Macroevolution 3a

Before entering into the final part of the "Macroevolution" trilogy I have decided to give transitional fossils their own chapter so I can clear them out of the way and focus on other evidence in the final part.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Darwin
• evolution
• macro
• transitional
• fossils
• ida
• tiktaalik
• archaeopteryx
• ambulocetus
• creationism
• piltdown
• nebraska
• java
• man

[tinySpectacle]

This is very nicely articulated and I learned a lot. Thanks!

[ProcInc]

You're very welcome:) thankyou for the comment

[ProcInc]

"No person...knows except you"

"Know" has implications beyond the realsm of science. We have determined beyond reaosnably doubt as to the best explanation based on all data.

Einstein did not agree with you, even if he did it would be irrelevent because despite your assumptions, science does not rely on authority in the same way religious beliefs do.

Modern scientists by the way are smarter than Einstein, they have access to all of his theories plus the corrections and extensions to them

[stevebee92653]

@ProcInc No person who ever lives or lived on the planet earth knows except you! And the evo believers and dedicated scientists who think the ultra simplistic theory that animals choosing to kill and eat other animals and non-occurring good mutations produced all of nature. Einstein didn't know, but he agreed with my take. So we must conclude that you are smarter than Einstein, and that is very smart! So, to conclude, since no one knows, I know that no one knows. Pretty smart, eh?

[ProcInc]

"I am honest, you are fooled"

You aren't honest at all you make up anything you want about what evolution is and isn't and what motivates every person who dissents from your ignorance.

You even go so far as to invent answers to your own challenges that agree with you and impose them as the only correct answer..

If you know nothing how are you meant to be able to assume that anyone else knows nothing? you have no way of knowing that and yuo are simply projecting your shortcomings again

[stevebee92653]

I argue with people who also know nothing, but are fooled into thinking they know everything. They think they have all the answers. Like you. I am honest, you are fooled.

[ProcInc]

"So you know how the algo's [sic] formed"

They didn't exactly *form* from non-aloes, you are using silly creationist logic of marching back anything to require a designer (except the creator of course!)

Even if the alogarithms were authored (Besides us writing the alogarithms to explain the interactions of nature) it still means evolution happens according to the alogarithms and you are trying simply to shoe horn your philosophy into it

If you think you know nothing, why do you argue?

[stevebee92653]

So you know how the algo's formed? What a laugh. And they were just there? Dumb-luck of nature. I really am beginning to believe you are Gawd hisself. You are young. Someday you will realize that you don't know anything.

[ProcInc]

Did they write the alogarithms"

Anything that exists in the natural world has properties and therefore can be tested, measured gauged and of course explained. So by explaining what was going in the natural world we did write the alogarithms to explain it, yes.

"You know everything"

You are stuck in this conviction that when anyone knows anything at all about anything you take it to mean that they must think they know everything and must be shunned. Your denying everything helps that too

[ProcInc]

"Who wrote the alogarithms?"

Nobody, or indeed nothing for that matter. The system came about by the interaction between simple natural laws.

It doesn't take an author for properties to be properties. That implies that unless written otherwise everything by default in infinite in resources.

Don't apply silly creationist logic to things you have no understanding of Steve