Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top questions I think evolutionists need to answer
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 21 (25765)
12-06-2002 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 1:52 PM


quote:
6. Explain how life began, in detail, with all the intermediates.
Why don't you document for us, with notarized photocopies of birth certificates, the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew. Include wives for all those listed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 1:52 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 12-06-2002 3:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 17 of 21 (25767)
12-06-2002 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coragyps
12-06-2002 3:19 PM


Why don't you document for us, with notarized photocopies of birth certificates, the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew. Include wives for all those listed.
And this makes the important point, which is that most of the questions on the list are based upon the fallacious assumption that if something isn't known then nothing can be known. But just as the lack of documentation for Jesus's genealogy does not disprove Jesus, neither does not knowing how life began disprove evolution.
Science endeavors to know what we do not yet know. Naturally there is much that we don't know. Enumerating those things we don't know says nothing about those things we do know.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 12-06-2002 3:19 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 21 (25768)
12-06-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Conspirator
12-06-2002 12:41 PM


Gene has already replied to your post about the evolution of flight, but I'd like to take a different tack.
The evidence for evolution is not speculations about the origin of flight. Given the imperfections of the fossil record it is likely we will never know the complete story and will always be reduced to speculation.
The primary evidence for evolution is the record of change over time contained in the fossil record. Natural selection upon variation was Darwin's mechanism for change and adaptation, and genetics provides the basis of heredity and the machanism of change. Together these two sciences form the Modern Synthesis, also known as neo-Darwinian theory.
Speculations about the origin of flight are simply the interpretation of a sparse fossil record within an evolutionary framework. They may be right on the mark, or they may be completely spurious. We may never know.
What you, Conspirator, are attempting to do, by way of Denton's words and Harwood's question, is disprove evolution by showing that it is impossible for flight to have developed within an evolutionary framework. But simply claiming gigantic odds and demonstrating gigantic odds are not the same thing. Developing any quantitative odds at all, given how little we know, probably isn't possible, and this avenue is unlikely to prove fruitful for you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Conspirator, posted 12-06-2002 12:41 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 21 (25838)
12-07-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Conspirator
12-06-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
I understand Haldane's Dilemma, so go ahead and post it. I'll understand what you're saying.
The very first thing to discuss, then, is why is it a 'dilemma'? Apparently, it was labelled a 'dilemma' (not by Haldane, by the way) because, I would imagine, it was believed that some huge number of mutational differences must be required to account for observed phenotypic differences. Actual observation and nucleotide sequence data, as well as experimental observation, indicates that this is not the case, especially if the mutants are developmental genes or genes that influence development.
The 'dilemma', as proselytized by anti-evolutionists, is that there is not enough time for enough fixed, beneficial mutations to have accumulated to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.
This immediately raises some questions, which the purveyors of the 'dilemma' (namely, ReMine and any lay creationist that ha sread his egomaniacal gibberish) avoid at all costs.
1. How many mutations are or would be required to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor (ReMine alludes to over 500,000, yet does not at any point offer any sort of substantiation. Apparently, it is just his engineering opinion)?
2. What WAS the ape-like ancestor from which humans evolved? (without this knowledge, there is no way at all that any 'minimum number' can be determined. So please, divulge this information. ReMine and his followers refuse to even address such questions maybe you can?
After you address those, we can move on.
quote:
And as for what I think a transitional would look like... This is taken from Denton's book which is also from Harwood's site.
I asked what YOUR definition/criteria of a transitional is. Not only did your quote not provide an answer, it tells me nothing about what objective criteria you have in mind.
Please try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Conspirator, posted 12-06-2002 12:41 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by derwood, posted 12-22-2002 5:10 PM derwood has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 21 (25999)
12-09-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Conspirator
12-04-2002 1:52 PM


I'm curious as to how #8 and #16 are not mutually contradictory. In #8, the change in allelic frequency in Kettelwells moths is dismissed as "just population genetics" (like, duh-oh, never knew that...). In #16, population genetics as a science is supposedly "debunked".
Please provide the complete rationale for elminating pop gen from the discussion. Please explain the apparent discrepancy between #8 and #16. If pop gen is to be ignored, please provide details of the mechanism that replaces it in the creationist worldview. The mechanism must explain all biological observations including clines, allopatric and sympatric speciation, karyotype differences between clines and/or subspecies, etc. It must explain observed in-breeding depression, ESS, instant speciation in plants, etc. Use examples from specific populations of specific organisms. Please show the derivation of the mathematical formulae used to explain this mechanism from either a theoretical standpoint or an actual study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Conspirator, posted 12-04-2002 1:52 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 21 of 21 (27665)
12-22-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
12-07-2002 4:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
I understand Haldane's Dilemma, so go ahead and post it. I'll understand what you're saying.
The very first thing to discuss, then, is why is it a 'dilemma'? Apparently, it was labelled a 'dilemma' (not by Haldane, by the way) because, I would imagine, it was believed that some huge number of mutational differences must be required to account for observed phenotypic differences. Actual observation and nucleotide sequence data, as well as experimental observation, indicates that this is not the case, especially if the mutants are developmental genes or genes that influence development.
The 'dilemma', as proselytized by anti-evolutionists, is that there is not enough time for enough fixed, beneficial mutations to have accumulated to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.
This immediately raises some questions, which the purveyors of the 'dilemma' (namely, ReMine and any lay creationist that ha sread his egomaniacal gibberish) avoid at all costs.
1. How many mutations are or would be required to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor (ReMine alludes to over 500,000, yet does not at any point offer any sort of substantiation. Apparently, it is just his engineering opinion)?
2. What WAS the ape-like ancestor from which humans evolved? (without this knowledge, there is no way at all that any 'minimum number' can be determined. So please, divulge this information. ReMine and his followers refuse to even address such questions maybe you can?
After you address those, we can move on.
quote:
And as for what I think a transitional would look like... This is taken from Denton's book which is also from Harwood's site.
I asked what YOUR definition/criteria of a transitional is. Not only did your quote not provide an answer, it tells me nothing about what objective criteria you have in mind.
Please try again.

Who would have thought - another post-and-run propagandist....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 12-07-2002 4:24 PM derwood 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