The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 29, 2011, 10:28:06 AM

Title: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 29, 2011, 10:28:06 AM
Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Thork on September 29, 2011, 10:56:42 AM
Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.
Please explain why they have rings through the trunk. I am now unable to fathom a reason. I foolishly believed it was to do with annual growing seasons and it represented age. But that would make some of them much older than people.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6Y1aluUzIk4vo13HMK0qI8UwswVVvs7mntKD7gqHHay1n4dnV)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EnigmaZV on September 29, 2011, 12:49:58 PM
Relevant:

(http://)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 29, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.
Please explain why they have rings through the trunk. I am now unable to fathom a reason. I foolishly believed it was to do with annual growing seasons and it represented age. But that would make some of them much older than people.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6Y1aluUzIk4vo13HMK0qI8UwswVVvs7mntKD7gqHHay1n4dnV)
It has to do with the secondary xylem (following maturation of procambium into vascular cambium in dicots).
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Thork on September 29, 2011, 03:10:23 PM
It has to do with the secondary xylem (following maturation of procambium into vascular cambium in dicots).
Are you saying they just 'are'? No explanation. They are stripy because they are?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 29, 2011, 04:08:03 PM
It has to do with the secondary xylem (following maturation of procambium into vascular cambium in dicots).
Are you saying they just 'are'? No explanation. They are stripy because they are?
No it's because of water uptake in vascular xylem. More water=bigger xylem=ring pattern variations which are just cells.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Thork on September 29, 2011, 04:15:12 PM
And these colour variations/water variations are caused by ...
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 29, 2011, 07:12:56 PM
Relevant:

(http://)

Damn. Looks like my analogy isn't so original after all.

And these colour variations/water variations are caused by ...
The rings follow lunar cycles, not years. Rays of moonlight react to the H2O levels present in the bark. Figured you would be more tuned in to the bleaching and burning powers of moonlight.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on September 29, 2011, 07:14:50 PM
I've witnessed really nice people evolve into utter assholes.  Does this count?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ryan Onessence on September 29, 2011, 10:41:33 PM
"bleaching and burning powers of moonlight."

Moon light is good!

The idea that it is bad is a myth stemming from warewolves etc...it doesn't cause any problems for anything, the idea that moon cycles effect the human psyche in a disruptive manner is also bunk. People whom are creative get more creative during the peak of a moon cycle...

However if you believ it makes people crazy then your belief will have potential to do just that, to others who believe just that. Look at prayer and water crystals Masaru Emoto etc. I know all the science adherents are gonna get uppity about this example because "it's not a repeatable experiment, pseudo science etc" But! dont ignore the fact that repeated experiments that are based on a result of intention are easily corrupted by those who scrutinise them. This simple notion regarding intention experiments renders the sceptic in an unaothoritative position on the matter.

Crystals in general amplify emotional frequency...water is a soluble liquid-quasi-crystal. The ancients worshipped the innate qualities of crystals to heal, why did crystals heal them?... Because they worshipped them, put positive in and you get positive out. They also believed that placing gemstones in moon light cleansed and replenished their energies after having been used.

Conclusion: projections of superstition simply have the effect that is believed, not necessarilly because of what is believed to cause it...

EDIT: It is true that women's period generally follow the moon cycles, however its known that many do not, maybe it was just a belief to begin with. Also is worthy to note that many women have resolved pains associated by becoming vegetarian (this has to be done in a progressive shift tho to get accustomed to a new arrangement of nutritional intake.)   
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EnigmaZV on October 01, 2011, 01:42:42 PM
Relevant:

(http://)

Damn. Looks like my analogy isn't so original after all.

No, but I do like the analogy, and it's unfortunate that it will go unaddressed by creationists.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Thork on October 01, 2011, 01:46:05 PM
The rings follow lunar cycles, not years. Rays of moonlight react to the H2O levels present in the bark. Figured you would be more tuned in to the bleaching and burning powers of moonlight.
Those poor trees. I forget they are out in the moonlight all night with no protection. The damage to them is truly horrific. I hope Ichi is able to find a way to prevent moonburn in trees.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: thefireproofmatch on October 01, 2011, 01:59:38 PM
The rings follow lunar cycles, not years. Rays of moonlight react to the H2O levels present in the bark. Figured you would be more tuned in to the bleaching and burning powers of moonlight.
Those poor trees. I forget they are out in the moonlight all night with no protection. The damage to them is truly horrific. I hope Ichi is able to find a way to prevent moonburn in trees.
Can you get tanned from the moon?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 01, 2011, 03:50:03 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Thork on October 01, 2011, 04:00:03 PM
Plants are brave.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ryan Onessence on October 01, 2011, 05:19:15 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believ you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

I respect that you believe in FET but seriously where are you getting these ideas about the moon
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 01, 2011, 05:20:43 PM
I do not study moon burn. I study ground tissue and metabolic effects.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ryan Onessence on October 01, 2011, 06:07:38 PM
I do not study moon burn. I study ground tissue and metabolic effects.

that doesn't answer my question.  :P
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Particle Person on October 02, 2011, 01:19:15 AM
Plants are brave.

He is.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: CheesusCrust on October 02, 2011, 04:30:45 AM
Plants are brave.

He is.

Yes those vegetables are brave, after all they are in a coma and may never know if they will ever wake up.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on October 05, 2011, 09:46:43 AM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believe you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

Not all radiation poison is immediately obvious, nor does it influence all cellular structures the same way.
Plants undergo changes that effect the colors much more drastically. But humans age because free radicals mutate our DNA. The telomeres that protect our genomes are worn down over time. These countless mutations are benign and simply lead to cellular inefficiency (saggy skin, slowed healing, poorer vision, etc). Other mutations can lead to dangerous cellular activity like cancer.  Moon burn may be much more obvious in plants because of their cellular variations, but both are very destructive. And for the record, willfully subjecting yourself to intense or unnecessary radiation could be considered reckless.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on November 04, 2011, 11:04:18 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believe you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

Not all radiation poison is immediately obvious, nor does it influence all cellular structures the same way.
Plants undergo changes that effect the colors much more drastically. But humans age because free radicals mutate our DNA. The telomeres that protect our genomes are worn down over time. These countless mutations are benign and simply lead to cellular inefficiency (saggy skin, slowed healing, poorer vision, etc). Other mutations can lead to dangerous cellular activity like cancer.  Moon burn may be much more obvious in plants because of their cellular variations, but both are very destructive. And for the record, willfully subjecting yourself to intense or unnecessary radiation could be considered reckless.

No radiation has ever been detected in moonlight.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EnigmaZV on November 07, 2011, 01:42:13 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believe you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

Not all radiation poison is immediately obvious, nor does it influence all cellular structures the same way.
Plants undergo changes that effect the colors much more drastically. But humans age because free radicals mutate our DNA. The telomeres that protect our genomes are worn down over time. These countless mutations are benign and simply lead to cellular inefficiency (saggy skin, slowed healing, poorer vision, etc). Other mutations can lead to dangerous cellular activity like cancer.  Moon burn may be much more obvious in plants because of their cellular variations, but both are very destructive. And for the record, willfully subjecting yourself to intense or unnecessary radiation could be considered reckless.

No radiation has ever been detected in moonlight.

False
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on November 07, 2011, 01:55:02 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believe you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

Not all radiation poison is immediately obvious, nor does it influence all cellular structures the same way.
Plants undergo changes that effect the colors much more drastically. But humans age because free radicals mutate our DNA. The telomeres that protect our genomes are worn down over time. These countless mutations are benign and simply lead to cellular inefficiency (saggy skin, slowed healing, poorer vision, etc). Other mutations can lead to dangerous cellular activity like cancer.  Moon burn may be much more obvious in plants because of their cellular variations, but both are very destructive. And for the record, willfully subjecting yourself to intense or unnecessary radiation could be considered reckless.

No radiation has ever been detected in moonlight.

False

What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 07, 2011, 08:00:37 PM
Each plant I kill dies with the honor knowing that one day it'll help other plants.

Haha you've gotta be a troll if your gonna expect me to believe you study "moon burn" if not go and lay out in the moon light and see for yourself.....no burn

Not all radiation poison is immediately obvious, nor does it influence all cellular structures the same way.
Plants undergo changes that effect the colors much more drastically. But humans age because free radicals mutate our DNA. The telomeres that protect our genomes are worn down over time. These countless mutations are benign and simply lead to cellular inefficiency (saggy skin, slowed healing, poorer vision, etc). Other mutations can lead to dangerous cellular activity like cancer.  Moon burn may be much more obvious in plants because of their cellular variations, but both are very destructive. And for the record, willfully subjecting yourself to intense or unnecessary radiation could be considered reckless.

No radiation has ever been detected in moonlight.
lol 4 real?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: General Disarray on November 07, 2011, 09:13:21 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on November 07, 2011, 09:42:44 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2011, 09:49:31 AM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

Enough gamma rays to activate the werewolf genome, that is all I need to know.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Silverdane on December 28, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
Witchdoctor Baloonery

Energy doesn't exist. It's just a relative measure (or comparisson) of the constant fields of frequencies between more baloonery.

Like detective play. Guessing ten out of ten questions is the maximum level of "energy", or comparative flow, while guessing none is "zero energy" or comparative nonsense, and no balance or common influence.

I have a feeling you won't understand anything of what I just wrote .... sorry for this.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Silverdane on December 28, 2011, 06:29:09 PM
Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.

All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

It does not. Bacteria proves it. By casually observing it's own microevolution. Which is part of why it's so much more intelligent than you.

Not that you were intelligent, in the first place.

I thank you.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Sean on December 28, 2011, 08:15:27 PM
Witchdoctor Baloonery

Energy doesn't exist. It's just a relative measure (or comparisson) of the constant fields of frequencies between more baloonery.

Like detective play. Guessing ten out of ten questions is the maximum level of "energy", or comparative flow, while guessing none is "zero energy" or comparative nonsense, and no balance or common influence.

I have a feeling you won't understand anything of what I just wrote .... sorry for this.

Please stop double and triple posting.


Also, no man has witnessed a tree grow for over several hundred years. Anyone who thinks there are trees that last longer than people must be crazy.

All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

It does not. Bacteria proves it. By casually observing it's own microevolution. Which is part of why it's so much more intelligent than you.

Not that you were intelligent, in the first place.

I thank you.

You can address multiple people in a single post!
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Supertails on December 29, 2011, 12:49:15 AM
All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

...the very definitions of 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' are the answer to your stupid comment, which you should have done us all a favour with and kept in your pocket.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on January 12, 2012, 07:48:39 PM
Ive never directly witnessed an electron moving from atom to atom.  That does not prevent my TV from working.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 14, 2012, 09:45:31 PM
All bacteria has witnessed microevolution.

By that logic all people should witness macroevolution, if such a joke existed.

It does not. Bacteria proves it. By casually observing it's own microevolution. Which is part of why it's so much more intelligent than you.

Not that you were intelligent, in the first place.

I thank you.

Your nonsensical and disconnected thought fragments are confusing enough without being compounded by spontaneous punctuation prematurely ending your sentences while randomly breaking up others.

1. Bacteria cannot bear witness to anything.
2. 'Bacteria witnessing itself evolving in extremely brief time frames' is non sequitur comparison to 'people witnessing other life forms evolving over large time frames.'
3. Normally I'd ask you to refrain from uninformed ad hominem attacks, but I found this thoroughly entertaining.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2012, 12:48:46 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 22, 2012, 09:49:27 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EnigmaZV on January 23, 2012, 07:47:39 AM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

lrn2particle/waveduality
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on January 23, 2012, 07:57:32 AM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 23, 2012, 08:10:47 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 23, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)

God damn, you're stupid. I really, Jesus, I really don't know where to start with you.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 23, 2012, 08:44:44 PM
What sort of radiation was detected? Alpha, beta, gamma, etc. ?

Visible (390-750 nm).

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What harmful radiation is emitted by the moon?

We have an entire pigmentation system designed to keep out these harmful radioactive waves. Also gamma rays bounce off of the moon and are detectable here on earth. So, also gamma waves.

Any other rather incompetent question?

I notice that you didn't actually give any support for your ideas. Use evidence next time, it will bring you better results.

Also, there is no such thing as a radioactive wave. Either it is a radioactive emission or wave, it doesn't make sense to be both.

Any other incompetent answer?

I'm sorry I thought you had the mental competence of an 8 year old and could do it yourself.

a) light is both a wave and a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

b) our skin has pigment to keep light out

ever had a sunburn? I'd say there are some bad things in light.

http://www.oprah.com/omagazine/Bright-Light-May-Cause-Cancer-Health-Risks

http://cancer.stanford.edu/skincancer/skin/causes/uvrad.html

c) gamma rays bitch?

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

here's the moons picture taken in the gamma ray spectrum.


lrn2physicsplzkthxbye

Lol, pay more attention in science class, you might learn a thing or two.

Wave/particle duality has absolutely nothing to do with a "radioactive wave." For one thing, nowhere in scientific literature is this term used. Another thing is that is still doesn't make sense when applied to radioactive emissions. How is a helium nucleus (alpha particle) a wave exactly? Do more research and you'll get better results.

The picture you posted was obtained from the Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) in orbit. As such, you have shown that gamma rays are detectable from orbit, but you have not proven that moon-light (i.e. what normal people see at night) contains gamma radiation. Unless you plan on being in orbit every night, your link is quite useless.

I suggest you review your materials and construct a better argument.

Off you go, little bitch.  8)

God damn, you're stupid. I really, Jesus, I really don't know where to start with you.

You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 23, 2012, 08:52:16 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 23, 2012, 09:42:25 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 23, 2012, 09:51:16 PM


Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

Ah, semantics, the cry for help of the defeated individual.


As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.

I never mentioned that.


While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Please, please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Just admit you don't fully understand the concept and move on. Someone who can't understand when they are so wrong is heartbreaking to say the least.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 23, 2012, 11:39:34 PM


Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

Ah, semantics, the cry for help of the defeated individual.


As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.

I never mentioned that.


While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.

Please, please stop trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Just admit you don't fully understand the concept and move on. Someone who can't understand when they are so wrong is heartbreaking to say the least.

Particle/wave duality is when something is both a wave and a particle. Shocking isn't it. There, now that I fully understand the topic (and hopefully you do as well now)...

Lol, go back to school little boy, you have much to learn  ::)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on January 24, 2012, 05:27:55 AM
and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

Yet FAR less ultraviolet then the sun does during the day. So if this UV from the moon is so harmful, it ought to be an order of magnitude more so during the daytime.  Since animals on the Serengeti are not exactly frying....
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EnigmaZV on January 24, 2012, 07:36:31 AM
Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

You do understand that photons never actually "reflect" off anything in the way it's typically thought of right?

When a photon strikes a surface, sometimes it is absorbed, and then re-emitted, and that is what we call reflection. The key word being emitted.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on January 24, 2012, 09:00:04 AM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Pongo on January 24, 2012, 11:20:52 AM
I witnessed some macroevolution today.  Just thought you guys would like to know.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 24, 2012, 06:15:58 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 24, 2012, 06:18:01 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 24, 2012, 08:18:04 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 24, 2012, 08:22:29 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 24, 2012, 08:29:06 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Nope, just what was learning in the 11th grade. Apparently it wasn't that much because I did perfectly well in the 12th grade without it.   ::)

Any luck finding those "radioactive waves" yet?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on January 24, 2012, 08:33:28 PM
You could find evidence to disprove what I say. That is generally where one starts a rebuttal. That fact that you offered no counter-example nor intelligible argument sums you up nicely.

If you put forth the effort, I'm sure you can come up with something.  ::)

Well we can start with your unfortunate understanding of wave-particle duality. Where you for some reason think a proton doesn't exhibit the properties of a wave. Then you claim the moon doesn't reflect any gamma rays. It reflects them and yes, some get through the atmosphere. Regardless, the original question was "What harmful radiation does the moon emit?" and the moon does reflect quite a bit of ultraviolet which can be harmful of nights on the full moon.

The more embarrassing of the two is your massive duality fail.

Once again you fail to comprehend the simplest of physics. The correct answer to "what harmful radiation does the moon emit" is that it doesn't emit any (at least far from the lunar surface). Had I asked what radiation was reflected, then you would have at least been marginally correct. But as you weren't, you aren't.

As for your belief in "radioactive waves," I'm afraid that's a delusion that only you indulge in. Find one example of a wave that is radioactive and you will have disproved me. So far all you have done is throw a hissy-fit because physics doesn't behave the way you want it to.
While all matter as far we can tell possesses a particle/wave duality, some things are more particle than wave, or more wave than particle. For example, it doesn't make sense to talk about a radio wave as a particle, nor is it sensible to speak of a gamma ray as if it were a wave.

Now that you know a bit more, perhaps you'll be inclined to do further research, god knows you need it.


Lol implying em bounces off of things without being re-emitted.

So how's junior year of high school?

Not all radiation is "reflected" like this. Have you ever heard of an alpha particle scattering off a target by being absorbed and "re-emitted?"

Thought not.

I would not know how junior year is, as I am not in high school at the moment.

Still waiting for a reference to "radioactive waves" though...

Did you drop out?

That's certainly one possibility. But no, I skipped the 11th grade.  ;D

You apparently skipped the whole high school curriculum.

Nope, just what was learning in the 11th grade. Apparently it wasn't that much because I did perfectly well in the 12th grade without it.   ::)

Any luck finding those "radioactive waves" yet?

Again, I never mentioned that. But I'm glad you finally recognized your misunderstanding of duality.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: jraffield1 on January 24, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
My understanding of particle wave duality has been and is currently correct.

You assumed I didn't know about it when I said that a "radioactive wave" made no sense. radiation that exhibits behavior of both particle and wave is acceptable, a radioactive wave however is not.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on January 27, 2012, 09:15:44 AM
My understanding of particle wave duality has been and is currently correct.

You assumed I didn't know about it when I said that a "radioactive wave" made no sense. radiation that exhibits behavior of both particle and wave is acceptable, a radioactive wave however is not.

It behaves as a wave unless observed.

P.S. the ignorant statement of the week goes to you with your, "I skipped the 11th grade and apparently I didn't miss anything because the 12th grade went fine!" implying they test for things from previous years. You are patently stupid and you will forever be unaware of your ignorance. What a sad fact that must be to live with.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on February 17, 2012, 08:09:56 AM
Relevant:

(http://)

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something. 
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Wakka Wakka on February 17, 2012, 10:10:10 AM
Relevant:

(http://)

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.
Why would a peach tree evolve into a pineapple bush?  You keep using that word...I do not think it mean what you think it means.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 17, 2012, 10:30:25 AM
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.


Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Vindictus on February 17, 2012, 01:04:36 PM
It still hasn't been demonstrated that 'microevolution' and 'macroevoltuion' aren't just the same things, on different time scales.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 17, 2012, 01:20:36 PM
define what you want to see by macro evolution.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on February 18, 2012, 06:56:22 AM
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything. 
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 18, 2012, 07:41:33 AM
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything.

No, not really.  All animals are still Eukaryotas, just like their single cell ancestors, and they can't evolve out of that.  Bacteria can't evolve into something that is not bacteria either.  This is what I've been trying to explain.  When the original mammal species evolved into all the different species of mammal today, they are ALL still mammals, and can't evolve into something that is not a mammal.

This is why a peach tree cannot evolve into something that is not a peach tree, such as a pineapple bush.  They can evolve into distinct species of peach tree though.

Do you comprehend yet?

Edit:  took out a dumb mistake.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on February 18, 2012, 08:45:13 AM
Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 18, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.

Nothing has ever evolved out of it's ancestry.  We have observed organisms lose features that it's relatives still have, such as a snake losing it's limbs or an ape losing it's tail, but it's still a primate.  We have also observed similar traits evolve from separate clades, such as wings.  Flight has evolved several different times from entirely separate lines, so there is no common ancestor for flight.  A mammal wing is built on an entirely separate structure from a bird wing, for example.

But if we ever found something like a birds wing growing out of a mammal, such as this:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Pegaz_Opera_Pozna%C5%84.jpg/220px-Pegaz_Opera_Pozna%C5%84.jpg)

Evolution would have no way of explaining it, because evolution follows rules and something like that breaks them all.  Creation on the other hand, does not follow any rules, so finding a Pegasus would be perfectly explainable under creationism.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Pongo on February 18, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
lol, evolution says people evolved from monkeys, but I ain't no monkey.  Explain that, Hot Shot.  Didn't think so.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Rushy on February 18, 2012, 07:57:00 PM
Riddle me this, batman.

If birds are dinosaurs, where are all the dragons?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on February 18, 2012, 09:09:22 PM
Riddle me this, batman.

If birds are dinosaurs, where are all the dragons?

???

Marcus is, of course, being somewhat fallacious. A peach tree could, theoretically speaking, evolve into a pineapple bush, but it would take millions of generations of peach tree under perfectly sculpted settings.

Nothing has ever evolved out of it's ancestry.  We have observed organisms lose features that it's relatives still have, such as a snake losing it's limbs or an ape losing it's tail, but it's still a primate.  We have also observed similar traits evolve from separate clades, such as wings.  Flight has evolved several different times from entirely separate lines, so there is no common ancestor for flight.  A mammal wing is built on an entirely separate structure from a bird wing, for example.

But if we ever found something like a birds wing growing out of a mammal, such as this:

Evolution would have no way of explaining it, because evolution follows rules and something like that breaks them all.  Creation on the other hand, does not follow any rules, so finding a Pegasus would be perfectly explainable under creationism.

Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on February 18, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
Relevant:

(http://)

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.

And I have found the issue. Wardogg believes that evolution is a dog giving birth to a cat.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on February 19, 2012, 06:15:20 AM
Relevant:

(http://)

Actually that's not relevant at all.   Show me a peach tree seed that macro evolves into pineapple bush and then you may have something.

And I have found the issue. Wardogg believes that evolution is a dog giving birth to a cat.

I was unaware the "theory of common descent" was in dispute.  Care to elaborate?

While on the topic of plants, let me see if I got the basics of animal evolution down.  Animal has a mutation, that mutation doesn't kill the animal, possibly makes the animal better but doesn't have to, just has to not kill it.  Then that animal has sex with another animal and passes that mutation down the line.  After a large amount of time many mutations have happened and the animal speciates.  So with plants with no real way to pass down the genetic code.  There is no combination or passing of genetic material between two like plants.  How do plants ensure that its mutated genetic code gets handed down?   And what is the common animal/plant ancestor?  Seems like such a hard life for the early animal ancestor to find food, where as his plant counterpart had to do was sit there and soak up the nutrients and the sun to survive.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 19, 2012, 06:35:44 AM
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 19, 2012, 06:36:26 AM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on February 19, 2012, 06:54:24 AM
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.

So genetically mutated pollen causes another like plant to also have genetically mutated offspring?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Lorddave on February 19, 2012, 07:59:25 AM
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.

So genetically mutated pollen causes another like plant to also have genetically mutated offspring?
Why not?
Pollen is not unlike sperm.

And there's nothing that says mutated pollen is the only way to produce a mutated offspring.  It could be mutated DNA after the seed is formed.  Or maybe some kind of chemical interacted with the seed? 
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on February 22, 2012, 09:33:56 AM
Not sure how many times people have to tell you this.  Evolution does not allow one thing to turn into an entirely different kind of thing.  Dogs won't turn into cats, a peach tree will not turn into a pineapple bush.  Evolution is only modifications to what is already there.

That is why you can have one cat ancestor, that splits off into all the different species of felidae today, but none of them stopped being part of the cat family.



Except for that pesky original single cell organism that became everything.

No, not really.  All animals are still Eukaryotas, just like their single cell ancestors, and they can't evolve out of that.  Bacteria can't evolve into something that is not bacteria either.  This is what I've been trying to explain.  When the original mammal species evolved into all the different species of mammal today, they are ALL still mammals, and can't evolve into something that is not a mammal.

This is why a peach tree cannot evolve into something that is not a peach tree, such as a pineapple bush.  They can evolve into distinct species of peach tree though.

Do you comprehend yet?

Edit:  took out a dumb mistake.

All animals ARE eucharyotes, too bad the first cells were prokaryotes. Good thing they can't change what they are.  ::)
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on February 25, 2012, 11:54:33 AM
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
Uh...plants have DNA. Sorry to disappoint, and they do exchange genes.  After all, it was plants that "invented" sex.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on February 25, 2012, 09:19:05 PM
Wardogg has a good point. Plants, being the eukaryotes that they are, lack DNA, their cells can't undergo division, and there are no techniques for dispersal such as wind.
Uh...plants have DNA. Sorry to disappoint, and they do exchange genes.  After all, it was plants that "invented" sex.

Which was ichi's point. Calibrate your sarcasm detector senior.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 01:24:33 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 04, 2012, 02:05:56 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 04:21:08 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 04, 2012, 04:29:52 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

Even earlier than notochords, we had ancestors whose first opening developed into an anus.  We're still like that now.  The first opening of an arthropod becomes its mouth.  This is an ancient development, and it's still around today.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 04, 2012, 04:51:35 PM
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 04, 2012, 05:00:21 PM
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what effect moonlight had on the evolution of arthropods into chordates with that big brain/unidentified leading scientist position of yours.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 05:02:55 PM
ITT: people recite 2nd semester bio  :P

How dare you! That was first semester marine bio, you condescending prick!  >:(

agrees
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 04, 2012, 05:16:30 PM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but the point is that things don't evolve into other classifications of things.  A feline isn't going to evolve into a canine.  An arthropod isn't going to evolve into a chordate.  They'll always be different because they have different evolutionary baggage, even if they're similar on the surface.

I think the whole discussion started because some people get confused about evolution by thinking one thing just turns into another.  Like a cat suddenly turning into a dog.  It never happens like that.  The changes are gradual.  The new creature will still have characteristics from its ancestors.  They may be greatly changed, and over a really long time may just disappear entirely, but the point is that it isn't just one thing suddenly turning into another.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on March 04, 2012, 05:53:36 PM
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 04, 2012, 06:42:23 PM
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Tausami on March 04, 2012, 06:48:06 PM
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.

Quote
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA"
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 04, 2012, 06:58:43 PM
Um...98% of DNA is most certainly not inactive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

Depends on what you mean by "inactive", but noncoding DNA still performs valuable functions, even if its not coding.

Quote
Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA"

"Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. "

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

"The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. "

"We have a greater percentage of junk DNA in our genomes - 50 percent - than the mustard weed (11 percent), the worm (7 percent) or the fly (3 percent). Also, shockingly, there seems to have been a dramatic decrease in the activity of repeats in the human genome over the past 50 million years - as if the human species decided 50 million years ago to stop collecting junk. In contrast, there seems to be no such decline in repeats in rodents. (See Vignette 6)"

http://www.genome.gov/10002192
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on March 05, 2012, 06:49:23 AM
One word.....epigenetics.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 05, 2012, 01:30:52 PM
Holy DNMT batman.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 05, 2012, 08:50:35 PM
Where did he go?  He just ran away?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 06, 2012, 04:36:14 AM
So basically no one agrees on where we came from?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: EireEngineer on March 06, 2012, 04:49:24 AM
Who do you mean by "no one"?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 06, 2012, 05:03:41 AM
So basically no one agrees on where we came from?

Biologists don't disagree.  We don't know every single little step, but that's the fossil record for ya.

If that's not good enough, though, you're free to cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible and ignore the fossil record completely.  Personally, I feel like that would make a hole in my brain, but different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 07, 2012, 05:02:44 AM
Who do you mean by "no one"?

Those two.

but that's the fossil record for ya.

And what exactly does the fossil record show?  That some animals are similar in composition and makeup?  Or might be related?  How does that prove evolution?
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on March 07, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
And what exactly does the fossil record show?  That some animals are similar in composition and makeup?  Or might be related?  How does that prove evolution?

Do your own research into it.  You give little indication that you actually read the words people write, so why should I bother?  Your ignorance is your shield, and I don't think you're going to give that up.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on March 09, 2012, 11:23:50 AM
Except that Chordata evolved from Arthropoda and we cannot reasonably be considered arthropods.

What?  Arthropoda and Chordata are two separate Phylums.  Chordata are a sub group of Dueterostomia which is a subgroup of Bilateria, arthropods are also in the Bilateria group but are protostomes.  Chordata is not named as a subgroup of Arthropods, where did you hear this?

Sorry for the long pause. I forgot.

That's exactly my point. Early chordates evolved from some of the more advanced arthropods, but cannot be considered arthropods. Therefore, your claim that evolution can't cause something to become something completely different is false.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that chordates evolved from arthropods.  All vertebrates are more closely related to star fish than any arthropod.

We don't have a great fossil record for the evolutionary history of chordates.  What we do have shows jellyfish-like creatures becoming more slug-like/worm-like, and eventually developing a tadpole shape.  Unlike arthropods, which have hard outer coverings, these creatures were quite soft and didn't get preserved as easily. 

Somewhere along the line they developed notochords, which are simple, flexible rods that act like a backbone.  All chordates, including humans, still have notochords at some point in their development.  There's no a single arthropod, living or dead, which has anything similar.

It's been a long time since I've had marine bio, but I seemed to remember that the more complex arthropods like lobster were the first to have central ganglia, which was a precursor to a brain and were therefore considered to have been the closest to chordates. But even if I'm misremembering, the point stands.

No, the point doesn't stand because chordates didn't come from arthropods.  We came from chordate ancestors.  We're still chordates.  Things evolve and change, but remnants of the past remain.

But even if we evolved form echinoderms, we still evolved from something unlike us. We can and do lose features that belonged to our ancestors. About 98% of our DNA is inactive. At some point in the future, whales will lose their hips (if they manage to survive, which they probably won't). We are already losing our appendixes.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but the point is that things don't evolve into other classifications of things.  A feline isn't going to evolve into a canine.  An arthropod isn't going to evolve into a chordate.  They'll always be different because they have different evolutionary baggage, even if they're similar on the surface.

I think the whole discussion started because some people get confused about evolution by thinking one thing just turns into another.  Like a cat suddenly turning into a dog.  It never happens like that.  The changes are gradual.  The new creature will still have characteristics from its ancestors.  They may be greatly changed, and over a really long time may just disappear entirely, but the point is that it isn't just one thing suddenly turning into another.

So you mean things don't evolve into preexisting kinds but still evolve into other kinds? Cool.

This entire argument is over the misunderstanding of the word other and it should probably end soon.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Mr Pseudonym on March 09, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
Caterpillars become butterflies.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Raist on March 09, 2012, 10:57:31 PM
Caterpillars become butterflies.

Same DNA different protein phenotype for a different stage in life.


Babies turn into people.
Title: Re: "No man has ever directly witnessed macroevolution"
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on March 10, 2012, 12:31:07 AM
Caterpillars become butterflies.

Same DNA different protein phenotype for a different stage in life.


Babies turn into people.

I was assuming he was kidding, but I guess I should never assume.