Captain T3
New member
This person made the following statements:
"As for vestigial traits and appendages... we have no way of determining the function of these. Observational science involves things that can actually be observed in the present. Saying that a whale has a bone that proves it used to walk it silly. It is a guess, nothing more. There is no way to know if that bone was ever used for such."
"Vestigial traits are at best a mystery. You can infer anything that seems like it would be the best option for use, but there simply isn't any way to know. This is exactly why there is a missing link, because one doesn't exist, LOL. So as long as we keep looking for one, we will just keep associated things to it by making assumptions."
"Wow, humans have these little tail bones and humans are similar to apes, apes and humans must have evolved from some kind of monkeys with tails. See anyone can do it. How plausible would it sound if scientists weren't the ones doing the guessing?"
"I don't disagree with microevolution. I don't think we need to make a leap that we came from sludge is all!"
"I've already gone over microevolution vs. macroevolution. I will briefly again. You do realize they are completely different and that for some microevolution actually hinders the theory of evolution?"
"Any who, we can observe subspeciation. We cannot observe (or haven't yet observed) transspeciation. I cannot disagree with change within a kind when it is clearly evident. I can completely disagree with change from one kind to another since it is clearly not evident. It is just a guess as I said."
"Macroevolution requires expansion of the gene pool, adding genes and traits from simple to complex forms. So a small gene pool expands by mutation and selection into different types. Microevolution derives from a large gene pool which divides by migration and selection, changes within types (IOW, multiplying after one's kind)."
"Macroevolution is a guess. There is no evidence that proves it. And IMO there is evidence against it, including Microevolution. Eventually reproductive isolation results in a variety with a smaller gene pool than the original, restricted abilities to explore or meet changes in its own environment and then, extinction. While some think that the two (macro and micro) go hand-in-hand, I (along with others) think they are completely separate of each other."
"I understand the scientific process, which is why I usually add a yet to my posts. In the case of Macroevolution, I just don't believe it will happen. I do agree they should keep trying though even though I believe it to be futile."
"There are scientists who disagree with evolution. And there are those who aren't sure. They make sense to me as well."
After calling her out on several of these points, along with many others, she responded by saying she "majored in biology".
Your thoughts?
eric, that was about my reaction! I asked her if she earned a degree, if she is actively working in any field related to evolution, and if she has ever submitted a paper for peer review, been part of the peer reviw process, or attended a science forum where she had to present an idea and support it when questioned by her peers. I think I can guess the answer to all of those.
It just bugs the hell out of me that someone appeals to their own authority in such a way. I never went to college and can clearly see through her bs. I know my limits and defer to those who are far more knowledgeable than myself. Ugh.
You don't have to read it, KitKat, but thanks for the star!
"As for vestigial traits and appendages... we have no way of determining the function of these. Observational science involves things that can actually be observed in the present. Saying that a whale has a bone that proves it used to walk it silly. It is a guess, nothing more. There is no way to know if that bone was ever used for such."
"Vestigial traits are at best a mystery. You can infer anything that seems like it would be the best option for use, but there simply isn't any way to know. This is exactly why there is a missing link, because one doesn't exist, LOL. So as long as we keep looking for one, we will just keep associated things to it by making assumptions."
"Wow, humans have these little tail bones and humans are similar to apes, apes and humans must have evolved from some kind of monkeys with tails. See anyone can do it. How plausible would it sound if scientists weren't the ones doing the guessing?"
"I don't disagree with microevolution. I don't think we need to make a leap that we came from sludge is all!"
"I've already gone over microevolution vs. macroevolution. I will briefly again. You do realize they are completely different and that for some microevolution actually hinders the theory of evolution?"
"Any who, we can observe subspeciation. We cannot observe (or haven't yet observed) transspeciation. I cannot disagree with change within a kind when it is clearly evident. I can completely disagree with change from one kind to another since it is clearly not evident. It is just a guess as I said."
"Macroevolution requires expansion of the gene pool, adding genes and traits from simple to complex forms. So a small gene pool expands by mutation and selection into different types. Microevolution derives from a large gene pool which divides by migration and selection, changes within types (IOW, multiplying after one's kind)."
"Macroevolution is a guess. There is no evidence that proves it. And IMO there is evidence against it, including Microevolution. Eventually reproductive isolation results in a variety with a smaller gene pool than the original, restricted abilities to explore or meet changes in its own environment and then, extinction. While some think that the two (macro and micro) go hand-in-hand, I (along with others) think they are completely separate of each other."
"I understand the scientific process, which is why I usually add a yet to my posts. In the case of Macroevolution, I just don't believe it will happen. I do agree they should keep trying though even though I believe it to be futile."
"There are scientists who disagree with evolution. And there are those who aren't sure. They make sense to me as well."
After calling her out on several of these points, along with many others, she responded by saying she "majored in biology".
Your thoughts?
eric, that was about my reaction! I asked her if she earned a degree, if she is actively working in any field related to evolution, and if she has ever submitted a paper for peer review, been part of the peer reviw process, or attended a science forum where she had to present an idea and support it when questioned by her peers. I think I can guess the answer to all of those.
It just bugs the hell out of me that someone appeals to their own authority in such a way. I never went to college and can clearly see through her bs. I know my limits and defer to those who are far more knowledgeable than myself. Ugh.
You don't have to read it, KitKat, but thanks for the star!