Originally posted by DigiMark007Aww... cute.
tinkabear
Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?
No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Aww... cute.Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.
I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?
Once again, it's gene duplication, not genome. But read my response to ushome's article to get a better understanding of how it adds to total genome information. It's back on the last page.
Shakya's newspaper analogy works fairly well too.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
you should become a lawyer then. your a VERY good debater, and you'd do very well. you provide very good arguments, word them well and substantiate them much better than pretty much anyone else in the forum, although leonheartmm and shaky come close. and when you do become a lawyer, ima call you and higher u.
Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.
somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should 😱 ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloFor the former:
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonFor the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper.
Originally posted by DigiMark007My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.
I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the former: For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.
The problem is, we humans have put up a wall (species) that really isn't a wall, but a line in nature.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.
Many thanks. I've actually referred to fruit fly research in posts, but didn't know the technical term for it.
And yes, it would throw a wrench into the ID argument (even besides my comprehensive rebuttal on the last page...have to plug it as much as possible. It took me a while.). They'd likely still trumpet the lack of increased "information" (which would be sufficiently defined to erroneously support themselves) but observed evolution on such a large level is pretty much the final step in solidifying any remaining (legit) complaints.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should 😱 ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?
You'd be surprised. I tend to forget points when I'm talking, or bring something up and fail to support it sufficiently, because the justification is already in my mind but I don't articulate it. I'm more thorough when writing because I can look over everything and fix it...generally not everything comes out right the first time, which it would need to in a debate. I suppose that would be remedied with some prep for a courtroom setting. But being a lawyer would still be rather dull (imo, at least).
But thanks. And I'm an English teacher. Or will be once I find a job ( 😬 ).
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I think the idea is that flies will always make flies.
Then how would you explain this:?
100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then how would you explain this:?100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.
Of course, sabertooth tigers were just cats, and mammoths were just a type of elephant (in a sense). So, the species might be different, but they are the same "kind" of creature.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That would depend on the viewpoint, now wouldn't it? A YEC would say that the universe has not been around for 100 million years while an OEC/IDT might say that such changes would involve intervention (divine, alien, or otherwise).Of course, Saber-tooth tigers were just cats, and mammoths were just a type of elephant (in a sense). So, the species might be different, but they are the same "kind" of creature.
Saber-tooth tigers and mammoths lived 10,000 years ago, not 100 million.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No...they did live just in different forms...you know the light from one candle to another...the candle can be complete different but the flame is the same...albeit a different flame....🙂
I agree with that. I think that species change over time. The body we live in is like clay. From generation to generation the body can and does change to adapt to the environment. However, once an animal is born, it is locked in and will survive or not, but the larger picture, from generation to generation to not fixed.
Originally posted by DigiMark007i personally will give you 50 dollars if you come to my school in LA.
\You'd be surprised. I tend to forget points when I'm talking, or bring something up and fail to support it sufficiently, because the justification is already in my mind but I don't articulate it. I'm more thorough when writing because I can look over everything and fix it...generally not everything comes out right the first time, which it would need to in a debate. I suppose that would be remedied with some prep for a courtroom setting. But being a lawyer would still be rather dull (imo, at least).
But thanks. And I'm an English teacher. Or will be once I find a job ( 😬 ).
(and btw ppl, never forget the dancing banana 💃 💃 always gotta get 1 of those in every once in a while
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saber-tooth tigers and mammoths lived 10,000 years ago, not 100 million.
Of course, your post doesn't address anything I said but rather points out the gaff I made in dating.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, I was going to correct this, but then I fell asleep. Although, the sabertooth tiger might have lived 2.5 million years ago.Of course, your post doesn't address anything I said but rather points out the gaff I made in dating.
The rest of what you said? There are people who believe that the moon landing was a hoax, also. How old is the Earth?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".
"we dine in hell" because you put "ruppes" in quotes and spelled it wrong. Now "all your base are belong to us".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I tried to be a brief as possible. 😂
LOL!!! That was teh funnies.