|
Author
|
Topic: A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: quick response
Which "basic claims" have we not substantiated? You have not substantiated that mutational rates are sufficient to overcome forces limiting genetic diversity in microevolution. You have not substantiated that microevolution is macroevolution, or works towards macroevolution.
So reluctant that we have done so several times on this thread. You have not provided one peer-reviewed study verifying the 2 basic claims of evos above. Why is that?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-03-2006 12:27 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: quick response
It is patently obvious that a sequence of small changes add up to one cumulative large change. Actually, it's patently obvious that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. You failed to provide one study substantiating the claims of evos we have been discussing, and you made the absolute ludicrous comment above. By your logic, anyone could up and swim to England because, you know, little steps can add up. This is the kind of idiotic simpleton type of thinking evos engage in. Rather than listen to criticism and look at the actual process for what occurs (decreases in genetic diversity via isolation as one example), evos just assert that magically small changes add up to macroevolution, or large-scale changes. In other words, you guys have not, will not, and cannot substantiate your claims because you beleive in them without any empirical evidence or logic whatsoever beyond child-like, simpleton analysis which totally avoids the actual process itself. I suppose since prop airplanes can fly that they can also go to the moon and back, eh?
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: quick response
Well then why not put up a specific targetted level of change, otherwise all we have are the automated creationist shifting goalposts. It's not shifting the goalposts to insist evos substantiate their claims. I really don't get why you guys are so resistant to the idea that basic evo claims should be backed up with empirical study and analysis. It seems evos want everyone to just accept that their claims are true because they say so. It's up to evos to demonstrate their claims, not for critics to disprove them, draw lines, etc, etc,....
If you think you think you have a simple general formula for the level of reduction in genetic diversity then why no let us have it? Once again, it's up to evos to account for the process we observe, not for others to disprove evo claims and handwaiving away reality.
If you there taht a barrier exists then why is the onus not on you to prove it ratherthan on us to disprove it? Wrong again. You are claiming that a process can add up to macroevolution without doing anything but asserting it must be so. Where are the studies accounting for limiting genetic diversity within population isolation? Where are the studies accounting for the fact that mutations are necessarily limited in scope. Otherwise, the mutated individual could not mate with the parent species. Just saying it doesn't cut it, and the fact evos think just making the claim is the same as backing up the claim is evidence that evo theory is more based on wishful thinking that empirical analysis. The bottom line is you guys have not ever substantiated one of the most basic claims of evo theory. You haven't shown that mutation rates are sufficient to overcome loss of genetic diversity due to smaller populations becoming isolated. It's Haeckel all over again, but just a more sophisticated form where instead of outright forged data, evos just offer no data at all..... Btw, thanks for the link......it's interesting that well over 100 years after the fact, evos are getting around to even thinking of trying to test their claims that microevolution adds up macroevolution.....the article itself is confirmation of what I am talking about. This most basic claim, which many evos claim even is a fact, is really an untested claim. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
please cite the studies then
We're not; they have been. How many times do I have to ask for this before you admit you don't have it? Please provide the peer-reviewed studies that show mutational rates are sufficient to overcome forces limiting genetic diversity as a result of population isolation? Please show the studies that examine the limits of the types of genetic mutations within the study mentioned above? I have repeatedly demanded specifics. You have repeatedly failed to provide them, and yet you continue to claim you have. At some point, I think questioning your integrity here is in order, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you still have failed to see what the discussion is about. Providing data that mutations occur is not the same as providing analysis and peer-reviewed study to show that those mutations, and the rate of those mutations is greater than forces limiting genetic diversity as a result of population isolation.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
you are dodging and weaving
please provide the peer-review studies that substantiate evo claims, as requested, Dr Adequate. You are the one claiming "magic"; that a process hostile towards macroevolution, namely the process of variation where groups of species are isolated, losing genetic diversity, is actually the same as macroevolution, being the small steps that add up to macroevolution. You have provided no peer-review studies at all, whatsoever, to substantiate your claim, and in fact, offered the nonsensical and idiotic comment that "it is patently obvious" when in reality it is patently obvious you have been so soundly defeated in your argument that all you are doing now is trying to avoid the topic. The idea that small steps, which decrease ability to evolve further by a process of limiting genetic diversity, can add up to macroevolution is an unfounded and untested assumption of evos. You have no data to support that claim, and it's no more patently obvious than thinking a bird can fly to the moon and back, or that I could swim to England from the US east coast.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: you are dodging and weaving
Sorry, but you have, repeatedly. Maybe you don't realize what you are saying. You also ignored repeatedly just about every point put to you, including the rebuttal of your "patently obvious" point where I showed small steps or changes in a process are not sufficient automatically to add up to large steps. Keep in mind this forum is unmoderated, but at the same time, should you continue to ignore the points I have made to you, nearly ad nauseum, then you will not be welcome on the thread.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: quick response
wk, evos have proposed a process whereby they think small changes can and do add up to macroevolution. Is it so much to ask they come up with peer-review studies to back that up? You want me to discuss "how small" a population. Sorry, but the answer to that question has to come from evos that believe population isolation is one of the ways evolution occurs. It is incumbent on evos to come up with ways to assess various, reasonable scenarios, such as smaller populations and in doing so answer questions on how small, and come up with a range, and it is incumbent on evos to estimate mutation rates (which I think they have done actually via the molecular clock). Personally, I am not sure the molecular clock and mutational rate estimates are valid, but it seems the evo community often is, and so arguing these things cannot be reasonably done is inconsitent with evos' sometime dogmatic assertions of when such and such species or genus diverged, etc, etc,.... But if conducting such studies is indeed too hard, it is up to evos to admit they are basing their models and examination of data on untested and unproven assumptions instead of calling "evolution a fact" and suggesting just because they say microevolution can add up to macroevolution, that it does. Maybe it would be beneficial to recall JAD's discussions and quotes from evos that admitted that variation and speciation and subspeciation were really more of a dead-end in evolution rather than a means for macroevolution. He cited some noted evolutionists in his argument, and I beleive you particupated in that discussion. So you should be aware of the argument. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 12-05-2006 2:12 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: quick response
one quick note: adding in an outsider breaks that isolation.....of course, that can change the equation. I am not sure though that if we envision the smaller, isolated population, continually mixing some with the larger group, if the isolation is then such as to lead to substantial evolution. Certainly, a greater degree of evolution is envisioned where the smaller popuation could not or would not mate with the larger population. Considering the loss of genetic diversity, how many mutations would be expected to occur to increase genetic diversity for the population to remain healthy? Are mutational rates and types of mutations sufficient? Asking evos to demonstrate these things is not too much to ask, imo.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: you are dodging and weaving
Dr Adequate, if you aren't going to address the arguments raised, nor introduce factual arguments, you are not welcome on the thread.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: you are dodging and weaving
Reread what you wrote. You've consistently ignored my points, and then refused to acknowledge I have addressed your's. You also fail to recognize that you, at the same time, deny claiming the process of microevolution is the same as macroevolution, and then at the very same time, claim microevolutionary steps are the steps of macroevolution (that they add up). This is exact same bait and switch approach that the thread is about. Moroever, you confound such deceitful tactics with semantics arguments rather than deal with the substantive errors you are making. Personally, I am not even sure you are capable right now of recognizing those errors, perhaps because you are so emotionally involved. Either way, I am tired of you fouling up the thread. I've given you plenty of time to engage truthfully the points raised, and you continually ignore them wholesale. Either start making factual posts, or get off the thread and let someone else, like WK who is at least trying to engage the topic, post. last warning....
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: For Anyone Who's Interested
well, at least here you have finally made a fact-based post.......try to stick with this, and quit the other posts fouling up the thread when you don't have an answer but want to someone "score points" anyway.....
There is no reason why this should change the mutation rate, so the equilbrium heterozygy of the two gene pools is That depends on your explanation of what causes the mutations, but I suppose the "rate" per se has not changed. Nevertheless, if there are x mutations per y members of a population, and you reduce that population by half, then that equals one half the number of mutations, right? So there are less mutations per a smaller population than a larger one. Regardless, you have not accounted for loss of genetic diversity, and basically, once again, ignore the real world analysis. It seems you don't get the problem, and so are struggling to offer a solution without first taking the time to grasp the dilemna. You completely leave off the pressures towards isolation, genetic drift and other means of decreasing genetic diversity are just as on-going over long periods of time as mutational rates. In other words, you completely dodged the point....again. I wouldn't expect you to get this point, Dr Adequate, as you seem to rest your beliefs on a simplistic analysis.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 99 of 214 (367884)
12-05-2006 10:44 PM
|
|
|
some helpful quotations
for the likes of Dr Adequate who displays the typical ignorance of naive evos in asserting that the reason some reject Darwinism is due to not properly understanding it....
Pierre-P. Grasse "The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism'" "The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of `Darwinism.' Its purpose is `to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grasse hut not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie,' author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic, and his book is replete with interesting facts that any biologist would profit by knowing." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," ["Evolution of Living Organisms"], Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378) [top] Lynn Margulis Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes "IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution.... Margulis was now denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. Disagreeing with Darwin resembles creationism to the uninformed; therefore the stigma that any taint of creationism can bring to a scientific reputation, coupled with the intimidating genius of Darwin, have kept all but the boldest iconoclasts from doubting Darwinian theory in public. What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly K., "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original) [top] W.R. Thompson* "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." "I admire, as all biologists must, the immense scientific labours of Charles Darwin and his lifelong, single-hearted devotion to his theory of evolution. I agree that although, as he himself readily admitted, he did not invent the doctrine of organic evolution, or even the idea of natural selection, his arguments, and especially the arguments in The Origin of Species, convinced the world that he had discovered the true explanation of biological diversity, and had shown how the intricate adaptations of living things develop by a simple, inevitable process which even the most simple minded and unlearned can understand. But I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial." (Kelly K.Thompson W.R.*, "Introduction," in Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1967, reprint, pp.vii-viii). [top] ...... Colin Patterson "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true?" "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, `I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'" (Patterson C., "Evolutionism and Creationism," Transcript of Address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, November 5, 1981, p.1). [top] David W. Hogg That "evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest" "remains barely tested" "The point of my letter (Science's Compass, 30 July, p. 663), which perhaps was not well articulated, is that there is one hypothesis, central to evolution, that remains barely tested-that evolution proceeds through the process of survival and reproduction of the fittest." (Hogg D.W., Science, Vol. 286, 26 November 1999, p.167).
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip The point of these quotes is to show the same criticisms of evo theory are stated by very respected non-creationist scientists, even some that are disdainful of creationism. The criticisms are fact-based and substantial, and evos response to them are bait and switch sophistry. It's time for evos to face criticism head-on and acknowledge the facts that contradict their analysis, and admit when they have erroneously asserted facts that they have not verified. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: you are dodging and weaving
The points you have been ignoring have been repeated ad nauseum to you, such as your claim that the small changes of microevolution add to macroevolution and how that most basic claim is not tested or backed up in reference to the process itself, except with simplistic nonsense that small changes must add up to the larger change. You ignore the factors in the small changes that are moving in the wrong direction decreasing genetic diversity. Since you have nothing to offer, please excuse yourself from this thread.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: some helpful quotations
Once again, you are ignoring the argument entirely. It's not a matter of who thinks what, but that factual criticism of evo models are glossed over in a dishonest fashion by people like you that try to divert the argument from facts into pettiness.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: For Anyone Who's Interested
You are not accounting for the loss of genetic diversity, nor the continual process of losing genetic diversity that occurs over a long period of time. You have not shown that the rate of mutations is sufficient, nor proved that, to overcome this process of loss of diversity. You have shown absolutely nothing, and yet do not appear to possess the intelligence to see that.
|
™ Version 4.2