We can change the topic after
This will end in 3 min, you might want to create a new link if you guys want to continue (this is awesome btw)
I guess that's it?
At 5:40, I should pay more attention to my pants game even though you can see from the waste up.
Dropping of the testicles has no effect on the sex organ and even if the sex organ does change that has no effect on whether it's still a monkey or not. Nobody dispute microevolution. It's obvious but no evidence of macro evolution has ever been discovered. Occasionally things like Lucy and claimed but later proven frauds. They just discovered the Lucy skeleton, claimed as the great proof of the missing link (there should be billions of them yet none have ever been found) has a vertebra of an actual animal showing itself to be a fraud.
@nellyj As my own rule I don't rehash debates in the comment section. The claim that there is no evidence is worthy of examintion onto itself. However, I took this debate on 10 minutes notice and I did not have time to prepare with primary sources - IE: direct evidence. Because of that, I tried to frame my argument in things that any reasonable person could agree upon. But, I am more than happy to revisit this at a future debate with a bit more preperation time with @nellyj, @akyriak, or anyone else. Hope you have a fun 4th.
I do not understand this macro micro distinction.It seems to me just to be a deniable of speciation as a concept rather than a critique of evolution.The other problem is that there is no clear reason why micro does not infer macro. Micro gravity infers macro gravity, micro germ theory infers macro germ theory, this is no different.
@benmouse42 That's kind of how I was trying to make my case. If you accept 'microevolution' you must also accept 'macroevolution' given a long enough period of time.
@benmouse42 the difference is in the kind of change, in micro evolution, the species remains the same, the hypothesis behind macro evolution is that one species can become a completely different animal, fish can become amphibians, reptiles birds, and so on, this is what the actual argument is about and something of which there's no viable evidence and all the evidence to the contrary
@benmouse42 there is every reason. Micro and macro are completely separate issue and to assume macro from observing micro is absurd and the real problem as it's all the evidence that exists for evolution but it's none at all.
Cambrian Explosuon has admittedly blown evolution apart.
@behind_the_veil_of_ignorance maybe after our morality II debate. I think @akyriak did a great job though. Good discussion you two.
@nellyj if you keep on changing small things about an animal until it looks like another animal is that micro or macro evolution
@benmouse42 that's not how it works. Small changes never get you a new animal. You have no evidence that it has ever happened. You keep saying "evolution has been proven" where evolution is obviously macro evolution but I don't think you're clear on what macro evolution is.
@nellyj I think that's why he's asking... maybe provide some more info? I only know macro micro economics so it will be useful for me too! lol
@nellyj Look this is just speciation.You take group A, we both agree group A can change in small ways over time.Lets say group A is a group of turtles that have a regular habitat, lets call it location X.Now in an odd environmental turn of events some % of group A gets caught in an ocean current and end up in another habitat, lets call it location Y.Now we have two groups: Group A (location X) and Group B (location Y)Now group A continues to 'micro evolve' to suit location X, but group B is 'micro evolving to suit location Y. The environments in X and Y are different and thus the micro evolution's are pushing the turtles in different directions. Some of the turtles are adapting to hotter temperatures and their stomachs are ingesting a different diet.Now the groups are still the same animal up until the point where they cease to be able to breed successful offspring together. Then they are two distinct species, and that my friend is one form of how you get speciation from micro evolution.
@benmouse42 temperature and diet are in no way able to produce different species nor is a series of tiny changes that may come from that. You're really reaching with that proposition for which no evidence exists. Micro evolution is observable but macro is in no way observable and in no way reasonable. The idea that a series of tiny changes + time will move a single cell creature to an incredibly complex human is patently absurd let alone the idea that that turtle would eventually turn into a completely different animal.
@nellyj You haven't actually provided any reason why my logic is wrong, you've just used a few strawman intuition pumps. Obviously in my example you'd just get 2 different turtle species. Replicate that process infinitely and you could get very different animals.
@benmouse42 Why would you ever think that though? You have no reason to even conceive that it could ever happen. Provide evidence of the billions of intermediate turtles/other species that would have been required to bridge the gap
@nellyj well there are fossil records.... (not of turtle to human, but there are homo erectus etc)But also, if you admit micro evolutions exist, what reason do you have to say there is an arbitrary line where they stop happening? How much does a species have to change before it becomes another species?
@benmouse42 but you have no fossil records...at all. Nothing. You seem to think the difference between a English Bulldog and a bulldog is no different than that of an English bulldog and a turtle save time. Where is the evidence? All you have is massive speculation based purely on Faith. "Evolution is a religion, the worship of a make-believe Time-God"
@jax Thanks for the comment. It is worth noting that we took this debate ad hoc with 10 minutes notice, hence why neither party had prepared sources. I also think looking for sources during the debate sounds good in theory. In my experience, it is not easy to do in the middle of a debate.
@jax a few points Jax -Like Joel said our debate was a spur of the moment type thing-I didn't discuss anything that needed sources until the end, I discussed the logic and science behind DNA that disproves evolution-Joel, and presumably yourself, believe in evolution because other people teach it, although most people have never honestly looked into it for themselves. I kept asking Joel to discuss the evidence for it and one when one piece of evidence used to justify evolution was finally brought up at the end I provided a source Stephen Jay Gould, a harvard paleontologist who said that there are no transitional fossils. Any kind of evidence for the hypothesis has been proven false over time. Here's a source you can check out where some of the best scientists in the world agree that evolution is false, hundreds of them actually https://dissentfromdarwin.org/