that's not what i said. learn to read.
rigorously define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" for me.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
that's not what i said. learn to read.
Then what did you say?
What purpose could stating the obvious have? You can not possibily be imply that you don't know.rigorously define "microevolution" and "macroevolution" for me.
there is no proof that "microevolution" can lead to "macroevolution" because that is logically implied. there is no room for proof in this situation, as there is no proof that 1+1=2Then what did you say?
so you can't give me rigorous definitions of those two words?What purpose could stating the obvious have? You can not possibily be imply that you don't know.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
evolution is a fact because it's observed.
We have not observed all of evolution. Natural selection has been observed. It is a theory, which states that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. And a very good theory at that
what do you mean by this?We have not observed all of evolution.
no, that's the theory of common descent.Natural selection has been observed. It is a theory, which states that all life evolved from a single-celled organism. And a very good theory at that
there is no proof that "microevolution" can lead to "macroevolution" because that is logically implied. there is no room for proof in this situation, as there is no proof that 1+1=2
so you can't give me rigorous definitions of those two words?
Implication is irrelevant.
Logic never uses implication.
"Can't" means "incapacity" or inability, Obviously, I'm capable The question is why I should and you don't want to. I don't do juvenile dares.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
what do you mean by this?.
We do not know for sure that common descent is true or 'fact' as you put it
no, that's the theory of common descent
Is common descent not a part of evolutionary theory?
i guess we're talking about two different things. when i talk about evolution, i mean the observation that species change over time given a change in their environment.We do not know for sure that common descent is true or 'fact' as you put it
Is common descent not a part of evolutionary theory?
uh, yeah it does
obviously i have a purpose for asking you. but if you're scared you'll make a mistake, then it's your choice to look stupid.
I do not enagage in Juvenile Dares in these discussions.
Your preception of me is extraneous and superflous. I see you as no authority. You are certainly nothing I would ever choose to subject myself too blindly. Better to appear stupid and than to be foolish enough to walk into a trap. I have no reason to trust you what so ever.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
i guess we're talking about two different things. when i talk about evolution, i mean the observation that species change over time given a change in their environment.
Fair enough, I took from Swivels post that he was talking about evolution as a whole. I still disagree with saying evolution is not a theory but that natural selection is a theory which explains evolution.
Natural selection should be a law and is even more solid than evolution, since, not only is it observed as part of evolution, it simply must happen in all circumstances (i.e. it is impossble to deny that natural selection will happen)
yeah, i don't understand that either :/Fair enough, I took from Swivels post that he was talking about evolution as a whole. I still disagree with saying evolution is not a theory but that natural selection is a theory which explains evolution.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.