Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Giovanni

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Giovanni last won the day on October 5 2015

Giovanni had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About Giovanni

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    00
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    N/A
  1. Giovanni

    The Aura Of Scientific Legitimacy

    That's not his point. His point is that they are categorizing things incorrectly; anything goes under "science" should be following the scientific method by definition, while anything that goes under "religion" should be a philosophy. I personally agree with the label that "Intelligent Design" is a research program, since it seeks evidence of design in nature [1]:
  2. Giovanni

    Hacked?

    Redirects for me now as well. It didn't do that previously when Fred mentioned that the issue was fixed.
  3. I would suggest you stop deflecting and address the main topic. This is not about creationism, it's about Homo Naledi. Click here to try again.
  4. How is this an argument? It would be if you are saying that all of the transitional links lived in savanna habitats. Is this what you're saying? Because that doesn't make sense. I'm asking this question because I want you to scientifically justify this position. This shouldn't be hard if your standpoint is scientific after all. Also, what do you know about me to make this underlined straw man argument? My personal opinions are irrelevant when evidence is being discussed, so should be yours. This is a forum where scientific evidence is evaluated, but not a forum where you can float your beliefs. If you have evidence, post it. If you don't, there's no need to respond. I thought you would. Maybe because you were the one who said this:
  5. Could you explain why? Given the time frames of Darwinian evolution, one should expect to find them in abundance. I know this depends on the environment, but I don't think an environment would change in a way to only allow for 5 to 10 "transitional fossilizations" to occur during 5 million years, would it? The problem with this statement is that we don't actually find "transitional fossils", but we find fragments and skeletal remains which we interpret in different ways. The way I see it, there's no real way to determine whether a fossil is transitional or not, because it would allow different interpretations: a transitional fossil series for a specific life form, if it ever exists, would not. Such as the Cambrian and Ediacaran explosion?
  6. Giovanni

    False Evidence

    Case on point, gilbo. I was about to open a new thread to discuss a similar situation when I saw that you have already did. I found the following post today, and I couldn't leave it alone: What really makes me amazed is how such person claims to know the age of the Earth, then proceeds to make a statement such as "radiometric dating of zircon is how we got the age of the earth". As far as I know, the oldest Zircon date from Jack Hills is supposedly 4.4 billion years [1] and that the age of the Earth was concluded based on radiometric dating of meteorite materials. This question on stackexchange I believe represents this position in a clear way [2] Now why I find this troublesome is because the person supposedly "knows" that the age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years, but seems to not know how such date was concluded; how come is this possible? What really makes me post this is because the person was attacking faith in his original post while claiming to represent science (in a 'meme'), but then he posted this statement. My question is, how come can such person "represent science" when it appears that he might be clueless about what he's talking? Doesn't it make his position weaker than it actually is when he promotes false evidence like this? I believe this also gives hints about him having blind faith in his statement that "zircon is how we got the age of the earth", because such statement can be even invalidated in a few seconds through the internet. I'm not trying to over-react or go hard on him, but certainly people that make such claims, and I see them quite a lot, shouldn't be allowed to represent a supposedly scientific position. I really find this unreasonable given that these are the kind of people who attack creationists, especially when they demand creationists to "learn about radiometric dating and evolution (actually universal common ancestry)" - it's more evident to me that the person making this claim didn't bother by at least searching the web to see how the age of the Earth was actually concluded.
  7. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    I think I don't, but that's not the real issue. The real issue is that the OP questions were not addressed, and that I think we have been side-tracking the main topic for long enough. The picture is illustrative to avoid misconceptions about creationism. If you aren't sure what creationism is, which appears to be the case according to your posts (i.e "If dogs suddenly did not give birth to dogs it would be more like creationism", "whereas at one point people thought that each and every one was brought into existence by god"), then you need to either read more about creationism or not talk about it at all. Wings are not necessarily the issue, obviously. I'm pretty sure you know what I mean, but you chose to side-track the argument as always. If anything, I would call it a shame. As far as the "evolutionary logic" goes, anything evolves would have evolved because "it was useful", or because "nature wanted it" [1] - you obviously didn't consider a wolf gradually building complex organs through genetic variation, did you? What do you think we meant by "macroevolution"? Again, the image doesn't state that the wings magically poof'd into existence, so that's a straw man argument, but that doesn't mean that "999 million years later" should have been written next to the wolf either. You don't just make unsupported claims and get away with it. I think what Calypsis means is that organisms can vary according to their DNA limitations, but they don't gradually evolve into more complex organisms as opposed to the common belief that such changes can accumulate and produce more complex living organisms gradually given enough time, which is the unsupported assertion the main post addresses.
  8. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    Firstly, nobody thought that. Secondly, YECs have no issues with claims of "new species" Finally, speciation is not an issue. Here's the issue: P.S drawings are not mine.
  9. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    Actually, I personally agree with gilbo. From what I see, invoking the classification system in this topic is nothing but an approach to manipulation, especially when the term "species" is used; it doesn't reveal anything about reality whatsoever. I'll wait for responses that address the questions raised by the OP more thoroughly. I appreciate your input and time, though.
  10. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    Good point, but doesn't the fact that the genome size of bacteria is small/simple make a mutation, for example, more effective for later generations due to natural selection? I guess popular examples would be antibiotic resistance and the ability to specialize. But how is this relevant to the time required by macroevolution? I believe you are basing this conclusion on the time taken for such generations to rise, but bacteria for example has large population sizes and short replication times. I'm not trying to argue that macroevolution must happen for bacteria; actually, if one considers the genome size of bacteria, it would seem that mutations are rare: but I'm trying to elaborate why I don't think that reproduction is a good reason to claim that macroevolution must take long periods of time, especially when you believe that the accumulation of genetic variations would lead to macroevolution; there have been cases of rapid "evolution" (but not macroevolution). [1]
  11. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    What makes you believe that they don't evolve because they are constrained by their genome size? I mean, won't mutations and random DNA copying errors at least push them to evolve? I understand environment pressure plays a role in this as well, but I expect them to continue evolving the same way they supposedly did millions of years ago; I don't see why not [1]. You may correct me. I believe you can provide a better answer to the question as to why it should take long time for macroevolution to take place.
  12. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    How does reproduction contribute to the idea that macroevolution must take a long time to occur? For example, E. coli reproduces very quickly; they "double in number every 20 minutes in ideal conditions" [1] - how long do you think we should wait for a new life form to arise from the reproductions of E. coli in this case? I agree that new 'species' can evolve (noting the controversy of the term here), but that doesn't mean that all of the species should share a universal common ancestor. What if, for example, each species originally came from distinct ancestors and genetic information, which is what creation suggests? (and not a dog giving birth to something else)
  13. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    I agree, and the fact that the definition of "macroevolution" states that it "happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species" [1] (as Enoch also pointed out) makes mrchopper's statement questionable. Even though it can still be argued whether speciation is part of macroevolution or not if one were to believe in universal common ancestry, using the term "speciation" here is not accurate nor sustainable to properly answer the questions raised by the OP, anyways. I believe mrchopper can come with something better.
  14. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    Thank you Cal, I appreciate it. That's why I preferred if the term 'speciation'/'species' is avoided when discussing origins.
  15. Giovanni

    A Scientific Assertion Without Evidence?

    I believe there might be a misunderstanding. The question was targeting why you believe it would take long time for microevolutionary changes, the forces which we see today, to accumulate to macroevolution; but it wasn't asking whether you assume that microevolution would accumulate to macroevolution. It's clear from the OP that this assumption was what triggered the post, and the OP asks for an explanation for this assumption, while the question you are responding to asks why you believe that it must take long time frames. I wouldn't take this as an answer, but you may correct me if I misinterpreted your post. I notice that you are pointing out to the forces we see today, but the forces we see today don't show any signs of macroevolution. What makes you believe that the forces we see today are the same forces which made macroevolution take place, if it ever did? I have read this before, but I prefer if we avoid using the terms "species" and "speciation" here, since that they are too broad and controversial when dealing with origins, assuming that you believe in universal common ancestry. The bottom part of your comment seems to suggest the same thing as the first part of your comment, so I'm going to stop here. The question here is, what makes you believe that it's "hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution", or to put it in another way, on what scientific evidence did you build such conclusion? I agree, and this would be something against nature to poof from nothing indeed, but the fact that the definition of the term 'God' implies that God is supernatural makes this argument invalid. Besides, I don't think that the statement "God creating species from nothing" is an appropriate one to describe creationists' belief [, if that's what you were trying to do?], but I think a more appropriate statement to use is that God created the main genetic information required for "speciation" to take place. Anyways, as the OP doesn't mention God, this is off-topic. Thanks for your input.
×

Important Information

Our Terms