Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-25-2017 6:13 AM
410 online now:
frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 407 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 822,970 Year: 27,576/21,208 Month: 1,489/1,714 Week: 332/365 Day: 9/50 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13315
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 151 of 252 (814741)
07-12-2017 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
quote:

The sensible reason to believe it is that it would benefit you greatly if you did.

You say that but you offer no reason to think that there is any real benefit. And believing things in the hope of benefit is hardly a good way to find the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:08 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26620
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 252 (814743)
07-12-2017 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
07-12-2017 1:03 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Uh huh. Well, if you can't see it you can't see it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2017 1:03 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2017 1:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 153 of 252 (814745)
07-12-2017 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Sorry, you are wrong. As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect.

So claims a fallen human. By your own criteria you can't believe any such thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:36 PM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13315
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 154 of 252 (814747)
07-12-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-12-2017 1:08 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Maybe you find it a benefit to see distorting and twisting the Bible as suoernatural insight - but I don't think that it is good for anything more than your pride.

Add in your notably poor judgement in general and your frequent errors and I have to say I am better off as I am. Even if Christianity turned out to be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26620
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 252 (814749)
07-12-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Taq
07-12-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Being regenerated, born again, means to have your spiritual faculty "quickened" as the KJV puts it, or brought to life, the spiritual faculty that was lost to Adam and Eve at the Fall. That's the connection to the things of God that the fallen nature lacks. It makes possible the faith that saves and the faith that recognizes God's word. We're going to drag around the fallen flesh to death nevertheless, but we do have this regenerated spirit that unbelievers don't have.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 1:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 2:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 156 of 252 (814756)
07-12-2017 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
07-12-2017 1:36 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Being regenerated, born again, means to have your spiritual faculty "quickened" as the KJV puts it, or brought to life, the spiritual faculty that was lost to Adam and Eve at the Fall. That's the connection to the things of God that the fallen nature lacks. It makes possible the faith that saves and the faith that recognizes God's word. We're going to drag around the fallen flesh to death nevertheless, but we do have this regenerated spirit that unbelievers don't have.

Those are the claims of a fallen human who, by your own criteria, can't be believed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13889
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 157 of 252 (814760)
07-12-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect.


But of course the intellect is not "fallen". Adam and Eve gained the ability to discern good from evil and true from false.

So there is nothing to be overridden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3993
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 158 of 252 (814764)
07-12-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
07-12-2017 1:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
That's your fallible opinion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 159 of 252 (814830)
07-13-2017 6:55 AM


talk about off topic talk ...
discussing anything bible is not the topic. See Message 1:

quote:
For creationists who claim that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things, here is a simple challenge:

Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages.

Just for clarity, I am defining a microevolutionary change as a single mutational event (e.g. base substitution, insertion, deletion, transposon insertion, retroviral insertion, or genetic recombination) that is passed on to descendants.


This is a simple request, based on actual empirical evidence and asking for actual empirical evidence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 7:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 160 of 252 (815821)
07-24-2017 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by RAZD
07-13-2017 6:55 AM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
You can always make up an evolutionary fairy tale to "explain" anything, particularly if you ignore real world constraints such time to fixity, and define microevolution broadly enough.

Since it includes included deletion as microevolution without any constraints as to size and rate then as I have said you can simply assume a common ancestor with hundreds of extra genes that got deleted in one or the other line leading to humans or chimps. There you are, all the non-homologous genes explained by microevolution. And the challenge is to show only a single change without considering concurrent changes..

Taq has set up the "challenge" up so that it can't fail. As such it is not worth the effort to attempt to meet it.
{Edit: Let me rephrase that, Taq has set up the "challenge" up so that it is no win. }

How about I propose an alternative?
Show that ALL of the genetic differences between humans and chimps could have been produced by microevolutionary processes within 10 million years using reasonable population sizes, mutation rates, generation times, and assuming that all the non-homologous genes have appeared since separation. Fitness effect of each change must be considered.

I would accept a gene duplication as a single evolutionary event
Explanation must include fusion of chromosome 2, differences between the human and chimp Y chromosome, and the loss or gain of a baculum.

Edited by CRR, : as marked


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2017 6:55 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:25 PM CRR has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 161 of 252 (815857)
07-25-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by CRR
07-24-2017 7:24 PM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:

You can always make up an evolutionary fairy tale to "explain" anything, particularly if you ignore real world constraints such time to fixity, and define microevolution broadly enough.

Again, you are projecting. You are the one who believes a supernatural deity magically poofed the universe into being, along with the Earth and life. You believe in a myth with talking snakes and magical trees. We are proposing natural mechanisms for natural phenomenon which is not a fairy tale.

Since it includes included deletion as microevolution without any constraints as to size and rate then as I have said you can simply assume a common ancestor with hundreds of extra genes that got deleted in one or the other line leading to humans or chimps. There you are, all the non-homologous genes explained by microevolution. And the challenge is to show only a single change without considering concurrent changes..

You haven't demonstrated that the new genes in the human lineage lack homologous sequence in the chimp genome.

And the challenge is to show only a single change without considering concurrent changes..

Which differences are you claiming could not be achieved by microevolutionary events? If you can't point to one, then you have failed to meet the challenge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 7:24 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:42 AM Taq has responded
 Message 163 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 8:09 AM Taq has responded
 Message 171 by CRR, posted 08-02-2017 4:13 AM Taq has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 162 of 252 (815970)
07-27-2017 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
07-25-2017 1:25 PM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
I have no intention of trying to meet a no win challenge such as you have set up.

You might like to accept my challenge Message 1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:25 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Admin, posted 07-27-2017 10:41 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Taq, posted 07-27-2017 11:55 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 163 of 252 (815971)
07-27-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Taq
07-25-2017 1:25 PM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
You haven't demonstrated that the new genes in the human lineage lack homologous sequence in the chimp genome.

By golly I haven't!
I guess I just took the word of geneticists on that one, such as http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/... where the authors claim to have identified 634 human-specific genes and 780 chimpanzee-specific genes.

The more readable version is in Scientific American here

Of course the exact number is likely to change over time and I think some older sources report lower numbers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:25 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Taq, posted 07-27-2017 12:00 PM CRR has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12535
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 164 of 252 (815975)
07-27-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by CRR
07-27-2017 7:42 AM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:

I have no intention of trying to meet a no win challenge such as you have set up.

It was less a challenge and more just trying to settle a question of definition. In essence, Message 1 asked how it was possible for microevolution and macroevolution to be two completely different things, given that the latter is nothing more than many of the former.

You might like to accept my challenge Message 1

I turned down your thread proposal.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:42 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 165 of 252 (815983)
07-27-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by CRR
07-27-2017 7:42 AM


Re: talk about off topic talk ...
CRR writes:

I have no intention of trying to meet a no win challenge such as you have set up.

Then I will take this as your tacit admission that microevolution does add up to macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by CRR, posted 07-27-2017 7:42 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017