|
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
But as I said, being right and being recognized as right, are two different things. If you were right the evidence would be indisputable, but your argument doesn't even agree with the evidence that easy to observe and that anyone can see. And you completely skip over hundreds of fine details that we have pointed out to you over the years. You always sweep those details under the carpet and say you are only concentrating on the big picture. Like I said earlier, you flame out.
Message 304quote: You are as deluded as Davidjay. We've been here all along and you have never proved anything. You always flame out because your arguments are full of holes. Edited by Tanypteryx, : spellingWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
CRR writes: If mutation adds statistically significant amounts of functional information then it is macroevolution. I would like to see you describe how you would recognize statistically significant amounts of functional information. Did you make this up yourself or copy it from a creationist site?
CRR writes: Microevolution does not add statistically significant amounts of functional information. Not even lots and lots of microevolution? Like maybe, 3.8 billion years worth of microevolution? Can you show us some published research that concludes your two statements are true and not both just made up, creationist BS?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
CRR writes: Microevolution does not add statistically significant amounts of functional information. Not even lots and lots of microevolution? Like maybe, 3.8 billion years worth of microevolution? There's a hidden admission here that microevolution can add functional information, just that it isn't significant in the population at the time. This leads us rather inevitably to each generation adding a little functional information, so the question becomes when is it significant? For evolutionary biologists, traits are accumulated in each generation, and after a while it becomes significantly different enough from the original population to declare a new species by anagenesis. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Then show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution. The Y chromosome. 20% of the genes have no homologue anywhere in the chimp genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CRR writes: Taq writes: Then show me a single genetic difference between humans and chimps that could not be produced by microevolution. The Y chromosome. 20% of the genes have no homologue anywhere in the chimp genome. That difference could be achieved by ~40 deletions on the chimp lineage; 40 mutations, one every 150,000yrs. or so. If one deletion can be micro, how many does it take to get macro? What about the differences on the most divergent human Y-chromosomes in the 180 generations since Noah? There will be a lot more than 40 mutations involved, so micro or macro?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Not what he asked for. Homologs are not required for mutations to accumulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCat'sEye writes: jerk That's not a very nice thing to say.
dumbass That's not a very nice thing to say - nor even remotely accurate - someone who took a mere twelve years to complete seven years of primary school is not a "dumbass" (esp not in Australia Land, where asses don't exist).
I'm not even an atheist.
Scientism = "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques" - a dictionary definition. Many Christians suffer from scientism - they're known as theistic evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes: I think this is a lie. Can you document this? First we need to agree on the definition of "many".
You must have pulled this one right out of your ass. I'm not in possession of an ass, and as far as I know there are none of these creatures in Australia Land (apparently there was one in Alice Springs in the 1950's, but it died). There are many horses and camels in Australia Land - and even lamas - but there is not one, solitary ass. There are also many rabbits here - from which the ass evolved - but a rabbit is not an ass, so it doesn't count.Even if I did own an ass, I would have no idea of idea of how to pull a sentence of English-style words out of it. A veterinary surgeon might, but then that would cost too much money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
macroevolution = microevolution + millions of years. Can you define what you think "macroevolution" is? But life on earth is only 5778 years old - not enuf time for macroevolution to occur (assuming it occurs at all). Microevolution might be compared to a merry-go-round - there is motion and change, but it doesn't actually go anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I've heard that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertebrates. Is this true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: evolution is useful in dealing with diseases like flu I agree - but there's no need to believe in any of that useless stuff about humans and apes having a common ancestor, or whales evolving from a mouse (or was it a rabbit?); great things can be achieved in science by just sticking to the reality of here and now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024