|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion. What extrapolation? We can directly see a combination of human and ape features in the fossil, no extrapolation needed. If a transitional is not a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features, then please explain what features a transitional should have. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with other apes? Of course, you will never accept any fossil as being transitional, right? No matter what a fossil looks like, you have already decided before looking at it that it can't be transitional. All you have is denial, and this is evidenced by you inability to deal with the fossils themselves. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong. You still can't explain those observations in those posts. Go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: Can the cult of Darwinism be trusted to produce "peer reviewed literarure"? This is like expecting the literature produced by Jehovah's Witnesses to be peer reviewed! Yet another pathetic attempt to use mockery to avoid the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: Since I am not qualified to assess your ideas in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, 17, I referred them to Chicko. He said the respective observations can just as easily be used as arguments for Intelligent Design! In what world do you think that is a valid refutation of what was presented?
Your claim that "only evolution" can explain the observations possibly constitutes the informal fallacy of the false dilemma, in philosophy-speak. Can you show me another explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: The mere existence of such a depth of strata and such an abundance of dead things is what I'm talking about, that alone is the evidence for the Flood, there is no other explanation needed.
Why should we believe anything you say when you have already admitted that you can't ever say that divergent species share a common ancestor? Your mind has already been made up before you look at any evidence, so why should anyone listen to your opinions on the matter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Faith writes: Who's asking you to believe anything? You seem to be claiming that you want to debate these topics. If that is the case, then the entire purpose of these posts is for people to be convinced by those posts. When you openly state that any geologic structure you see will be automatically labeled as the result of a recent global flood because that is what your beliefs require you to do, why would anyone be convinced by anything you post on the subject?
Use your critical thinking: the strata and the fossils are great evidence for a worldwide Flood. The problem is you guys have bought into a really nutty theory about those things and can't see the true situation for what it is. The irony of you asking others to use their critical thinking skills when you purposefully turn yours off is just too amazing to skip over. Your posts are perhaps the best example of phychological projection I have ever seen. You are projecting your own lack of critical thinking and surrender to dogmatic beliefs onto others as a way of reducing your own internal struggle to deal with these obvious problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: Nice try, but all you're describing is microevolution. A creationist biologist could potentially tackle any task applied biology throws at him because applied biology operates only at the level of microevolution. For all intents and purposes, macroevolution exists only in the La La Land of theorectical biology; it's an irrelevance to real-world biology.
Posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 contain applied biology in the field of macroevolution. Perhaps you could address them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: I can't, but Chicko could. Or you could ask the creationist scientists at CMI or AIG; I bet they could shed some light. Why not write to them and find out? Seriously. What is stopping them from presenting that explanation to the scientific community, if they have one? Why don't you write them and get that explanation?
Besides, you should know that in science a theory is accepted only until a better one comes along. What you consider today to be the "only explanation", might in 1000 years time be considered hopelessly primitive and unenlightened. Creationism is already considered primitive and unenlightened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR writes: Visualize walking from SF to NY, then to London, UK. Microevolution allows you to explore the limits of the available gene pool; but beyond that you need macroevolution. Microevolution + Time Macroevolution. Then show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR writes: No I'm not. If mutation adds statistically significant amounts of functional information then it is macroevolution.Microevolution does not add statistically significant amounts of functional information. As the challenge stated above, show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution. Which base substitutions could not be produced by microevolution? Which insertions and deletions could not be produced by microevolution? Which transposon or retrovirus insertions could not be produced by microevolution? Which genetic recombinations could not be produced by microevolution? Any response? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: I'm not "handwaving" anything. I don't address the fossil record in general, but Pelycodus is obviously the result of the Flood. That's only because your religious beliefs require you to say that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR writes: The Y chromosome. 20% of the genes have no homologue anywhere in the chimp genome. How could that difference not be produced by an accumulation of microevolutionary events?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: But life on earth is only 5778 years old . . . That would be a tacit admission that if life did evolve over millions of years then the accumulation of microevolutionary events does add up to macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: I agree - but there's no need to believe in any of that useless stuff about humans and apes having a common ancestor, I already did show that there was a need for accepting common ancestry between humans and apes in post 17. You need common ancestry and evolution to explain the distribution and divergence of ERVs in hominidae genomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Talk about magic! Talk about believing six impossible things before breakfast! It's this kind of nonsense the ToE is made of, and you call it Science. It's just impossible fantasies. But microevolution eats information, and that's another big reason it can't happen.
So you are saying that all of the genetic differences between the human and chimp genomes "eats information"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024