Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

===================================================
***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
===================================================Probably too broad an OP. I thought you wanted this to focus on genetics, but most of what you said is about the order of the fossils. Hope you will focus this a bit better, but meanwhile just a few notes in response: Not necessarily simpler at all. What is your definition of simpler? Does the size of the genome figure in this? This site says size and complexity of the genome are not necessarily correlated but that The largest known genome belongs to a microscopic amoeba, Amoeba Dubia, which is closely followed in size by the lungfish and the Easter lily. Most sites say the lungfish has the largest: Lungfish - Wikipedia. In any case the amoeba is pretty far down the evolutionary chain so how did it get such a large genome back those bazillion years ago? There has to be SOME correlation with numbers of genes if the ToE is right. Um, certainly the lower layers would have been laid down before the upper, but if this happened to have occurred in, say, a worldwide flood, the difference in "age" would be at most days or months, and then we're only talking about the sediments. The fossil contents of the layers, however, well, that's another matter. In order to "figure that deeper meant older" in that sense, they'd have to be ASSUMING that the fossils in the lower levels were creatures that had lived their entire lives and died well before those in the upper levels, but that assumption is evo theory itself, so that to state it as you are doing is merely to beg the question. There is nothing on the face of it to show that the layers were built up over great ages of time, let alone that whole aeons passed in which the creatures encased in them lived and died. And here I'd point out what I've pointed out so many times before -- the idea that things that just lived their lives and up and died and got fossilized would do so in such predictable groupings in such predictable sediments, one at a time over millions of years and yet so relatively neatly arranged and preserved, doesn't fit reality as we know it. Really, what turned out is that the dating methods appeared to confirm their wild and untenable suppositions, but many questions can be raised about these methods. A lot? If so, how different are they from living things now? That is, there are some pretty odd creatures in existence now. Linnaeus had already done that in the 18th century. The evos merely made correlations with his chart.
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/zoo/linnaeus.htm===================================================
***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
===================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 05:55 PM

Please pick one of these topics at least for starters and develop it a bit so I'll have something to sink my teeth into.{AbE: Never mind, see next post}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 09:02 PM

---

FEU. DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
-- Blaise Pascal, 1654Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
-- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19

Okay, I will answer what you have written for the sake of collegiality between execrables. Fewer parts in ALL cases? How about the plants? And what ABOUT the larger genome for more primitive creatures? Doesn't that suggest something a bit at odds with the ToE? I hope you've followed all the threads on this subject. There's a ton of evidence for the Flood, all co-opted to the ToE. They were either humans or apes, they were not "proto" either. Not to me, and it's not all that close, no closer than the observed physical similarities as I said, and if you're going to say this you'll have to give the reasoning or evidence that demonstrates it.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 09:01 PM

---

FEU. DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
-- Blaise Pascal, 1654Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
-- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19

===================================================
***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
=================================================== So much for that topic, huh? You just haven't been paying attention. Most of the evidence used for Old Earth theory proves the Flood and has been covered here at EvC by many. NotSoBlindFaith has been doing a creditable job of it on the Noah's Ark thread. Terrific Evidence that, what they look like to you. My point exactly. So it's merely redundant to point out that there is genetic similarity. How is their genetic evidence of any more value than their earlier guesses since they merely reflect what we already know about the obvious similarity in either case?{AbE: Also, the physical package is not the whole nature and human beings have the Image of God in us which animals don't, maimed though it is, and while I believe the spiritual nature strongly affects the physical, there are no genes for the spiritual that we can take a look at. Anyway, God's giving us a genetic complement and a physical frame that has features in common with animal bodies, again just shows economy of design, the interchangeability of parts as it were, for adapting creatures to this physical universe. Descent is just a fanciful idea.} All it proves is the mechanisms of selection, geographic isolation and the like, not evolution. Creationists assume a great wealth of genetic possibilities within each Kind, that simply gets selected by the various factors that segregate populations, {AbE: meaning selections are made from these possibilities} and produces new phenotypes, new variations on the Kind, sometimes under selection pressure, sometimes just because that's how the cards were dealt. Yaro posted a picture of a mole with an organ that looks like a pink flower on its nose on the Noah's Ark thread tonight, thinking this extravagant variation on moleness must challenge creationists somehow. This idea keeps coming up here but it makes no sense, and by now ought to have been put to rest many times over, as many of us have made this argument quite well. Again, Creationism ASSUMES great variability within Kinds, and NotSoBlindFaith did a great job of answering him about that particular case too.===================================================
***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
===================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:28 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:30 PM

You may not assume that is how I or any other creationist got the notion of Kinds. That's to psychoanalyze our motives and it is not a valid argument. I believe in Kinds from the Bible, and my understanding of what a Kind has to be is nothing like what I would have come up on my own. What evolutionists call "species" are NOT the Kind. But again, this is far from news to a creationist, it is exactly what leads me in fact to my explanation of the natural limits to variation that I've been arguing for here. We all agree that these processes of change occur, nothing could be more commonplace. There is no proof either way yet, all we have is the evo assumption that the processes of change are open-ended versus the creo assumption that they are naturally limited by the given genetic capacity of the Kind. You do not know that there is no way that this could stop and I've been arguing in fact for a way that it could indeed stop and I believe it does, because of the inexorable tendency of all the processes that divide populations and reduce genetic potentials at the same time they create new variations and even new species. My execrable science is of course a handicap when it comes to grasping enough of the genetics to make the case better, but I have NO doubt this is the right direction. It will some day be genetically defined, if Jesus doesn't return sooner, and it will certainly have to do with the boundaries of such categories as Catness and Dogness and Simianness and arachnidness and so on. What can I do but repeat myself? We have two conflicting theories here and if nothing else it would be a very good thing if evos, or at least you, representing the evos, would recognize this fact: that your model is genetic descent and creationists' model is design -- There is absolutely nothing on the face of it that requires descent as the explanation of these similarities you are talking about. Design economy works just fine.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:49 PM

---

FEU. DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
-- Blaise Pascal, 1654Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
-- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross"...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19

No problem. My mistake. I guess thought by now anybody who hangs out at EvC would know that creationists get the Kinds from the Bible. Well the limits I've been talking about have to do with limits to genetic variation by population reducing events that separate different portions of a gene pool from one another. I do. But in any case design economy works just fine, as do all the creationist explanations. Nothing whatever makes the evo explanation any more compelling.

---

Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.Psa 107:8-14: Oh that [men] would praise the LORD [for] his goodness, and [for] his wonderful works to the children of men! For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, [being] bound in affliction and iron; Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High: Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and [there was] none to help. Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, [and] he saved them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.Hbr 2:14-16 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.1Cr 15:55-57 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Robin, this debate is over if you are going to refuse to accept my premises.

You have to debate. You can't declare there is no evidence for God. I can certainly show evidence for God and have done so many times, but it's not appropriate in this thread. Even when God is not mentioned, you see that God is my premise for the arguments for creationism but you can't just declare that God doesn't exist. For purposes of this argument just focus on the points I'm making. I believe my arguments are logical, and you can't disqualify them just because you don't believe in God. This won't wash.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 02:16 AM

---

Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.

I guess you haven't followed those arguments. I'm not up to laying it all out at the moment. This is what I was objecting to. You need a designer, that's for sure, but this is just as valid a theory as the evo theory, and there is plenty of evidence for God, which has been given here many times by many posters.You may not declare that this is "just my feelings." At the very least you have to give your own evidence if this is really a debate.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 03:08 AM

---

Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.

Interesting question. Wonder what Pink S will have to say. Sure seems to me that that's one of those old ideas that launched the ToE that is no longer considered to be true. There seem to be a lot of those floating around.

=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY.
=============================================================

quote:

---

population reducing events"? What on earth are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

I guess you haven't followed those arguments. I'm not up to laying it all out at the moment.

---

​

You don't have to go into great detail. Just give me an idea of what you're talking about.

---

Not all that easy but here goes. By the way I just posted on the subject again on the "phylogeographic" thread, where I did a lot of that all along. My very first thread at EvC back in February or March or so was on this topic too, that had something like Natural Limits in the title. So if I can't get it spelled out here clearly enough, I'll see if I can track that down and link it.The basic idea is that a Kind may turn out to be defined by natural limits to variation which must ultimately be reached if mutation turns out not to be the great generator of new useful genetic possibilites it is claimed to be. This comes about by the usual processes I've seen called Evolutionary Processes on sites about Population Genetics, such asmigration (the moving of part of a population away from the "parent" population),natural selection {which singles out a portion of a population for its adaptive genes), changing the frequencies at least so that the adaptive genes proliferate while the unadaptive are either eliminated altogether or simply reduced in the population and not expressed;bottleneck, which severely isolates a small portion of a population, in which the alleles are severely reduced from what was in the parent population.All these are processes that divide populations initially reducing the population of course -- you have fewer numbers of individuals, that is, and new frequencies of alleles in both new populations (or new and old or in the one that survives if the other dies), [which is the usual definition of evolution (change in allelic frequencies over time),] and in the process reduce the genetic diversity. Fewer alleles = less diversity. Either or both new populations may increase in numbers after the split, of course, but the new allelic frequencies will bring new traits to expression, the changes that are called microevolution. As a general rule, that does have some exceptions: New traits = less genetic diversity.It doesn't always happen in every population shift, even though frequencies may shift. That is, stability or equilibrium does occur. But the only processes that actually ADD anything genetically are mutation and recombining populations, or hybridization, and the latter doesn't add anything NEW, merely reintroduces genetic possibilities that were lost in earlier splits. Mutation is a topic unto itself.SO the overall effect of all these processes, with the exception of mutation, is the reduction of genetic diversity. But interestingly, these are called "Evolutionary" Processes, as they produce the phenotypic "microevolutionary" changes that are taken for evidence of the ToE. But if in the process of producing these changes the population loses genetic diversity, this would seem to be a change in the direction away from evolution. You get new phenotypes by bringing some alleles to expression at the expense of others -- by eliminating or reducing the frequency of others. All these population dividing processes do this. It is just funny that the very processes that produce the change, even all the way out to actual speciation, are processes that reduce diversity.If these processes continue out to their ultimate conclusion, you get new types that may be highly adapted but also genetically compromised to an extreme. This is seen in domestic breeding all the time. They have been developing ways to cope with this effect, but the point is that it IS the natural effect of these processes -- new traits at the cost of reduced genetic diversity.So these Evolutionary Processes produce change, certainly, but they also produce degrees of genetic depletion, even to a great degree over time, out of which which further change becomes less likely and less possible, the opposite of what evolution needs if it works.============================================================
Sorry, I rushed through that and I'm sure it's not as clear as it should be, but maybe I can clean it up later.
============================================================

quote:

---

You need a designer, that's for sure, but this is just as valid a theory as the evo theory, and there is plenty of evidence for God, which has been given here many times by many posters.

​

quote:

---

OK, no problem. I waive that point.

---

---

Thanks.
=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY.
=============================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 11:19 AM

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. But what makes the changes possible is the initial change in genetic frequencies caused by the separation, which will involve a reduction and even the elimination of some alleles that were present in the original combined population. Meanwhile the other population will have those particular alleles to develop changes in a different direction, and a reduction or even complete absence of those that now dominate in the split off group. This is how change happens, through changing allelic frequencies involving a reduction or elimination of some, and if it involves the elimination of some, this will amount to an overall reduction in genetic diversity. Yes, it does. That's why the processes that cause the splitting are called Evolutionary Processes. Exactly.But this is happening because of the changed allelic frequencies, which in some cases, such as bottleneck and severe natural selection for instance, are an out and out elimination of some alleles, which is a reduction in genetic diversity, which is contrary to what the ToE would seem to need if it were true.

=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY.
============================================================= I'm SO impressed. Cute. 1, 3, 4 and 7 concern populations: 1, Selection, 4, genetic drift, and 7, nonrandom mating add nothing new genetically, and over time subtract diversity as I've been describing. Selection selects against alleles as well as for, genetic drift is simply allele selection by chance rather than effect, again selecting against as well as for; selective mating also selects against as well as for. Anything that eliminates alleles reduces genetic diversity.3. Gene flow adds BACK what already existed in the population, also adding nothing new, like hybridization. You get increased genetic diversity for the time being, but only until equilibrium is reached or one of the other subtractive processes comes along.For evolution to be possible beyond "microevolution" NEW alleles must be added, and none of these four adds anything.SO four out of the seven do NOT further evolution beyond microevolution, but in fact strongly suggest that microevolution is the absolute limit of such processes.2, 6 and 7 {AbE: Should have been 2, 5 and 6} are all about genetics per se, rather than populations, apparently versions of mutation (I googled them but haven't studied them). Mutation is the only process that could possibly add anything to the mix.Others have insisted that mutation does indeed add diversity to an extent that overcomes all the selecting-reducing processes I keep bleating execrably about. So I guess you'd better study up on mutation if you want to defeat me. BUT it would be nice if you'd at first get the point about these processes that reduce genetic diversity and limit evolution in such a way as to define a Kind.=============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN AND FAITH ONLY, GUEST POSTERS BY INVITATION ONLY.
=============================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 07:10 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-21-2005 02:08 AM

Yes, you are an invitee, please comment. Robin asked what happened about the digs.

Sorry, I meant 2, 5 and 6 rather than 6 and 7. Sexual preference is a population category. I don't know what movable elements is, {AbE: goofed again, not moveable elements but variable whatever it was} but it's something to do with genetics as such rather than populations. OKThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 11:29 PM