|
Author
|
Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Genetic entropy and other nonsense
The adding up problem is what "genetic entropy" is. How long does this extinction due to genetic entropy take? I ask this because we have evidence of a couple of billion years of life and evolution, and we're not extinct yet. Some branches may be extinct, but overall the earth is teeming with life. Or do you not accept this billions of years age estimate? Are you more comfortable with a few thousand years? Otherwise, there is no way that the genetic entropy argument is anything but nonsense.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
Sanford himself is on the record as believing the Earth is between 5 and 10 thousand years old. Yes, I know. I am trying to see whether AlphaOmegakid does also.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Genetic entropy and other nonsense
Sandford was an atheistic evolutionist. He then became a a theistic evolutionist. And when he really understood the limits on natural selection , he became a young earth creationist. I was an old earth creationist, and am now a YEC. I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy. His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it. Unfortunately, this does not work in the real world. The evidence shows an old earth and that alone kills the notion of genetic entropy. So genetic enthropy, rather than being a potential falsifier for the theory of evolution, is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy. I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS.
His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it. Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS. Please stick to the subject. As a reminder, I was responding to the notion that Sanford's genetic entropy idea has the potential to falsify the theory of evolution. I showed why that idea doesn't work: it relies on the religious belief in a young earth. It does not work if life has been kicking around for a couple of billion years, which is what the evidence suggests. Care to address the topic?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Let's try again
Let's try one more time: The genetic entropy argument is falsified by life having existed for 2-3 billion years. If the proposed entropy hasn't led to extinction of life in that time, we don't need to worry about it: it doesn't exist. Your belief if a young earth, leaving just ca. 6,000 years for genetic entropy to have operated (e.g., since the mythical fall) is contradicted by the evidence. The earth is over four billion years old. The age of the earth and origin of life some 2-3 billion years ago falsifies the notion of genetic entropy all by itself.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
So how many generations does it take for extinction? 300 generations? 6,000 years?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Has any evidence been found yet? No.
So how many generations does it take for extinction? 300 generations? 6,000 years? That depends on.... The effective population size The mutation rate the ratio of beneficial mutations to non beneficial The genome size The number of linkage units The strength of natural selection And one of the most important is the number of offspring per generation And there are other variables as well such as heritability, ratio of recessives, etc. Let me know the variables and I can give you an answer. Here's the bottom line: life has been around for several billion years and it hasn't succumbed to "genetic entropy" yet. I don't think we have to worry much about it. I think the reason creationists have jumped on this bandwagon is 1) a religious belief in "the fall" and 2) a religious belief in a young earth. Both are myths, and have no place in science, but that is apparently what is behind this nonsense. Unless you have evidence? If so I would love to see it.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
Message 349 of 968 (598831)
01-03-2011 1:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 348 by ICANT
01-03-2011 12:45 AM
|
|
Re: Bump for ICANT
Now is [sic] you have verifiable evidence that macroevolution has occurred present it now. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 This has been posted many times. The fact that you don't like or accept this does not mean it is not evidence. Your attempts to hand-wave it away mean nothing.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 348 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2011 12:45 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2011 10:34 AM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 351 of 968 (598856)
01-03-2011 11:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-03-2011 10:34 AM
|
|
Dismissing the evidence with a simple hand-wave
You present a picture of 14 skulls and claim that is evidence of 'Macro-Evolution". The only thing you have presented is 14 skulls that prove that a creature existed at one time that had that particular skull. Anything else you want to conclude from that picture is your conclusion.
Not even a very good hand-wave. But I guess if you are afraid to look at the evidence, then it doesn't matter how good that evidence is. Suffice it to say that experts have looked at that evidence and those skulls represent macro-evolution. I looked at that evidence for several years in grad school and that was one of the subjects on my Ph.D. exams. Hand-wave all you want, it doesn't make it go away. The evidence is there, staring you in the face whether you look or not.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2011 10:34 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Bump for ICANT
ust quick question here, dont mean to interupt. if these are the changes from the Chimpanzees to humans and chimpanzees are still here, where did all these intermediate types go? Is it possible that all of them went extinct? Shouldnt there be atleast one example of them still in existence if we still have all types and examples of primates Don't you realize that some of those species evolved into the next species? They didn't go extinct but changed. An example: didn't you grow from an infant to a child to an adolescent to an adult? Those earlier forms of you didn't go extinct, they changed. This is a pretty good analogy for evolution. The main line from the common ancestor of chimps and humans was just such a series of changes. There were a few side branches that went extinct, but the main line leads from that common ancestor directly to us. So there is one example still in existence--us!
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 373 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-11-2011 11:49 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Re: Bump for ICANT
If they are a recent species it just seems odd that none survived. But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer For the creationist its no so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashion Examples of extinctions when there are "millions of these things" are abundant. Check out the details on the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon. From Wiki: The Passenger Pigeon or Wild Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) was an extinct bird, which existed in North America. It lived in enormous migratory flockssometimes containing more than two billion birdsthat could stretch one mile (1.6 km) wide and 300 miles (500 km) long across the sky, sometimes taking several hours to pass. Some estimate that there were three billion to five billion Passenger Pigeons in the United States when Europeans arrived in North America. Others argue that the species had not been common in the Pre-Columbian period, but their numbers grew when devastation of the American Indian population by European diseases led to reduced competition for food. The species went from being one of the most abundant birds in the world during the 19th century to extinction early in the 20th century.
Since there were literally thousands and possible millions of these things according to your understanding, it seems we are required to depend for our decision on the scantaly piecies of information and remains, when there should be overwhelming evidence in the fossil record where are the mass graves or such creatures? why do we have to depend on fragments, where literally thousands of examples should be present this should be no problem if indeed they are a recent species and only recently went extinct. Where are the mass graves of Passenger Pigeons? They existed in the billions. Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 408 of 968 (600142)
01-12-2011 8:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 407 by barbara
01-12-2011 8:16 PM
|
|
Re: Bump for ICANT
There is plenty of fossils found in every state in the U.S. of the Pleisocene large mammals: Saber Tooth, Puma/cougar, American Lion, horse, dire wolf, mammoths, mastodon, Cheetahs, some marsupials, Giant beaver and many more.
They have not found any fossils of gorilla and found very few of chimp fossils but yet have found all the different species of human/ape. In the US???? Gorilla, chimp, and human/ape (by this I assume you mean what we call transitionals). This is news to me. Please list some of your sources.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 407 by barbara, posted 01-12-2011 8:16 PM | | barbara has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 409 by barbara, posted 01-12-2011 9:01 PM | | Coyote has replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 410 of 968 (600153)
01-12-2011 9:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 409 by barbara
01-12-2011 9:01 PM
|
|
Fossils in the US
What I meant to say that there are no fossils found in Africa for the gorilla and the chimp.
Actually there are, but not many. The forest is not a good environment for preserving and fossilizing bones. We're lucky we have anything at all from some environments and time periods.
Yet the U.S. has many fossils of these large mammals that once existed here. Many of these are bones preserved in dry caves or in places like the La Brea Tar Pits. Those have provided a wealth of specimens. These environments are pretty much the opposite of forests. And we are dealing with bone preservation rather than fossilization in most cases.
Many of the fossils that represent the human lineage look more like chimp skulls then human. Actually, no. They show a range of features from chimp-like to human-like, and everything in between. I would say that there are more that look human-like than chimp-like. This would include all of the H. erectus specimens. You have to go to the Australopithecus et al. before you start so see many of the chimp-like traits, and those are often not really as prominent in the postcranials as in certain features of the crania.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 409 by barbara, posted 01-12-2011 9:01 PM | | barbara has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
Wrong again
many qualified people that DO understand all the "science" disagree with the tenets and conclusions reached by evolutionists Only when they are creationists.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2011 10:07 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 425 of 968 (600205)
01-13-2011 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 423 by barbara
01-13-2011 11:25 AM
|
|
Wrong again
The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.
The Theory of Evolution is a "hot debate" because some folks can't accept it due to their religious beliefs. This has nothing to do with the evidence that supports the theory. It has everything to do with the beliefs of those who oppose the theory. When it comes to evolution, no amount of evidence would change the minds of most fundamentalists. That's why it is a "hot debate."
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 423 by barbara, posted 01-13-2011 11:25 AM | | barbara has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
