Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 160 of 248 (255495)
10-29-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NosyNed
10-28-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Macro Evolution - a definition?
Just what, then, do you define as macro evolution. Where is the dividing line between micro and macro? The dividing line will not be delineated by picking two examples that are on opposite sides of it and far from it. It will gradually be deliminated if you supply a number of examples that are just on one side and the other of the line between macro and micro.
Once you have supplied what you mean by the term we can carry on.
In my forth-coming Internet article titled "Darwinism Refuted" to be posted on a large Creationist website (due late December) I define macroevolution:
"The belief that living things originate from other livings and not ultimately from the God of Genesis." [source: Dr. Scott]
Backing-up this invulnerable definition I then reference Richard Milton:
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved) that is the really clever part.
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree with this final part.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what Mayr called genetic homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain point; that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to macroevolution in the fossil record."
"Shattering Myths Darwinism" pages 152-3 [1997].
Then I reference Dr. Michael Behe:
"Evolution is a flexible word.'(1) It can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community." (italics in original) "Darwin's Black Box" (1996), pages X, XI; 1998 edition. 1. Behe quoting Philip Johnson "Darwin on Trial"; Ernst Mayr "One Long Argument".
The link below is where I posted the Creationist FRAME of macroevolution that I subscribe to, a frame that corresponds with reality infinetly more than the Darwinian frame described by Dr. Scott and Dr. Behe:
http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -->EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Macroevolution defined by the evidence in THIS topic establishes a natural barrier called genetic homeostasis, where, animal taxa change and transition no more - a ceiling. Corroborating this fact are hundreds of years of experimentation stricken in its tracks by the barrier and the fossil record itself which shows, species appear, change slightly over time, then disappear.
If Darwinian macro-theorists wish to actually evidence their claims, then they need to establish facts by which they can explain how the barrier is crossed, then explain why the data trumps the experimentation and the fossil record itself. Science has determined:
1) Genetic homeostasis based upon....
2) Hundreds of years of laboratory experimentation which is corroborated by....
3) The unimpeachable non-sentient fossil record.
"Well funded expeditions have searched the world over" for intermediacy evidence linking species - none has been found thus falsifying Darwin's prediction.
If the Darwinists here continue to assert macro a fact based upon micro then they are ingoring the evidence outlined above and proving the Biblical claim that macroevolution is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status and credit. Either way the Bible is proven true UNLESS you can evidence the extraordinary claim of Darwinian macro with actual evidence and not by assumption and rhetoric.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2005 12:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2005 3:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 169 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 9:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 162 of 248 (255499)
10-29-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NosyNed
10-28-2005 7:13 PM


Re: Inconsistent or not?
I have no clue why you think that step by step evolution means that cows can't be closer to whales than horses. It doesn't follow at all.
Then you are a Lewontinite...taking the side of self-evident absurdities.
Why would horses get in between? If an ancestor of cows/whales splt from the horse ancestor before the whale lineage and the cow lineage split then horses are not in between.
This is senseless speculation attempting to assert that a fly in the ointment is the way ointment comes sometimes. It becomes factual if you got a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up and we know you do not.
The data in question is DNA, it falsifies gradual step by step evolution. Unless of course, we decide DNA is inadmissable in these matters, but evolutionists who claim chimp DNA similarity with hominid ancestry must go too, then. You cannot have it both ways, unless the Lewontin absurdity factor is embraced. I KNOW for a fact (and so do you) that chimp DNA is at least "5 million years" apart from human (LOL !).
All you could be saying is that the cow/horse split later than the whales split off. What evidence to you have to support that?
This is your claim - not mine, as you dump it off on me because it is you who cannot evidence it.
I hope you aren't looking at a horse and a cow and then concluding based on that look that they have to be closer than cow and whale (which might be true but you sure would be making a mistake to make that judgment by looking at pictures of them).
Of course I am.
You are defending two quadrupeds separated by a whale WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME insisting this does not upset the evolutionary cart - breathtaking !
If you are doing this then you need to back WAAAAAY off and learn a lot more before you engage in the discussion at his level.
This comment is perfectly explained by the fact that a Darwinist wrote it to a person who accepts the facts of Science.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2005 7:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2005 4:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 163 of 248 (255500)
10-29-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
10-28-2005 9:23 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
What I can rationally and logically conclude from the evidence that is known, is that we don't know why he took that part out of the book.
Making up scenarios about him "rescinding" his position on the basis of speculation over this "withdrawal" evidence is the most flimsy of hearsay arguments based on a molehill of microscopic proportions.
If I were to make some wild hypothesis for the 3 most likely reasons he took it out, what I would come up with would be more on the lines of:
(1) he felt it was an unnecessary analogy and did not add materially to the argument for the theory,
(2) that he saw some people (critics) focusing on the analogy and missing the point of the argument altogether (as did the author of the {wild suppositions re why he deleted the comment} you quoted),
(3) he felt it wasn't a scientific enough comment to include in a text like Origin of Species.
The evidential reasoning was cited by me and you have ignored = inability to refute.
But it doesn't matter, Darwin withdrew, and logically, it was because he felt there wasn't any amount of evidence to support, yet his theory ploughed ahead - driven by atheistic needs.
I could probably come up with others but it would still be irrelevant because it would still be speculation and totally unsubstantiated
Why post the preceding speculation in the first place then ? (rhetorical)
When I said speciation has not occurred/no evidence exists I was talking about Darwinian speciation.
The Bible accuracy Forum is part of the Science Forum.
90 percent of your post is ad hoc.
I will not go round and round with you and give dignity to a ignorant view denying the establish fact of genetic homeostasis.
Genetic is derived from a root word as are these:
generating
genitials
genitive
Genesis
What they all have in common is that they are the source/origin of something. Genetic homeostasis is caused by Genesis being true.
When you can falsify genetic homeostasis and the experimentation, and the fossil record, and correct your errors - let me know. Your topic was (il)logic-based and not tethered to scientific data. I suspect the Admins let you by on previous reputation that did not hold up in this case. I know you are very capable person and what happened here is an aberration.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 9:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by KCdgw, posted 10-29-2005 4:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 166 of 248 (255537)
10-29-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by NosyNed
10-29-2005 4:56 PM


Re: A last reply
Since nothing in your post makes any sense at all and avoids touching on the questions at hand it is clear that continueing to converse with you is a waste of time.
Could this fact have anything to do with one of us being a Darwinist and the other a Creationist ?
Also I note your definition of "macroevolution" given in the previous post is useless. Whether the ultimate source is God or not has nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception.
You asked for my definition of macroevolution, rather how I believe Darwinists define it. I provided 3 definitions to a complex task. You now amend what you seek to actually be something ambiguous:
Ned: "....nothing useful to say about the change in life-forms on the planet that we observe since it's inception."
I will now say something useful to the above request:
Whether its you or RAZD, or any other evolutionist, your macroevolution claim/theory makes perfect sense, that is the logic-based fact of macro produced by micro. We can observe so many similarities between species and connect them on this basis - producing a chain (to oversimplify), but nontheless accurate. But like Lewontin, who claims he takes the side of Science, so do I and its absurd constructs like genetic homeostasis and the voluminous experimentation data proving its existence corroborated by what we observe in the fossil record.
The textual evidence of Genesis corresponding with reality/design/IC/Cambrian/fossil record, and the three scientific facts in the preceding paragraph (GH/experimentation/fossil record) undermine and falsify the completely logical deduction of Darwinian macroevolution.
If you choose to not reply then I will not participate any further either as topic author engages in ad hocary mockery = "waste of time."
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by NosyNed, posted 10-29-2005 4:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by nwr, posted 10-29-2005 8:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 179 by mick, posted 11-19-2005 9:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 172 of 248 (261125)
11-18-2005 8:37 PM


RAZD:
We know Darwin in the first edition of "Origin" offered one lonely example of his theory: bears becoming acquatic and given enough time could somehow morph into a whale-like creature. This example was immediately yanked from all later editions.
Why ?
Do you know the origin of this claim ?
I do.
What evidence of macroevolution did Darwin ever present ?
I believe in 2nd chances. Now go.
Ray

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2006 11:00 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 174 of 248 (261141)
11-18-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
11-18-2005 8:59 PM


Re: topic please
I suggest if you want to discuss editing differences beteen volumes of "Origin of Species" that you start a new topic as there is absolutely no way this is relevant to the discussion of genetic evidence for or against "macro" evoloution.
Note in particular that the field of genetics came long after Darwin.
You don't know as I suspected.
Darwin yanked the example because he knew from his own breeding experiments and the voluminous amount that preceded him that a natural genetic barrier had been profiled and established.
"Origin" is claimed to be a scientific endeavor - the most influencial of all time, yet the acquatic bear nonsense was derived from a 2nd hand report made by a Canadian trapper who said bears swim with their jaws open hoping to run into a meal which elicited this "scientific" source to quip that it reminded him of a whale.
This is the origin of your macroevolution fantasies. I guess it is time to fall back on Lewontin's "we take the side of science despite its absurd constructs" shield.
If macro wasn't held as fact I would be laughing my ass off. Since it is I must conclude the lengths people will go to evade the facts of Genesis is seen above.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 8:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2005 9:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024