|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I call it ordinary microevolution, there's nothing "super" about it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
I call it ordinary microevolution, there's nothing "super" about it. What is to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Assuming a population that starts out with pretty high genetic variability What do you mean by that phrase exactly ?Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: In the Why the Flood Never Happened thread it was indeed Faith's position that no pre-Flood layers survived the flood, and that all strata we see today were the result of the flood.
This is your typical garbling that I don't even recognize as representing anything I've ever saidl. "No pre-Flood layers survived the Flood" is absolute gobbledygook, I have NO idea what you mean or what I could have said to inspire such nonsense. I don't believe there WERE any "pre-Flood" layers. What ARE you talking about? It was your own words that inspired such nonsense, inconsistent and contradictory as they often are. You said the material of the pre-Flood landscape was scraped off by the flood and then redeposited into the layers we see today. When asked how so much material could have been deposited upon the landscape in just the couple thousand years before the flood you said that the pre-Flood world was much richer and more vital, so there was much more life. I thought it was just you not considering the implications again when you said that the pre-Flood landscape was not organized into layers. You might want to think this through a little bit more before insisting on it. If the pre-Flood era contained deserts and warm shallow seas and swampy lowlands and coastal regions and so forth, then all these environments leave their own distinctive deposits. But let me summarize what I think is your current position. There were no stratigraphic layers prior to the flood, so material comprising the pre-flood landscape must have been a homogenous mix of every kind of deposit (never mind how that might have happened, and never mind how, since it must have been just as deep as the post-Flood layers, it wasn't turned to rock). During the flood all this material was scraped off the landscape, sorted, then redeposited into largely homogenous layers of various types like sandstone, shale, and limestone that we see today. Major geological formations like the Grand Canyon are a result of the receding floodwaters or burst lakes that carved into the strata before they had completely dried into rock. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I call it ordinary microevolution, there's nothing "super" about it. Er ... the speed. The speed would be "super" and not "ordinary". Especially if you hold that the evolution was actually saltational. Do you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Faith,
I think your only problem is that I didn't use the exact same words you used. You don't like that I used the word "soft", but I communicated the exact same ideas you did. Your position is that the Grand Canyon was carved before the strata had become too hard to erode quickly, that they were still soft enough to allow huge amounts of material to be removed in a short period of time. I'm sorry you don't like the word soft, but I'm communicating your precise position. The English vocabulary is rich enough to permit the same ideas to be expressed in different ways. And after the flood you believe the rocks hardened by drying. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So you're the third case of miscommunication now. Shouldn't be a surprise I guess. Curiously I've had no trouble understanding what has been said here ... and the fact that you are having trouble understanding a simple concept presented by several people would indicate that the failure is on your end (cognitive dissonance interference?): comprehension of the issue that the necessary rapid evolution to current species from species that were on the ark, should leave SOME evidence in the dirt\soil\etc that has accumulated in many places since the purported flood. These bones should be intermediate in form from their common ancestor to the current forms. One of the places to look would be archaeological sites where the bone of animals are preserved. Now I am sure that Coyote could give you a list of all the different species found in such sites covering the last 4,500 years. Another place to look would be sites where animals were trapped and died, like the Tar Pits, showing stacks of bones from animals over the past Tar pit - Wikipedia
quote: And there would also be fossils left from volcanic eruptions since the purported flood. [abe]: the question comes down to how many "kinds" were on the ark, and how many modern species have evolved from them to fill out the diversity of life as we know it (I tried to find the picture Ken used in the debate, but this is the closest):
there are several speciation events shown between the ark landing and the present day -- and it shows many intermediates in between[/abe] So where are these intermediate forms if we have not found any? That is the simple question, Faith. If nothing else there should be some record of some of the 'kind masters' that were on the ark, and there should be evidence of concentrations of their immediate descendants near the ark landing site. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : added imgby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I keep trying to say that some things CAN be known, they are just obvious as is. Mike the Wiz was saying they are actually in the present anyway and what you want explained about them doesn't require any leap into theorizing about events in that prehistoric past, which is what WOULD be untestable. What you cannot KNOW about the fossils for instance is when and how they died, all you can do is hypothesize, but you CAN know that a particular fossil represents a life form that is no longer living on this planet. So IF there is no doubt that the rock formation on Mars was caused by water, no competing ideas about that, fine, but if you come up with a theory about how and when it occurred, that is going to be untestable. Yeah, none of that is really true. Your stuck in a position where you believe something that science shows to be false. Since your belief cannot change, you're left with trying to find a way to believe that science has *not* shown your belief to be false. And your way to do that is to try to discredit the conclusion by saying they're unfounded. But everyone knows they're founded, and correct, and that this is just your way of dealing with having to believe things that are wrong.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: But I don't think in terms of sediment above the geologic column at all. There is just the surface of the earth which is not segregated into sediments the way the column is. There is no relationship whatever. you're looking for an argument where there is none: the only argument was about what's in the sediment, not whether or not it's layered.
Here finally you are making it clearer what you are trying to say but it's still awfully muddled. i do not understand where you are getting lost in this argument. the archaeological and historical records (that is not the fossil record, the stuff above the fossil record, the stuff post-flood in your view) should have evidence of the rampant diversification of species within the "kinds".
There would have been no pure representatives of the original Kinds on the ark, thanks to death. There would only have been varieties that had already microevolved from the originals to that point. There would already have been many varieties or breeds or races of cats, dogs, bears, horses and so on. There was still enough genetic variability for two of each Kind to be the progenitors of all the varieties, breeds, races that developed since then. sure. and then we should see evidence of this "microevolution" (in fact, extremely fast evolution) in the historical and archaeological records. i'll give you a documented example to get the ball rolling. there is extremely strong evidence, in recent history, for variation among dogs due to artificial selection. this is all within the species level. but we can document changes in say, the length of a pug's snout between ancient chinese paintings, victorian photographs, and pugs today. most creationists, and i suspect you as well (correct me if i'm wrong) would count not just dogs (canis familiaris) but {iall[/i] canids as a "kind". ken ham definitely does; i believe he said as much as in his talk. so, where is the "missing link" or last common ancestor between canis lupus (the wolf) and canis familiaris (the dog), or even the pug that looks more like your average dog? these as well should all be changes documented in the last 4,300 years. if not in the historical record, than in archaeological digs: dogs have been domesticated for all of human history.
This is a very strange idea. Each Kind is represented by all its varieties, the way the human race is represented by all its races, the way dogs are represented by all its breeds and so on. There is no "getting from" Kind to species, or from anything to anything else. I think you have a very muddled idea that still needs straightening out. to be fair, creationists have a very muddle definition of "kind". i believe i better understand the way you are using it now.
Well, surely you do see all the varieties of cats and dogs and bears and all the rest of them, don't you? nope, not even close. some of the things that are included together in "kinds" are actually quite different, eg: my wolf/pug example. are you proposing that one day a wolf just gave birth to a pug? or do you expect there to be some variation between the two?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Looks to me like your chart of trilobites demonstrates what I said no, look at it again. some go extinct earlier, and some come about later. like i said, neither representation is accurate.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
DevilsAdvocate writes: What is to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution? i like how AronRa puts it in his phylogeny challenge. not to be confused with my paleontology professor's phylogeny challenge, which awarded points for the widest diversity on the cladistic tree of life you could eat in a single sitting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I call it ordinary microevolution, there's nothing "super" about it.
Er ... the speed. The speed would be "super" and not "ordinary". The speed only seems "super" because of the weird expectations promoted by evolutionism that it has to take a long time. All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a smallish number of individuals over enough generations to combine all the alleles in the population. Because of the change in gene frequency caused by the new allele mix in the new smaller population you'll start getting new individual phenotypes within a few generations. Getting a completely new variety or breed that characterizes the whole population should just take however long it takes to mix all the alleles. Certainly no thousands of years. Maybe a couple hundred, maybe less.
Especially if you hold that the evolution was actually saltational. Do you? No. Just the usual change from generation to generation through sexual recombination, nothing extraordinary at all. I'm not arguing anything I haven't argued here a hundred times before.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Curiously I've had no trouble understanding what has been said here ... As I read on in your post, however, I see that you aren't understanding it at all. But at least I think I get a better idea of what the problem may be.
and the fact that you are having trouble understanding a simple concept presented by several people would indicate that the failure is on your end (cognitive dissonance interference?): Paradigm clash I'd say. You guys think in terms of transitional forms, I don't because I don't share the evolutionist model. Your model expects gradations, mine doesn't. Mine expects variations, not gradations. The bones in the archaeological digs could have all sorts of different forms from those either on the ark or in the fossil record just depending on how the groups dispersed after the Flood. Larger, smaller, heavier, lighter, taller, shorter, any variation is possible depending on what mix of alleles was involved.
comprehension of the issue that the necessary rapid evolution to current species from species that were on the ark, should leave SOME evidence in the dirt\soil\etc that has accumulated in many places since the purported flood. Well, yes, there should be evidence of varieties of all the animals that were on the ark, but not gradations, not transitionals, but varieties. What you get depends on the combination of the alleles present in any given reproducing population. The alleles for human skin color for instance should produce the whole range of skin colors. You've got six reproducing individuals on the ark, each with four genes. Say one has AABb, another has AaBB, another has AaBb, the fourth has aaBb, the fifth AAbb, the sixth AaBb. I don't have the patience right now to try to calculate all this out and it wouldn't be something you'd find in the archaeological graves anyway. But this may illustrate the principle I have in mind. From the basic genetic variability you could get both very dark skinned and very light skinned individuals as well as everything in between, and depending on how they form groups and disperse from one another you will start getting whole populations with different skin color from the other populations. Not gradations, just different groups with different characteristics.
These bones should be intermediate in form from their common ancestor to the current forms. No they shouldn't. As the animals dispersed from the ark and their population grew, you'd start getting different mixes of alleles in the groups that split off. Basic evolution: change in gene/allele frequency brought about by reproductive isolation of a daughter population. You theoretically could get a population of wiry fast dogs in one place and another population of large lazy dogs in another, and yet another population of good hunting dogs and another of small dogs as pets. But the point is the genetic variability of the pair on the ark is going to get distributed among their offspring in unpredictable ways based on how the groups split off from each other and disperse geographically. You are not going to get gradations or transitions, you are going to get a range of varieties. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The speed only seems "super" because of the weird expectations promoted by evolutionism that it has to take a long time. Because of the non-weird expectations promoted by observation, Faith. Evolution observably doesn't go that fast.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, are you talking about saltation or not?
A pair of ur-cats come off the Ark, yes? Some time later, we have lions which are descended from them, yes? This would suggest that in between you have things which look less like ur-cats and more like lions. These would be intermediate forms. The alternative is that you have things which aren't more like lions than they are like ur-cats suddenly giving birth to lions. This would be saltation, the production of Panthera leo at a single bound. You have to have one or the other: if you want lions to evolve from non-lions they can either do it gradually or suddenly, there isn't a third option.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024