Dr James Tour says he doesn't understand macroevolution

[VanceMack]

The point of this thread is to cause doubt in the theory of evolution to make people consider intelligent design. It's not a thread to discuss the gaps in evolutionary theory.

And what do I know of God? I know that His powers are steadily shrinking, 500 years ago he created people out of dust, today, he only guided a natural process. Intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty and theological cowardice.

The point of the thread is to show that a man that is a world renowned chemist has stated very directly and clearly that people that spew rhetorical nonsense about what they "know" are full of **** and are spewing theory as fact and worse...not even their OWN 'theory'. His very direct statement was that he UNDERSTANDS quite well the gradual process we know as microevolution but those illogical 'leaps' between species and development of complex organism that would not, should not, and could not exist without other components are gaps filled with guess, postulation and hypothesis.

What you 'know' is limited to whatever theory of the day that you are spoon fed and offered as lines to regurgitate. Hell, its not even challenging. Throughout this thread the rhetoric decrying 'macro-evolution' and the micro-evolution x time argument is found on Dawkins website verbatim as the patented response dujoir.

 

[spud_meister]

His very direct statement was that he UNDERSTANDS quite well the gradual process we know as microevolution but those illogical 'leaps' between species and development of complex organism that would not, should not, and could not exist without other components are gaps filled with guess, postulation and hypothesis.

What you 'know' is limited to whatever theory of the day that you are spoon fed and offered as lines to regurgitate. Hell, its not even challenging. Throughout this thread the rhetoric decrying 'macro-evolution' and the micro-evolution x time argument is found on Dawkins website verbatim as the patented response dujoir.

Then what is the difference between macro and micro evolution if not time scale? What is the process that causes these two events to have such a fundamental difference that not even a brilliant scientist can grasp the latter?

 

[VanceMack]

Then what is the difference between macro and micro evolution if not time scale? What is the process that causes these two events to have such a fundamental difference that not even a brilliant scientist can grasp the latter?

That you are asking the question very clearly explains your dependence on rhetoric. The difference is intraspecies vs complexity and 'adaption'.

My guess is that 'brilliant scientist' probably knows a bit about research...beyond quips and quotes from other peoples websites. But maybe YOU should school him. Send him some of your scholarly writings. Im sure just a short list of your peer reviewed work should give him plenty of food for thought.

 

[the_recruit]

Why do you have difficulty staying on topic, maybe you need help with that.

:roll: Not at all. I've already answered your question and have given an explanation of 'macroevolution'. You never offered a response.

Why are you so afraid of putting your own arguments and views of evolution on the table? Have a little self-confidence. Stop hiding behind other people's views and unsubstantive one-liners about "staying on topic".

 

[American]

The point of this thread is to cause doubt in the theory of evolution to make people consider intelligent design. It's not a thread to discuss the gaps in evolutionary theory.

And what do I know of God? I know that His powers are steadily shrinking, 500 years ago he created people out of dust, today, he only guided a natural process. Intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty and theological cowardice.

You need to go back to the basement where you're mildly entertaining, because up here you haven't a clue. The only people trying to bring up intelligent design here, are people like you.

 

[American]

Both your belief and Tour's belief is pure unscientific nonsense. It doesn't matter if the dolt is a well-cited chemist. "Macro-" and "micro-" evolution don't exist in nature. They are terms created to classify the magnitude of evolutionary change, and do not describe any observed natural phenomenon.

The terms have been completely co-opted by scientifically illiterate creationists/intelligent designers to make it seem as if evolution can be broken down into separate processes. It cannot. Otherwise that terminology suggests that there's some arbitrary point at which the total sum of allele frequency changes in two diverging populations turns form "micro" into "macro." That's bleeping absurd. Macroevolution Misuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, this also touches on why the idea of "species" ( or "kinds" ) doesn't really exist in nature either. It's a human created term. The idea of a "species" can potentially be quite vague in nature, and for certain realms of biology it has a fuzzy meaning. When two species begin to diverge, there is no single magical point where they can no longer reproduce; it's a gradual change.

In nature, we see examples of recent divergent species where sexual reproduction between the species can be done freely with no hindrance; to known examples of long divergent species where only 1 in 50,000 produced viable offspring is still fertile (see examples of fertile mules/hinnies); to completely separate species where no union will ever produce a viable offspring.

You don't know anything about me or Tour, you're just a political hack scared silly over a few words.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Throughout this thread the rhetoric decrying 'macro-evolution' and the micro-evolution x time argument is found on Dawkins website verbatim as the patented response dujoir.

Funny how facts (and we are only talking about definitions, here) turn out that way. I mean, Newtons Laws of Motion haven't changed in 400 years so any defense of those laws will almost certainly be similar - if not verbatim - regardless of who's defending them.

If you'd care to offer up someone better than Dawkins to define your terms of evolution then by all means, post them up along with their credentials. Considering Dawkins' position in the evolution community I wish you good luck with that. :lol:


BTW
Don't let your disdain over Dawkins' views toward religion get in the way of his scientific credentials and credibility. I know how the Holy-Joes out there hate Dawkins for his continuous slamming of religious dogma and indoctrination but he was a renowned Darwinist long before he started promoting atheism.

 

[Sababa]

Evolution is a fact, it happened and is happening as we speak. It moves slowly so we can't witness in real time the notion that people call macroevolution but we don't have to witness it to know that it happens. We have a fossil record.

Evolution is also a theory that defines the mechanism on how organisms change. Research is constant into how, why etc new species have developed over time. But what we know for a fact is that the changing of species over time is the same for what they call microevolution and macro.

There are plenty of people in the scientific community who put their faith over reality when they don't complement each other. In fact the statement position of many creationists is that if science proves something in the Bible inaccurate then the science is wrong. That is not a scientific position. In fact it is not even a good religious position because the Bible can be an opportunity of understanding why those inaccuracies exist, but that is for another time. When someone states a position that violates reality it doesn't matter what they do for a living, there position is still wrong and in the case of Tour his position is one of willful ignorance to allow him to say "God did it". it is pitiable.

 

[VanceMack]

Funny how facts (and we are only talking about definitions, here) turn out that way. I mean, Newtons Laws of Motion haven't changed in 400 years so any defense of those laws will almost certainly be similar - if not verbatim - regardless of who's defending them.

If you'd care to offer up someone better than Dawkins to define your terms of evolution then by all means, post them up along with their credentials. Considering Dawkins' position in the evolution community I wish you good luck with that. :lol:


BTW
Don't let your disdain over Dawkins' views toward religion get in the way of his scientific credentials and credibility. I know how the Holy-Joes out there hate Dawkins for his continuous slamming of religious dogma and indoctrination but he was a renowned Darwinist long before he started promoting atheism.

Dawkins would probably be better served if he focused more on what he believed as opposed to more on what others believed. The same I suppose could easily be said about people here. But at least Dawkins does much of his own writing and research and doesnt simply parrot others and pretend he is somehow an expert in the field and is not just some random ideologically driven nobody posting random bursts on an internet blog.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Dawkins would probably be better served if he focused more on what he believed as opposed to more on what others believed. The same I suppose could easily be said about people here. But at least Dawkins does much of his own writing and research and doesnt simply parrot others and pretend he is somehow an expert in the field and is not just some random ideologically driven nobody posting random bursts on an internet blog.

Dawkins believes a lot of religion is anti-science and from what I've seen in this and other threads I think he's right. He also believes religion causes wars and conflict, which is also difficult to argue against considering European history and recent terrorism. I can't blame him for speaking out against religion even if I personally don't care to read about it.



I wouldn't know who's quoting whom as far as the blogosphere goes. I've never read Dawkins' blog page (you mean he has one???) or any other for that matter except ZDNet and SmartPlanet if you count that as a blog site. I've read Dawkins' books on evolution and biology, though, which are good to excellent, depending on the book. The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale were both excellent.

 

[VanceMack]

Dawkins believes a lot of religion is anti-science and from what I've seen in this and other threads I think he's right. He also believes religion causes wars and conflict, which is also difficult to argue against considering European history and recent terrorism. I can't blame him for speaking out against religion even if I personally don't care to read about it.



I wouldn't know who's quoting whom as far as the blogosphere goes. I've never read Dawkins' blog page (you mean he has one???) or any other for that matter except ZDNet and SmartPlanet if you count that as a blog site. I've read Dawkins' books on evolution and biology, though, which are good to excellent, depending on the book. The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale were both excellent.

Im not arguing against his work...just saying that when you put yourself in the role of MSNBC constantly kicking against the pricks, you come across as...well...MSNBC. Personally, I believe science and God very peacefully coexist and in fact MUST. I dont believe in magic.

I disagree with him about religion being the cause of wars. Thats a stupid statement from people that are anti-religious. Is it true that PEOPLE use religion (or many others reasons) as a means to justify wars? Sure. Some of the most brutal regimes throughout history quite clearly demonstrated...you dont need religion to have war.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I disagree with him about religion being the cause of wars. Thats a stupid statement from people that are anti-religious. Is it true that PEOPLE use religion (or many others reasons) as a means to justify wars? Sure. Some of the most brutal regimes throughout history quite clearly demonstrated...you dont need religion to have war.

Religious wars are almost always condoned (not condemned) by people with the same religion. There's a lot of fanaticism in religion, which is where religious wars get their strength. That's what makes religion such an iffy prospect in the modern world.

That whole discussion is for another thread, though.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Both your belief and Tour's belief is pure unscientific nonsense. It doesn't matter if the dolt is a well-cited chemist. "Macro-" and "micro-" evolution don't exist in nature. They are terms created to classify the magnitude of evolutionary change, and do not describe any observed natural phenomenon.

The terms have been completely co-opted by scientifically illiterate creationists/intelligent designers to make it seem as if evolution can be broken down into separate processes. It cannot. Otherwise that terminology suggests that there's some arbitrary point at which the total sum of allele frequency changes in two diverging populations turns form "micro" into "macro." That's bleeping absurd. Macroevolution Misuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, this also touches on why the idea of "species" ( or "kinds" ) doesn't really exist in nature either. It's a human created term. The idea of a "species" can potentially be quite vague in nature, and for certain realms of biology it has a fuzzy meaning. When two species begin to diverge, there is no single magical point where they can no longer reproduce; it's a gradual change.

In nature, we see examples of recent divergent species where sexual reproduction between the species can be done freely with no hindrance; to known examples of long divergent species where only 1 in 50,000 produced viable offspring is still fertile (see examples of fertile mules/hinnies); to completely separate species where no union will ever produce a viable offspring.

Humans need to classify any and every little detail. It is that need to classify which brings about words such as "macro" and "micro" evolution. Lots of words that we use do not exist in nature. For example: "Hours, Minutes, Seconds" are all words that segment something that is happening on a continuous basis. IE: They don't actually exist because Time is continous and is NOT segmented. So, just because something doesn't actually exist in a purely natural form does not mean that it does not exist for human classification purposes. The reason that humans do this is to make it to where humans better understand what is going on AND make it teachable to later generations. The words "Macro" and "Micro" is just another way of segmenting something in order to enhance understanding of a process. Just like the words "hours, minutes, seconds".

 

[spud_meister]

You need to go back to the basement where you're mildly entertaining, because up here you haven't a clue. The only people trying to bring up intelligent design here, are people like you.

Did you see the sites you linked to in the OP? Do you realise Dr. James goes around preaching intelligent design? There is no scientific alternative to evolution, the differences are in how it happened. Your scientist is simply saying "look, human knowledge is incomplete". Not exactly a subject worthy of debate, considering it's ****ing self-evident.

 

[spud_meister]

That you are asking the question very clearly explains your dependence on rhetoric. The difference is intraspecies vs complexity and 'adaption'.

Whole new species of plants can be formed by genetic accidents doubling or tripling chromosomes. There's a species of Hibiscus that can have offspring genetically unique from the parent plants, but apparently new species can't be formed because some bloke doesn't understand the chemistry.

 

[VanceMack]

Whole new species of plants can be formed by genetic accidents doubling or tripling chromosomes. There's a species of Hibiscus that can have offspring genetically unique from the parent plants, but apparently new species can't be formed because some bloke doesn't understand the chemistry.

When your rhetoric is "apparent" your knowledge obviously "isnt".

 

[VanceMack]

Religious wars are almost always condoned (not condemned) by people with the same religion. There's a lot of fanaticism in religion, which is where religious wars get their strength. That's what makes religion such an iffy prospect in the modern world.

That whole discussion is for another thread, though.

lots of people are 'fanatic'. Religion gives some a vessel and even a weapon. So does "communism". People are never at a loss for weapons to promote their behaviors.

 

[Cardinal]

How'd the moon get there? You can't explain that!

Er...actually we have a pretty good theory about that one: a Mars sized planet crashed into the earth.

Go to 11:08. The resulting explosion would give Michael Bay an erection that would leave him paralyzed for life.

 

[brothern]

Both your belief and Tour's belief is pure unscientific nonsense. It doesn't matter if the dolt is a well-cited chemist. "Macro-" and "micro-" evolution don't exist in nature. They are terms created to classify the magnitude of evolutionary change, and do not describe any observed natural phenomenon.

The terms have been completely co-opted by scientifically illiterate creationists/intelligent designers to make it seem as if evolution can be broken down into separate processes. It cannot. Otherwise that terminology suggests that there's some arbitrary point at which the total sum of allele frequency changes in two diverging populations turns form "micro" into "macro." That's bleeping absurd. Macroevolution Misuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, this also touches on why the idea of "species" ( or "kinds" ) doesn't really exist in nature either. It's a human created term. The idea of a "species" can potentially be quite vague in nature, and for certain realms of biology it has a fuzzy meaning. When two species begin to diverge, there is no single magical point where they can no longer reproduce; it's a gradual change.

In nature, we see examples of recent divergent species where sexual reproduction between the species can be done freely with no hindrance; to known examples of long divergent species where only 1 in 50,000 produced viable offspring is still fertile (see examples of fertile mules/hinnies); to completely separate species where no union will ever produce a viable offspring.

Humans need to classify any and every little detail. It is that need to classify which brings about words such as "macro" and "micro" evolution. Lots of words that we use do not exist in nature. For example: "Hours, Minutes, Seconds" are all words that segment something that is happening on a continuous basis. IE: They don't actually exist because Time is continous and is NOT segmented. So, just because something doesn't actually exist in a purely natural form does not mean that it does not exist for human classification purposes. The reason that humans do this is to make it to where humans better understand what is going on AND make it teachable to later generations. The words "Macro" and "Micro" is just another way of segmenting something in order to enhance understanding of a process. Just like the words "hours, minutes, seconds".

That's true. The difference is that there's no dolt saying that "millennia" don't exist. It's fairly well recognized that a second to the ^10 power yields 1,000 years.

That's contrasted to evolution where Creationists/IDers in academia and government try to confuse the process of evolution in order to try to get us to stop teaching the subject.

 

[Kobie]

Apparently Tour thinks there's a difference.

And Tour is wrong.

There, that was easy.

This thread is an absolute disaster. I haven't seen that much intellectually dishonest tripe from one thread creator in a long time.

 

[American]

And Tour is wrong.

There, that was easy.

This thread is an absolute disaster. I haven't seen that much intellectually dishonest tripe from one thread creator in a long time.

Except for you posts.

 

[Kobie]

Except for you posts.

That was my only post in the thread, guy.

Your entire argument seems to consist of "well, if macroevolution were so simple, Dr. Tours would have thought of it already." However, if you really want to boil down the argument to something extremely basic that anyone can understand, it is that simple. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time. That's it. I don't know why this is so hard for you or Dr. Tours to comprehend. As far as "how the chemistry works," that simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[Deuce]

Er...actually we have a pretty good theory about that one: a Mars sized planet crashed into the earth.

Go to 11:08. The resulting explosion would give Michael Bay an erection that would leave him paralyzed for life.

...you're aware of the origins of my quote, right?

 

[Cardinal]

...you're aware of the origins of my quote, right?

Sorry, I'm going to need you to draw me a picture.

 

[iangb]

Sorry, I'm going to need you to draw me a picture.

Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!