Evidence for macro-evolution

[Aaron112]

Then they are all different kinds, whose [genera] were created in 4004 BC.

(Cue cross-bred hybrids in three ... two ... one ...)

Gives inspiration to a poem now..... one genera , two genera, three genera four, four genera four, or more, from four thousand and four (bc) .....

 

[AV1611VET]

That's patently absurd.

Oh, really?

Isn't one of the hallmarks of the "kinds" argument that a kindergartener could tell that things were the same "kind" just by looking at them?

A kindergartner can compare an elephant to a cow and know they are different kinds.

Not so much when it comes to comparing a bobcat to a mountain lion.

That doesn't negate God's definition of "kind:"

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Do you honestly believe that a kindergartener would look at all of these "cats" and say they were different "kinds"?

No.

It takes looking at their respective genera that the difference becomes clear.

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe not, but you have such a wonderful example of macroevolution here, and you're not using it.

Because it's not a wonderful example of macroevolution?

An example of macroevolution would demonstrate the process somehow.

Even though the traits in those boys that allowed them to go as wrong as they did are aspects of our species they aren't uniquely in us or any other species as you've repeatedly demonstrated with your slightly confusing statements about feral animals.

No argument there.

Only God can genetically change something.

Such as when he changed Aaron's rod into a serpent, and back again.

Firstly that isn't even true in the Bible as the Egyptian magicians could do it as well.

And secondly we can change things with genetic engineering and other technological processes, even if it's not as flashy as Old Testiment miracles.

There you go again.

"Might"?

Don't we come from a long line of killers and literal baby-eaters?

And didn't our close relatives club women over the head and drag them home to their caves by their hair to cook their food and have children?

I said might because it is sometimes true and sometimes it isn't.

And you've described a way some people behave even today when they can get away with it.

Another interesting word choice.

Why are you calling it "encouragement," when it should be "survival of the fittest"?

Or maybe it's natural selection gone awry?

Maybe Klebold & Harris wanted to "improve" their community by subjecting them to fight-or-flight?

(Evolution sure is cruel protective of itself, isn't it?)

They say "nature will find a way."

And when Klebold & Harris found a way, evolutionists treat them as if they were criminals or did something wrong.

I think you are being dishonest about your characterisation to goad and provoke a reaction... that's a a silly description.

You should know that the evolutionary process is a description of what happens to a species on a multi generational scale, not about the actions of individuals.

Evolution is about consequences of the environment not decisions.

But I somewhat disagree with "potential."

Isn't so-called violence the standard go-to method of natural selection?

After all, you can't have natural selection without death.

Death doesn't mean direct violence and agression.

What do you mean by "good"?

Functional and able to cooperate, breed and thrive.

Significant numbers of the population going kill crazy is bad news for a social animal like a human.

But what's a "better environment"?

Animals literally walk all over themselves, have multiple wives, wife swap, eat their children, stand around (or run) when a crocodile or something takes one of their herd, sniff each other's food, and Darwin knows what all else.

Can you take a sounder of swine and make them "more manageable"?

By the same token, can you take a shrewdness of people and make them "more manageable"?

Yes you can.

If what you care about with your pigs is that they are fat and peaceful so you can safely and efficiently kill and eat them you can make sure their pens are the right size and you have the right lay out... or you can mess that up and get less healthy pigs and inferior meat from you farm.

Same with humans, if you try to make your society organised and make sure what you consider moral is reinforced you can have a better environment for everyone, even the examples who might have snapped in another situation.

"Normal ability"???

LOL

Science can take a hike, can't it?

It's abnormal to go on killing sprees or make terrorist attacks, in that the vast majority don't do it.

This isn't a statemented about science, genetics or evolution... it's just a description of basic facts of the world.

I honestly believe you've got more sense than the evolutionist philosophy you're [trying to] defend.

All I hear you saying in post after post is:

"Macroevolution can take a hike."

You can hear that, but it isn't consistent with what I'm talking about.

Macro evolution ultimately gave hominids the savagery to use violence as a tool but also the the empathy and intelligence to find other ways.

Why would you have to clarify?

It should be standard teaching.

Because if the topic is macro evolution the specifics of species is relevant.

Macro evolution is about changes beyond the species level, but that's not the only topic of biology.

I don't think you do.

Yeah, I'm getting that.

It can take a hike, can't it?

I'm kind of baffled by this.

Spree killers are a complex issue of inherent traits of people and social settings and upbringing.

There's nothing I can see in evolutionary theory that is countered by the concept that some humans are violent and dangerous.

Can you specifically describe how they are connected?

 

[Aaron112]

Spree killers are a complex issue of inherent traits of people and social settings and upbringing.

Or it is very simple, as has often been the case, they are simply on legal drugs prescribed for them that did not help them, and/or they got off the drugs prescribed for them that caused either way such violent tendencies.

 

[Aaron112]

"Normal ability"???

LOL

Science can take a hike, can't it?

Yes, especially when daily observing that "Normal ability" is almost always death dealing world wide in every occupation, job, school, religion, and so on....

 

[Shemjaza]

Or it is very simple, as has often been the case, they are simply on legal drugs prescribed for them that did not help them, and/or they got off the drugs prescribed for them that caused either way such violent tendencies.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I wasn't aware that there was any evidence that Klebold & Harris were on drugs of any kind and also that there is any evidence that anti-depressants can cause violence.

 

[Aaron112]

Standard Caution: Because the side effects (and main effects?)
are so variable and potentially threatening to health
do not add, stop, nor change any drug , dose, or frequency
without 'professional' oversite. i.e. learn all you can before changing to a drug approach or any change in drug use.

The evidence is only overwhelming and is involved in billions of dollars per day just in the usa, maybe trillions worldwide, so do not expect routine publice disclosures to be unaffected truth.

Online searches confirm the news published over the last several decades,
and the congressional investigations is just one of dozens or even hundreds or thousands over the last century - since so much money is directly involved, there are a lot of conflicting interests!

Here's just one for a start - to be continued each individually elsewhere (not this thread) >

================================================
"When are we going to have an honest conversation about drug abuse, mental illness, and SSRI’s???

And deadly side effects.

Are we really going to keep pretending?

Or covering for Big Pharma?

Because I’m absolutely done with the political plays on this BS. pic.twitter.com/8SkNpSOYWW

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 5, 2022"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not an evolutionist, but I'll play devil's advocate here and submit Klebold & Harris as evidence of macro-evolution.

Yea or nay?

I'm going to throw in and say: nay.

A feral animal is still an animal. A feral dog does not become something new.

Just as a human killing another human in cold-blooded murder does not turn them into a new and terrifying thing. At the end of the day, they're still a human. Klebold and Harris were the symptoms of a society that just wanted and still wants to brush any problems with youth under a rug and pretend it doesn't exist then gets horrified and disgusted when the problems they create explode.
... I think I mixed one too many metaphors there.

But you're wrong for sure. Unless you think that we can find genetics that predispose for things like violence. And that, my good sir, is eugenics. And is a crock of horse s**t.

 

[Estrid]

Standard Caution: Because the side effects (and main effects?)
are so variable and potentially threatening to health
do not add, stop, nor change any drug , dose, or frequency
without 'professional' oversite. i.e. learn all you can before changing to a drug approach or any change in drug use.

The evidence is only overwhelming and is involved in billions of dollars per day just in the usa, maybe trillions worldwide, so do not expect routine publice disclosures to be unaffected truth.

Online searches confirm the news published over the last several decades,
and the congressional investigations is just one of dozens or even hundreds or thousands over the last century - since so much money is directly involved, there are a lot of conflicting interests!

Here's just one for a start - to be continued each individually elsewhere (not this thread) >

================================================
"When are we going to have an honest conversation about drug abuse, mental illness, and SSRI’s???

And deadly side effects.

Are we really going to keep pretending?

Or covering for Big Pharma?

Because I’m absolutely done with the political plays on this BS. pic.twitter.com/8SkNpSOYWW

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) July 5, 2022"

Terrif!
The #1 crackpot in the congress, conspiracy theory,
and best of all, nothing about psychotic behaviour,
or any risk at all except to the one taking the drug.

 

[Aaron112]

Terrif!
The #1 crackpot in the congress, conspiracy theory,
and best of all, nothing about psychotic behaviour,
or any risk at all except to the one taking the drug.

And the ones they shoot of course.

 

[Estrid]

MTG..."I don't believe in that kind of so called science "

Why would I so easily guess she's a creationist.

I'd trust her on science like I'd trust a sidewalk
dentist in Mozambique.

IAnd the ones they shoot of course.

The ones? Who? When?

Your worthless unattributed and altered citation makes
no mention of behavioral issues.

Other supporting evidence is conspiracy theory
and a crackpot.

The only "of course" is that you have nothing.

At a quick appraisal I'd say you could use
yourself a different attitude, and, if you don't
mind me aspersing your " information" again, a
a better class of citations.

 

[Aaron112]

The ones? Who? When?

Your worthless unattributed and altered citation makes
no mention of behavioral issues.

fwiw, maybe nothing to you,
drugs have long been known and proven to change behavior, often not for good.

You might argue against a thousand 'studies' worldwide proving the causal relationship
that
the druggies publish ten thousand 'studies' to disprove - so it boils down to
if you even can learn the truth of either side, or none.

You know well enough how to use the internet , albeit the internet is exceedingly deceiving and deceptive on purpose, and discovering what is true is harder than any scavenger hunt you've ever seen or participated in.

The motives and intents of men's hearts, including the druggies, is exposed by the "sharper than any sword" Word of the Creator,
and is never accepted by the world , rather is rejected by the world.

 

[Estrid]

fwiw, maybe nothing to you,
drugs have long been known and proven to change behavior, often not for good.

You might argue against a thousand 'studies' worldwide proving the causal relationship
that
the druggies publish ten thousand 'studies' to disprove - so it boils down to
if you even can learn the truth of either side, or none.

You know well enough how to use the internet , albeit the internet is exceedingly deceiving and deceptive on purpose, and discovering what is true is harder than any scavenger hunt you've ever seen or participated in.

The motives and intents of men's hearts, including the druggies, is exposed by the "sharper than any sword" Word of the Creator,
and is never accepted by the world , rather is rejected by the world.

No way you can just admit to having zero
evidence huh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If evidence matters so much to you,
look for it.
It has been readily available for decades, as well as covered up for decades, but still is findable to those who look.

Just like, perhaps, the effects of alcohol on a persons brain/mind/behavior,
so also the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal, are documented or reported/ observed daily.

"Do it yourself" is very much a copout answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So what ? That's your opinion. If you have a painful toothache, it is up to you, yourself, to find help for it. I won't .

It's a copout answer. You make the claim, it's on you to back it up with evidence. That's how it goes.

 

[Estrid]

If evidence matters so much to you,
look for it.
It has been readily available for decades, as well as covered up for decades, but still is findable to those who look.

Just like, perhaps, the effects of alcohol on a persons brain/mind/behavior,
so also the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal, are documented or reported/ observed daily.

I've noticed that it's a thing with fundamentalists
to just say things. Who knows why.

But I do know, they will never ever back down,
admit to any error. Never in my experience,

I don't figure you to be the first..

You have zero. Invoking God, conspiracies,
irrelevant warning label from who knows where,
changing the subject, saying I should do your
homework etc etc is all just garbage.
You have zero.

Admitting it would be a display of intellectual integrity.


Anyway, enough. I've seen your hand. Aces and eights.

 

[Estrid]

Have you ever seen what's called "a mean" drunk ?

See? Change the subject.

 

[Estrid]

So what ? That's your opinion. If you have a painful toothache, it is up to you, yourself, to find help for it. I won't .

See?
Change the subject,

And

" you do my homework"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The similarity is astonishing.
"mean" drunk
"suicidal" on brain alternating medicine or drugs
"shooter"
Not surprising really.

Not even remotely similar. And Klebold and Harris were not on drugs when they shot up Columbine. To suggest they were is to try and side-step the issue that these were young men who needed help, were failed by the society they lived in, and ultimately committed the worst sin and worst crime: first degree murder.
To blame it all on drugs is head in the sand behaviour.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In a short search a little while ago I discovered, or re-discovered, they were on or had been on drugs./medicine/ like many other shooters.

How may in the military and flying jets for the usa were given drugs to stay awake or 'enhance' their performance , btw ?

While there is evidence they were on anti-depressants, there is no evidence at all linking the fact that the planned, orchestrated and carried out a mass shooting.
To focus solely on the drugs is a clear sign that you don't care about the actual problems like so many people in these situations do and only focus on knee-jerk band-aid solutions.