).
I'm not familiar with RationalWiki - it was the first reference to catch my eye in a keyword search. It appears to reference the historic first use of these 2 terms, and gives each a basic definition - along the lines of "common sense" applications. As you'll see, and not infrequent in occurrence, creationists appear to have come along and hijacked the terms for their own purposes (reminding me of what is called "intelligent design", an effort by creationists to rebrand their doctrine and get it into public school textbooks equal to evolutionary theory).Microevolution and macroevolution
And a recent treaty of micro/macro from a religion-based site - I didn't read it closely enough to be specific, but again - looks like they've hijacked the terms, or have given them more specific definitions or interpretations than intended by biologists, and suddenly they have yet another argument in furthering their "intelligent design", or creationism by any other name. Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
My old retired plant biology professor friend responded to my macro and micro question He's a cool old hippy from UT Austin and worked as a traveling Biology professor in Japan up until 2017 when he retired to take care of his 90 something year old mother in San Antonio, TX. Below is what he messaged me of FB. We've know each other since the early 90's.
To start, I'm old school on the topic of evolution (and by no means an expert), so I can't speak to how the topic has changed over recent times (as presented in a college textbook today). Classically, the 3 major types of evolution are: divergent, convergent, and parallel. I don't recall using micro- and macroevolution in my basic lectures (the chapters following genetics in a general biology textbook).
I'm not familiar with RationalWiki - it was the first reference to catch my eye in a keyword search. It appears to reference the historic first use of these 2 terms, and gives each a basic definition - along the lines of "common sense" applications. As you'll see, and not infrequent in occurrence, creationists appear to have come along and hijacked the terms for their own purposes (reminding me of what is called "intelligent design", an effort by creationists to rebrand their doctrine and get it into public school textbooks equal to evolutionary theory).Microevolution and macroevolution
And a recent treaty of micro/macro from a religion-based site - I didn't read it closely enough to be specific, but again - looks like they've hijacked the terms, or have given them more specific definitions or interpretations than intended by biologists, and suddenly they have yet another argument in furthering their "intelligent design", or creationism by any other name. Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
don't waste your time on religion creation sites. You can smush whatever they say quickly. Its not even close. deity is so far from reality a 3rd grader can get around it when not bashed over the head with faith.
he said he is an old retired professor and doesn't recall using them. the terms are in use today. like making a call to a friend. She used to say "just ask the operator." My mom would never have used the words "how many bars do you have?"
why even worry about the words? The words probably came about because as we grew in population and understanding we need to be a bit more precise what we were looking at. When a person uses the "macro" in relation to evolution that tells us they are looking at things we can see with out eyes. Thats all.
yes they hijack stuff. Me, for one, wish they would hijack more stuff. like dump blind faith as a source of strength and insert the scientific method for a source of strength.
Michael Behe is a proponent of Intelligent Design but is not one of the contributors of the book Theistic Evolution, which again argues against that view.
Yes Behe believes in ID, yet he also believes in common descent which other ID proponents do not.
The reason it seems Behe does not fully support theistic evolution is because, well I will let him explain that is this 2 min. video.
However, Francis Collins is a Theistic evolutionist.
According to geneticist Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project, and is a Christian and a theistic evolutionist, Intelligent Design is putting God into a gap in scientific knowledge that is now getting rapidly filled (20:15 in video below).
Francis Collins: Evolution and Christianity are both true
Nice video, the man has a good sense of humor and explains his view pretty well.
How does theistic evolution deal with the top down findings in the Cambrian explosion? Because from the Darwinian theory it should have been bottom up?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
