Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 106 of 493 (492372)
12-30-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
Let me provide a simplistic example.
Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go.
I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course.
Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim?
So, you're under the impression that evolutionary biologists are studying the future based on what they can see in the present, are you? I certainly wouldn't assume anything about what the descendents of turtles might be like in ten million years' time. There might not be any!
In my opinion, this is what evolutionists are doing. But the beginning that they have observable (microevolution) is extremely tiny compared to the evolution of all organisms from a single cell.
Then your opinion is naive. We are not predicting the future of turtles, we are talking about the past. The clue is in the phrase "historical science". We can make observations in the present which give us clues to the past. My pro-virus and cytochrome C observations above, for example. Those two alone would confirm, to those who understand the evidence, that a great deal of macro-evolution has happened.
An analogy often given is that of detectives investigating a murder. When the body is discovered, the event is in the past, and if there are no witnesses, then we look at things we can see in the present for clues to history. The fingerprints of a known burglar are found in the house, his DNA is found on the body and on the murder weapon lying beside it, and discarded clothes are found in his trash can with the blood of the victim on them. The jury will convict him as guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Evolution is even clumsier at hiding the evidence than my dumb burglar. We have far more evidence for historical macro-evolution than there was for his conviction.
wardog writes:
Yes,I understand that evolutionists say because of OTHER evidence (i.e. fossil record, geology, etc), you can then ASSUME it happened.
But here's the kicker: If I go nail down a paleontologist on the MANY areas of the fossil record that are lacking in transitional forms, do you know what answers I would get? The same ones you guys are giving me. "We can assume such-and-such, because of our knowledge of genetics." "We can assume such-and-such because of our knowledge of geology." They would say it more scientifically than that, but that is the bottom line.
How many paleontologists have you "nailed down", and what are you asking them for? A complete view and understanding of natural history? What makes you expect the fossil record to be complete? Do you expect a murder to have to be filmed live from four angles, and every detail known, before we convict murderers?
If I were a paleontologist, I would point out to you that the many transitional forms already identified are more than enough proof for macro-evolution on their own. There's absolutely no reason why any such things should exist in a created world.
You would probably consider my murderer very likely to be guilty just on the three or four lines of evidence I mentioned. How many lines do you need to consider evolution the very likely culprit of the origin of the species we see around us?
I think, if you were honest, your objections to evolution are based on religious faith, and have nothing to do with the evidence at all.
However, I'm prepared to discuss the things I've mentioned so far and many other lines (sans fossils, of course )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 107 of 493 (492373)
12-30-2008 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
In my opinion, this is what evolutionists are doing. But the beginning that they have observable (microevolution) is extremely tiny compared to the evolution of all organisms from a single cell.
Yet you and other creationist assume a super rapid evolution, much more rapid (I have heard assertions of over 100 times as rapid as what the scientific community claims) of organisms from one of each "kind" of animal on Noah's ark to a wide diversification of many different variants of species in a span of less than 6000 years.
You can't have it both ways. If this type of rapid evolution occurred as you claim in such a short amount of time how much more likely is it that it occured at a slower rate over the billions of years of the Earth's history as supported by geological, astronomical, chemical and biological evidence.
And as pointed out so succinctly by Coyote what is preventing this "micro" modification of an organisms's genome that creationism claims causes the diversification of "kinds" of organisms from causing "macro" modifications as claimed by biological evolution. What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution? And what is your definition of "micro" and "macro" evolution?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 108 of 493 (492374)
12-30-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
quote:
Let me provide a simplistic example.
You example says infinitely more about your misunderstanding of biology and the evidence for the ToE than it does about the ToE itself.
quote:
Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go.
I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course.
Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim?
Let me amend your example, just a bit, to bring it closer to the state of scientific evidence for the ToE. Suppose that before letting your turtle loose for its journey, you attached a miniature global positioning device to its back and took a small sample of its DNA. You periodically checked the position of the turtle, let's say every ten miles or so. When the turtle reached the end of its journey, you retrieved it and took another sample of its DNA to verify that it was the same turtle. After plotting the various readings you got from the GPS, you found an erratic, but clear, path from Florida, across the country, then across the Pacific, ending at the location where you retrieved him.
Now, this would not amount to proof positive that he in fact made the journey, there are innumerable other possible explanations for the pattern of evidence. However, surely you would conclude, in the absence of evidence for any other explanation, that the turtle did in fact make the journey. My example is considerably closer to the level of evidence in support of the ToE than is yours. (Before you object that I haven't provided the evidence, look upthread at my previous post where I gave some of the evidence, as well as several others that have done so.)
quote:
Yes,I understand that evolutionists say because of OTHER evidence (i.e. fossil record, geology, etc), you can then ASSUME it happened.
Oh FFS! If you can find one eviloooshunist who ever says that we "ASSUME" it happened, I'll carry your fucking turtle to Beijing in my mouth. The fact that you are too lazy to look at the evidence or too stubborn to understand it doesn't meant that eviloooshunists are simply assuming.
quote:
So everyone is building their house of cards on someone else's shaky foundation. And if you nail each area down to what EXACT evidence they have, all you get is a few shreds of evidence and a lot of assuming.
So that is what I've been doing. I just want people to tell me what evidence they actually have without pointing to another area of study.
Half a dozen people or so have done just that IN THIS THREAD. Your refusal to read what's written and instead stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Mumumumumumah!" so you don't hear it doesn't make the evidence go away.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 493 (492387)
12-30-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by wardog25
12-30-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
Assume I find a turtle in my back yard. I point him toward Beijing (I live in Orlando, FL) and let him go.
I walk behind him and observe him covering 2 miles of the distance (roughly 0.025% of the way) and he doesn't change course.
Can I walk back home and assume he went the whole way? Can I even assume he is CAPABLE of going the whole way, just because he can walk and he can swim?
I see your point.
But, as we've been trying to explain, there are known mechanisms that limit the turtle's ability to traverse such a great distance (exhaustion, food limitation, lifespan, climatic changes between Florida and Beijing, lack of interest in making the voyage; etc.), while no such mechanisms are known for the accumulation of genetic changes over time. People have looked for them and failed to find them. They are not there.
Here’s a hypothetical example. Below is a diagram representing a handful of hypothetical species lined up in a dendrogram:
A   B  C   D  E F G
 \  /   \   \/  \/
  \/     \   \  /
   \      \   \/
    \      \  /
     \      \/
      \     /
       \   /
        \ /
This dendrogram has only a single basal node, indicating that all 7 species belong to a single "kind." This is obviously the purest form of "evolutionary natural history."
A creationist might say that the dendrogram is better represented like this:
A    B  C    D  E  F  G
 \  /    \    \/    \/
Where the first dendrogram has a single basal node, this one has 5 basal nodes, creating 5 “kinds”: (A), (B), (C), (D+E), and (F+G).
Or, like this:
A   B  C   D  E  F G
 \  /   \   \/   \/
  \/     \   \   /
which has 4 "kinds": (A+B), (C), (D+E), and (F+G).
The difference between F and G might be, for example 10%, and a similar difference might be predicted for D and E. But then, the node between F and G might differ from the node between D and E by 15%.
Now, the creationist must explain why accumulation of 10% difference between D and E is acceptable, while 15% between (D+E) and (F+G) is not. Furthermore, what if the difference between the nodes is only 10%? Why can one 10% change (between F and G) happen, but not another (the node between node D+E and node F+G)? There are cases where this phenomenon has been seen. (Here is a good thread from not too long ago about this concept).
And, the creationist must explain what happens when the threshold is met. If a certain “kind” can sustain 12% accumulation of mutations, what happens when 12% is reached (I’m just throwing out arbitrary numbers for ease of expression)? Does some mechanism kick in that prevents another mutation from happening beyond 12%? Or, do all organisms of that “kind” that mutate beyond 12% just die off or abort as fetusus or something? Why? And, more importantly, is there any evidence of this?
On the other hand, the evolutionist does not have to explain anything special. If one 10% change can happen, the evolutionist already has an explanation for how another 10% change can happen. And, so far, no evidence has yet disproven it, so it remains tentatively accepted unless somebody produces evidence against it.
-----
wardog25 writes:
But here's the kicker: If I go nail down a paleontologist on the MANY areas of the fossil record that are lacking in transitional forms, do you know what answers I would get? The same ones you guys are giving me. "We can assume such-and-such, because of our knowledge of genetics." "We can assume such-and-such because of our knowledge of geology." They would say it more scientifically than that, but that is the bottom line.
And, once again, you've apparently failed to notice that many different bits of evidence have been provided for you that meet the criteria you've set. Read the following posts again, just for starters:
Message 79
Message 92
Message 93
Edited by Mantis, : Fix URL problem. Thanks, RAZD

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by wardog25, posted 12-30-2008 4:31 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 2:10 PM Blue Jay has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 110 of 493 (492439)
12-31-2008 10:12 AM


Wardog - it might help to remember that the genome of every single lifeform on the planet today is encoded in DNA using the same four amino acid bases. In every single lifeform, this is transcribed into RNA, which then translates this code (using exactly the same language) into proteins built from exactly the same 20 amino acids. Yeast, giant redwoods, cows, snails and people are all built out of the same stuff. There being no distinction between kinds at this basic level of organisation, the only reason we could assume a population of bacteria couldn't gradually evolve into a population of manatees through an accumulation of changes would be to show that there's some necessary intermediate that just wouldn't be possible as a viable lifeform. I don't see any reason why we should think this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by AdminNosy, posted 12-31-2008 11:13 AM caffeine has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 111 of 493 (492442)
12-31-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by caffeine
12-31-2008 10:12 AM


Welcome caffeine
Could you help out by using the little green reply button at the lower right of the post you are replying to? It sends a notification to the poster that they have been replied to (if they set that option) and, more importantly, makes it easier to follow the chain of posts in the thread.
ABE (thanks to RAZD)
This is what the reply button looks like:

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Also a small aside:
...single lifeform on the planet today is encoded in DNA using the same four amino acid bases. In every single lifeform, this is transcribed into RNA, which then translates this code (using exactly the same language)...
You are wrong twice in that bit. There are some viruses which use only RNA and there are some organisms which use a slightly different code.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by caffeine, posted 12-31-2008 10:12 AM caffeine has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 493 (492451)
12-31-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by wardog25
12-29-2008 5:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hey wardog25,
I see you still have not defined what you are looking for, and thus you are still waffling about the evidence.
Ever since people read the book of Genesis, Christians have been saying that variations in kinds came from one common ancestor that was on the ark. (i.e. all dogs came from one pair of dogs that was on the ark) Then in the last century or 2, evolutionists point out those same changes and say it is evidence for evolution. It may be a different way of looking at it. But it isn't evidence against creation, and so really doesn't have much place in a creation vs. evolution debate since it confirms both sides.
Correct, and the fact that the mechanisms of evolution explain the divergence from a common ancestor into dogs or primates is why evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is not contradictory to creation. Anyone who tells you so does not understand evolution.
Where the difference lies, is that Darwin (and Wallace and a few others) realized that this was ALSO sufficient to explain the divergence of primates and dogs from a common ancestor, that all the diversity of life could be explained by this one simple mechanism.
In other words, rather than be satisfied with a simple explanation for varieties of dogs, and varieties of primates, the question is asked - why stop there? What is the evidence that dogs and primates do not share a common ancestor?
What you call "evolutionary natural history", I call the Theory of Evolution. Yes, the official definition of the word "evolution" is different, but I generally try to go by what is meant by the word "evolution" 95% of the time I hear it.
Unfortunately for you, this still means you are confusing the terms and failing to speak clearly. A theory explains evidence, it isn't made up of evidence. The evidence exists independent of the theory.
There are three things called "evolution" relating to biological science (and many others not related): there is the science of evolution, there is the process of evolution, and there is the theory of evolution.
As noted above, the process of evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. And as noted by you above, most creationists don't (can't) argue with this as an ongoing process, observed, documented, factual: the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation does in fact occur.
The science of evolution studies, examines and tests various concepts for exactly how those hereditary traits change, under what conditions they change, and how much change occurs in each population, whether it is a constant trend or a cycic one, etc etc etc.
The theory of evolution is that the diversity of life as we know it, from history, from prehistory, from the geological\paleontological record, and from genetics, can be explained by this very same process.
The science of evolution also studies, examines and tests this theory against all the known evidence from history, from prehistory, from the archeological record, from the geological record, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.
So far ALL the evidence shows that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - has been a continuous process throughout the time-span of the evidence.
Most people mean a lot more than "change in gene frequency over time" when they say the word evolution.
Most people are ignorant. The argument from popularity is also a logical fallacy. If people don't know what evolution is, then what value is their opinion on the matter?
People who talk about evolution without knowing\using the definition/s as used in the science ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION.
The examples given of ring species would not fall outside anyone's definition of "kind". If all dogs are the same kind, certainly a weak bacteria and a hardy bacteria are the same kind. Same thing with a salamanders of varying colors or birds with different mating calls (simplified explanation, I know, but I am in a hurry and have no time to quote the article verabatim)
The question to you is, what prevents all these different organisms from being related via a common ancestor?
Can you point to one difference between these two skeletons that shows they cannot be related?
Would you say that the difference between these two skeletons is more or less than the difference you see within dogs?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by wardog25, posted 12-29-2008 5:12 PM wardog25 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 493 (492453)
12-31-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Blue Jay
12-30-2008 6:56 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hey Bluejay, are you a non-compass mantis?
(Here is a good thread from not too long ago about this concept).
You have http: twice. Try Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Blue Jay, posted 12-30-2008 6:56 PM Blue Jay has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 114 of 493 (492455)
12-31-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by DevilsAdvocate
12-30-2008 5:46 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
You can't have it both ways. If this type of rapid evolution occurred as you claim in such a short amount of time how much more likely is it that it occured at a slower rate over the billions of years of the Earth's history as supported by geological, astronomical, chemical and biological evidence.
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view. All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.
The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that). It mostly involves a process that we can test and observe every day.
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there. So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-30-2008 5:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coragyps, posted 12-31-2008 3:17 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2008 5:10 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2008 5:19 PM wardog25 has replied
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 5:57 PM wardog25 has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 115 of 493 (492456)
12-31-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
12-30-2008 5:29 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Thanks for the response, but it entirely missed the question.
You admit to micro-evolution but deny macro-evolution.
What is the mechanism that prevents a bunch of micros from adding up to a macro?
How mechanism tells it when to stop, and what mechanism then causes it to stop lest those micros add up to a macro?
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2008 5:29 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 12-31-2008 3:42 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 12-31-2008 3:58 PM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 125 by fallacycop, posted 12-31-2008 10:12 PM wardog25 has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 116 of 493 (492460)
12-31-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view.
I fathom it pretty well, I think: one book trumps all evidence.
The diversification of animals after the flood....
What flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM wardog25 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 493 (492463)
12-31-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
For asexual species, the mechanism of change can only be mutation. There's no other way.
For sexual species, changes from one generation to the next are mainly due to allele remixing (alleles are gene variants, like for blue eyes versus brown eyes), while species change over longer time periods is caused by mutations.
That genomes were initially preloaded with the genes necessary for descendant species could at one time have been considered a possibility, but not today given the evidence we have in hand. Our genome mapping exercises provide no indication of stores of genes for future descendant species.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:35 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 12-31-2008 4:56 PM Percy has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 493 (492466)
12-31-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:35 PM


Mutations again
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
That would be false. Mutation is well documented, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You might as well try to deny that the sun comes up in the east.
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.
That would be false. Mutation is a true trial and error process. Bad mutations kill the host. Neutral or favorable mutations are passed on.
You are the result of billions of neutral and favorable mutations, and probably very few harmful mutations.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:35 PM wardog25 has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 119 of 493 (492469)
12-31-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
12-31-2008 3:42 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
For sexual species, changes from one generation to the next are mainly due to allele remixing (alleles are gene variants, like for blue eyes versus brown eyes), while species change over longer time periods is caused by mutations.
It would be logical to assume that originally humans were either all blue-eyed or brown-eyed in which the alternate had to be a mutation.
I doubt that the early humans had one blue eye & one brown eye.
Edited by bluescat48, : missing letter

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 12-31-2008 3:42 PM Percy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 493 (492472)
12-31-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
quote:
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view. All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.
That pretty much shows that you DON'T understand the evolutionist point of view. The assumption that there is no God isn't part of evolution, and certainly isn't a basis for it.
quote:
The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that). It mostly involves a process that we can test and observe every day.
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there. So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.
That's a standard creationist fantasy. But it can't work. Even by the most favourable interpretation the Ark only carried 7 pairs of each "clean" animal - which is small enough to be in danger of inbreeding. All other species are even worse off - the unclean "kinds" would be represented by only a single pair.. Even if the "kinds" in the ark were species they should ALL have low genetic diversity without mutation. The problem is multiplied horrendously if you make a "kind" a genus or more.
No, you need hyper-mutation to go with your alleged post-Flood hyper-macroevolution. That is the only way to explain away the genetic evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM wardog25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 12-31-2008 5:26 PM PaulK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024