Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

S:
That's a lovely story..it doesn't really say much and what is does say sounds more like micro-evolution than macro...nobody's is arguing against micro-ev.M: So you beg for an explanation that a 6 year old can understand, you get a dumbed down version and then complain that it does not say very much? LOL!!! I guess next you will require hand puppets and a guy painting with crayons before you believe the world is not flat S:
I checked my University "mainstream science" biology textbook, and guess what, the "story" of evolution is even more laughable in the textbook, than the summary I gave of your "theory" earlier.
BTW, even though you guys don't include origin of life anymore (how conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient ) the text did,...sad to see such "busch league" material in a university textbook.M: Let's see you summarize what you read...if it is so simple and everyone here is stupid and you are such a wonderful genius then let's hear your synopsis of what you read.S:
yet even though God describes a world wide catastrophic event, you dismiss it.M: For complete lack of evidence.

Regarding my "story", I'm afraid you're wrong. It is exactly what is behind the speciation events documented at Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Or the salmon speciation event at No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm.What is the barrier that prevents this from extending to, for example, explain the various genera of cichlid fish at Lake Malawi? Where does micro-evolution become macro?Do please post your textbook's description of evolution, so's we can see why it's so ludicrous.Regarding seperating abiogenesis from evolution -they've always been seperate! Darwin didn't approach the topic in Origin. They are seperate concepts, with seperate mechanisms, processes and hypotheses. So your "not including origin of life anymore" comment is pure nonsense.We don't attribute the origin of life to God, we say that if that is the case, it's not a problem for evolution. From a theistic viewpoint, I don't think that abiogenesis was miraculous in the normal sense. I find God uses natural processes - why create a universe that needs repeated prodding to work according to plan?Finally, wrt to catastrophes. They don't wipe out all life, just most species. This releases niches for new colonisation, which actually speeds up the evolutionary process - Shawn Eichorst named Nebraska’s next AD – The Minnesota Daily shows how quickly a new niche causes evolution to occur. And it isn't the ToE which finds catastrophic extinction events - the evidence is there in the geological record.[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
What is the barrier that prevents this from extending to, for example, explain the various genera of cichlid fish at Lake Malawi? Where does micro-evolution become macro?

---

Yes, please, sonnike. This is a terribly important question and no one has ever ventured to give an answer.

quote:

---

Do please post your textbook's description of evolution, so's we can see why it's so ludicrous.

---

Well, being a textbook, the description may well be ludicrous. Or maybe sonnike just doesn't understand.

quote:

---

Regarding seperating abiogenesis from evolution -they've always been seperate! Darwin didn't approach the topic in Origin. They are seperate concepts, with seperate mechanisms, processes and hypotheses. So your "not including origin of life anymore" comment is pure nonsense.

---

This cannot be emphasized enough. Continuing this nonsense only makes creationism look worse than it actually is-- and it actually is pretty bad.

quote:

---

We don't attribute the origin of life to God, we say that if that is the case, it's not a problem for evolution. From a theistic viewpoint, I don't think that abiogenesis was miraculous in the normal sense.

---

This may not be true, sonnike, but it certainly isn't self-contradictory or hypocritical as you stated.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.
It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.
I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

---

That's a nice Argument from Personal Incredulity;"Wow, golly gee, I just can't imagine that happening, therefore it can't have!"Too bad it doesn't refute anything we have said.Maybe you would like to explain the barrier which prevents macroevolution from happening?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.

---

If you ignore the genetic and fossil evidence, you might have trouble understanding this, I know.

quote:

---

It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.

---

Nice strawman. We accept the evidence for reptile to mammal evolution because of evidence.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

quote:

---

I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

---

Another strawman!Evolutionary Biology NEVER, EVER states that any creature is not fully formed!!! Only Creationist cartoon versions of Biology state this.All creatures are fully-formed, and there are several very well-known transitional creatures literally "walking around" right now.Ever hear of lungfish?In addition, we have some very wonderful fossil transitional series which are quite detailed, such as for the horse and the whale.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.

---

If you ignore the genetic and fossil evidence, you might have trouble understanding this, I know.

quote:

---

It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.

---

Nice strawman. We accept reptile to mammal evolution because of copious and excellent fossil evidence.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

quote:

---

I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

---

Another strawman!Evolutionary Biology NEVER, EVER states that any creature is not fully formed!!! Only Creationist cartoon versions of Biology state this.All creatures are fully-formed, and there are several very well-known transitional creatures literally "walking around" right now.Ever hear of lungfish?In addition, we have some very wonderful fossil transitional series which are quite detailed, such as for the horse and the whale.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Maybe you would like to explain the barrier which prevents macroevolution from happening?

---

The Barrier is information, or should I say LACK of it.
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

The information argument against evolution redefines information so as to exclude evolution. That this redefinition is invalid is evident from the fact that the processes they claim information theory disallows happen all the time. For example:

• Gene becomes accidentally duplicated during reproduction. Offspring now possess two copies of the gene. The genomes of all organisms contain many examples of gene duplication.
  ​
• Future generations of offspring experience mutations in both the original and the duplicated gene. The gene and it's copy now contain different information. Such mutations happen all the time.

This and other processes of genomic change have continued uninterrupted from life's beginning. Independent of arguments about whether the modified gene contains new information, these genomic changes of microevolution accumulate over time to cause macroevolution.A good analogy is a long journey by foot. One can travel long distances by taking just one step at a time. You can actually walk from New York to San Francisco. To carry the analogy a bit further, there are barriers to travel on foot, since you cannot walk from New York to London because of the obvious barrier of the Atlantic Ocean.So we wonder, what is the barrier preventing interspecies change? It isn't information.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

..., these genomic changes of microevolution accumulate over time to cause macroevolution.

---

Are you stating this as fact or theory?

quote:

---

​

A good analogy is a long journey by foot. One can travel long distances by taking just one step at a time. You can actually walk from New York to San Francisco. To carry the analogy a bit further, there are barriers to travel on foot, since you cannot walk from New York to London because of the obvious barrier of the Atlantic Ocean.

​

So we wonder, what is the barrier preventing interspecies change? It isn't information.

​

--Percy

---

So what IS the barrier then?

But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.

​

As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.

​

[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

---

I disagree. The information would have been pre-coded in the DNA, so it was not "new", simply unused...that's why it was still a guppy and not a shark.As far as the barrier....it ....is....HUGE....Impassable.

quote:

---

The information would have been pre-coded in the DNA

---

How do you know this? When a mutation changes a strand of DNA, how could the new information have been there already?

Theory, of course.Gene already addressed the "precoded DNA" issue, so I'll hit the other: But you haven't identified the barrier. You originally identified the barrier as an issue of information theory, but it was pointed out that regardless of the specifics of Creationist misapplication of information theory, the accumulation of small changes over long time periods will eventually become large changes. You say the barrier to large changes is huge and impassable, but you haven't yet identified the nature of the barrier.--Percy

I wont give you an analogy, since it's pointless. (And has been offered 100 times on diffrent subjects on this site) The original explanation is easy enough for anyone to understand.
Look at what you wrote:>---Life appears out of nowhere - un-explained by evolutionists.Yes. but this is not what the debate is about, agreed ?
For all we know now God might have set the first seed, or some funky self-replicating molecule, or alies or whatever >The first life is a single celled organism living in a hostile environment, un-protected, for who knows how long before it magically divides into two organisms.Its obvious life didn't magically start with a single cell. No one believes that. (unless it was designed by a God at this stage). A cell does after all contain something like a bilion trillion atoms.
It had to come from much simpler buildingblocks. That would be even more unpropably than that stupid analogy of a 747 self-assembling in a scrap yard.
Whatever it started with, it started because it replicated itself.>What protects it?What kind of question is that ? Who protects me now ? The police ? My family ? Living things are not "protected". What do you mean by that ?
We life in a hostile world.>What supports it?
Same irrelivant question.>What force causes it to change?
Those of them who aren't able to get food, and those who can't handle a changing hostile environment dies. Agreed ?
The ones who are left will replicate or reproduce. Because thats what they do, since thats why they came about in the first place. And when they do they make nice copies of themself. But not perfect copies. It's hard to make to identical lumps of a billion trillion atoms, right ? as long as there is food they will replicate until the food and their habitat just isn't enough for everyone. And who of them do you now suppose dies ? Remember, they are not identical. Remember they do all have small diffrences between eachother.
Well there can really just be one resonable answer to this question:
The ones that are least fit to the environment, or abillity to make use of the food dies. Right ? Every generation this repeats. The least adapted dies, because there are others who have it easier to make it through the day. But that which is a good thing in the warm waters around the equator, might be bad somewhere else, where the environment is different.>How can all life we see, with all the different complexities and information codes, come from that?
I just explained that.>When everything around us breaks down and deteriorates, believing the opposite to be true and for unimaginable periods, is certainly a fairytale.
Anyway, the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life (ie. atmosphere).Now this sentance just makes me wanna scream out of frustration: "the environment magically reverses to accommodate the new life". NO IT DOES NOT! Life adapts to the environment. The environment is dead. It cannot do things magically. Nothing can. However, the organisms are part of the environment. And if you get alot of them, they might have secondary effects on their surroundings. Like algae or bacteria that produces waste-products, like gases. In huge amounts if they are many.>Ages pass, simple life miraculously becomes more complex...There is no miracle there. There is only the pure logic of things to be. Imho you can't really attack the concept of natural selection, because it is self upholding.
1)There are creatures which are good and less good adapted.
2)bad adapted dies easier
3)only slightly better adapted remains, and reproduces.
4)go to 1) but remember that the avrage creature are slightly better adapted now.
You can however attack other parts... but i give that to you to figure out.>all of a sudden there are two different species...male female?Male - Female two different species ? LoL ?
There are rather a couple of million different species. You know why ? because each place on earth has different environments, and the creatures that replicate on those different places will adapt to those places. According to 1-4. But hey! creatures at the warm equator will have completly different surroundings than those further up north.>Who knows, evolution doesn't care, it can explain everything...ages and ages pass, somehow there's food, somehow species reproduce, somehow they change to different species (it's very complex, you know, math and stuff) ...they live they die..yada yada yada...behold! Humans!!No math is needed. Only common sense.>And that, little 6 year old Johnny, is how we came about...without any intelligence and guiding force...just accidentally...Won't even comment this last section.//TechnoCore