Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 5:13 AM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the BIG LIE
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 91 of 108 (446265)
01-05-2008 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ICANT
01-05-2008 1:19 PM


Re: Just the process for now, thanks.
Thanks, ICANT.

Remember what I believe about the word evolution has entirely nothing to do with what the scientific world believes about evolution, or calls evolution for that matter.

We can come back to this later.

You are trying to take a part of that process and call it evolution.

Actually, I am trying to discuss a process, so I have stopped using the word "evolution" to prevent everyone being confused and distracted by their pet (& often divergent) definitions.

I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 1:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 92 of 108 (446291)
01-05-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
01-05-2008 12:57 PM


Re: Starting from basics - with the process as the foundation
Hi RAZD,

As you know I believe in creation by God.

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

I can agree with this statement. Things do change some for better some for worse.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process,

Question: Are you now saying Process #1 is micro-effects and Process #2 is macro-effects?

But in the following statement you are saying that they are the same.

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

By this statement you are saying that all changes in micro-effect and macro-effect have resulted in whatever you started out with only being a different variety of the same thing.

If this is what you are saying I can agree.

Now that you have combined micro and macro into the same thing are you going to use TRANSMUTATION when you start to talk about one thing becoming a totaly different thing?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?

book=Dictionary&va=transmutation
transmutation
act or instance of transmuting or being transmuted: as a: the conversion of base metal into gold or silver b: the conversion of one element or nuclide into another either naturally or artificially.

The conversion of one element to a competely different element had to take place thousands of times for us to have arrive where we are today from a single cell life form that nobody has any knowledge where that first life form came from, there is much speculation but no knowledge in science.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 12:57 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 6:24 PM ICANT has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 93 of 108 (446336)
01-05-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
01-05-2008 3:01 PM


Re: Starting from basics - with the process as the foundation
Thanks ICANT.

I can agree with this statement. Things do change some for better some for worse.

Good.

Question: Are you now saying Process #1 is micro-effects and Process #2 is macro-effects?

But in the following statement you are saying that they are the same.

They are both part of the same (creationist) model. Some biologists keep speciation as part of micro-effects, and others use it to start macro-effects, so the safest position is that it is the boundary between micro and macro. Until speciation occurs any variations and adaptation that occurs in one sub-population that differs from another sub-population can be eradicated by the two sub-populations intermixing and interbreeding. However, once breeding isolation has occurred this intermixing can no longer happen and the two (or more) daughter species are independent - they can each continue with variations and adaptation within their populations - independent of variations and adaptation that occur in the other daughter population/s.

By this statement you are saying that all changes in micro-effect and macro-effect have resulted in whatever you started out with only being a different variety of the same thing.

I don't know if we can really talk about these processes and their relation to "macro-effects" yet (part of the problem is defining what those are, where the line is). Rather we are looking at what the processes of variation and adaptation plus speciation can cause\explain. This is from wikipedia on speciation (see picture):

quote:
An experiment demonstrating allopatric speciation in the fruit fly (Drosophila pseudoobscura) conducted by Diane Dodd. A single population of flies was divided into two, with one of the populations fed with starch-based food and the other with maltose-based food. After the populations had diverged over many generations, the groups were again mixed; it was observed that the flies would mate only with others from their adapted population.

Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila


What we are looking at is descent from parent populations and variation and adaptation within isolated sub-populations of species up to the point they become independent daughter populations.

If this is what you are saying I can agree.

So we agree (so far)?

Now that you have combined micro and macro into the same thing are you going to use TRANSMUTATION when you start to talk about one thing becoming a totaly different thing?

The conversion of one element to a competely different element had to take place thousands of times for us to have arrive where we are today from a single cell life form that nobody has any knowledge where that first life form came from, there is much speculation but no knowledge in science.

Let's save this for later, and see if we need to come back to it. For now I want to take small steps, taking the time necessary to get as many interested people in agreement as possible.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 3:01 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 7:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 94 of 108 (446345)
01-05-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
01-05-2008 6:24 PM


Re: Starting from basics - with the process as the foundation
Thanks RAZD,

What we are looking at is descent from parent populations and variation and adaptation within isolated sub-populations of species up to the point they become independent daughter populations.

So you are saying this is micro-effects and macro-effects as you put forth in Process #1 and #2.

So these independent daughter populations that don't associate with each other are still fruit flys. Nothing has changed except the way they behaved toward each other.

wiki article writes:

it was observed that the flies would mate only with others from their adapted population.

It did not say they could not mate only that they were observed not to mate.

So yes I agree so far.

Let's save this for later, and see if we need to come back to it. For now I want to take small steps, taking the time necessary to get as many interested people in agreement as possible.

I will anxiously await the part where one element changes to a competely different element.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 6:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 7:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 95 of 108 (446347)
01-05-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
01-05-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Starting from basics - with the process as the foundation
So yes I agree so far.

Good.

I will anxiously await the part where one element changes to a competely different element.

It may be a long wait, it's taken 94 posts to get to this point.

Looks like we are ready for the next installment.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 01-05-2008 7:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 96 of 108 (446361)
01-05-2008 9:38 PM


On to the theory then. Perhaps?
We seem to have agreement then that we have two processes (even though they may overlap) that occur in modern everyday biological life as we know it:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

We observe instances of these processes happening by various mechanisms as previously noted, and thus these are facts in today's world.

The question is whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:


Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Stated simply: we posit that Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life today from the records of previous generations of species.

We start with today and work backwards, generation by generation, species by species (in theory). Where we do not have sufficiently complete information to show Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the descent of daughter species from parent species, we will have to say that we don't know for sure.

This is essentially the creationist model, using (1) variation and adaptation, plus (2) speciation, to explain the diversity of life today back to the hypothetical biblical flood event and a point where we started with known kinds.

Lets stop here to make sure everyone is on-board still, or find out what problems we need to iron out. Then we can look at what we need to do to test the theory.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 12:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 97 of 108 (446381)
01-06-2008 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
01-05-2008 9:38 PM


Re: On to the theory then. Perhaps?
Hi RAZD,


Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Its your theory so have at it.

We start with today and work backwards, generation by generation, species by species (in theory). Where we do not have sufficiently complete information to show Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the descent of daughter species from parent species, we will have to say that we don't know for sure.

When you get to the point that you do not have sufficient evidence you can go no further unless you are going to accept by faith that something happened. Then I will say why should I have faith in your theory when You say my theory is based on faith and therefore is unbelievable.

So when you reach the point evidence is not sufficient to prove Position #1 and Position #2 you must say ok we are at a dead end.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2008 9:38 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 7:36 PM ICANT has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 98 of 108 (448270)
01-12-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
01-06-2008 12:28 AM


Re: On to the theory then. Perhaps? Creo vs Evo predictions from the theory?
When you get to the point that you do not have sufficient evidence you can go no further unless you are going to accept by faith that something happened. Then I will say why should I have faith in your theory when You say my theory is based on faith and therefore is unbelievable.
So when you reach the point evidence is not sufficient to prove Position #1 and Position #2 you must say ok we are at a dead end.

When we come to a point where we don't know for sure, we are not at a "dead end",

  • say we don't know for sure, ... but until we know more we can
  • look beyond the missing evidence to find a most likely ancestor species based on shared traits and
  • hypothesize a tentative genealogical development based on possible changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation to fill the gap, and
  • make testable hypothesis of what missing evidence would look like and where it would likely be found in the geological record
  • look for evidence to validate or invalidate that hypothesis.
We can expect a number of these hypothetical links, but those links will still be based on the theory that each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

There would only be a serious problem if there were no possible ancient ancestors that shared traits with the species in question.

Its your theory so have at it.

We agree that this theory applies to both the evolutionist model and the creationist model, at least since some hypthetical flood event.

Message 96

quote:
This is essentially the creationist model, using (1) variation and adaptation, plus (2) speciation, to explain the diversity of life today back to the hypothetical biblical flood event and a point where we started with known kinds.

Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap.

To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge.

From Two of Every Kind (see box at bottom):

quote:

The evolutionary “tree” (above right) postulates that all today’s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from nonliving chemicals). The creationist “orchard” (above left) shows that diversity has occurred within the original Genesis kinds over time.

Baraminology ... shows, for example, that the many dog species that we find throughout the world today—including the coyote, the wolf, the fox, the border collie, and the jackal—may all descend from one original created kind, ...


So we should see the effect of the orchard vs tree arrangement in the fossil and genetic record, and it should be repeated after the flood event, which should also show up as an extinction event that winnows species down to the original kinds again.

From this information we can state a corollary to theory #1 that must be true for the creation model and false for the science model:

Theory #1b (a corollary of theory #1 if creationism is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their parent "original kinds" at the same time and in one general location ... once for the hypothetical flood event and once again for creation.

ie - there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, and we should not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships:

Theory #1c (a corollary of theory #1 if evolution\geology is true):
That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their individual parent species at different times and different places ... in a fairly continuous process that forms a tree of relationships.

ie - we should find evidence that forms a tree:


Click to enlarge

If we can agree on this and the tests for the different corollaries then we can move on to the evidence for descent from parent species or kinds and see if

(1) the theory #1 can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(2) the theory #1b can, or cannot, explain the evidence,
(3) the theory #1c can, or cannot, explain the evidence.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : thumb


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2008 12:28 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 8:35 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 7:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 99 of 108 (448281)
01-12-2008 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
01-12-2008 7:36 PM


Re: On to the theory then. Perhaps? Creo vs Evo predictions from the theory?
Hi RAZD.

If we can agree on this and the tests for the different corollaries then we can move on to the evidence for descent.

You are aiming at somebody I ain't. You are looking for yec's lots of luck.

I would like to see the progress.

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 7:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 7:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 100 of 108 (448490)
01-13-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
01-12-2008 8:35 PM


Evolution is not the issue, the issue is common ancestors
Thanks, ICANT.

You are aiming at somebody I ain't. You are looking for yec's lots of luck.

And the resident YEC's seem to have disappeared.

One point that is demonstrated by this, is that evolution is not the issue, the issue is common ancestors, not how we get here from there.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2008 8:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 101 of 108 (448492)
01-13-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
01-12-2008 7:36 PM


Re: On to the theory then. Perhaps? Creo vs Evo predictions from the theory?
Here's a question:

Did the chipmunk adapt to its environment - or is it the other way around? Did hard shelled walnuts grow near because the walnut is easily cracked open by a chipmunk's sharp front teeth - or did it acquire such teeth because it saw lots of walnuts around?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2008 7:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 7:51 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 102 of 108 (448496)
01-13-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 7:46 PM


why did the chipmunk cross the road?
Short answer: yes.

Long answer: look into co-evolution.

k?

Edited by RAZD, : the long and the short of it.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 7:46 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 8:07 PM RAZD has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 103 of 108 (448500)
01-13-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
01-13-2008 7:51 PM


Re: why did the chipmunk cross the road?
In that co-evolutionary account, what is not addressed is that the walnut existed well before the chipmunk, being a form of vegetation - this points to the chipmunk settling here because it found walnuts and had corresponding sharp teeth.

This appears similar to human pops settling near easy water and food [fish] supply, the latter event pre-dating the former: IOW, the water nor the fish acted to exploit the humans factor.

Is there a different view, as both appear wanting?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 7:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2008 9:02 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 104 of 108 (448513)
01-13-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 8:07 PM


Re: why did the chipmunk cross the road?
... what is not addressed is that the walnut existed well before the chipmunk, being a form of vegetation ...
Is there a different view, as both appear wanting?

You have not explored when the walnut tree evolved or when the hard shell evolved, whether the chipmunk eats other foods that have softer shells, notably pine nuts, bugs, etc etc etc etc.

This is all, however, off topic. Please start a new thread
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tf&f=25

Please see Message 96 and Message 98 for latest topic input.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 8:07 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 105 of 108 (454610)
02-07-2008 7:41 PM


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=795&m=49#46 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=795&m=49#46">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=795&m=49#46

The creationist will just say that is microevolution, and that what they want is evidence that macroevolution occurs.

False.

Creationism rejects microevolution. There are some Creationists of the Fundamentalist nature that do accept microevolution, just like Atheist evolutionism accepts microevolution. But these "Creationists" are the exception based on their affinity with Atheist evolutionism.

Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation.

This thread is to define what "large scale change" means in reality and then see how it is shown in the fossil record.

The undisturbed fossil record as seen in the crust of the Earth shows species appearing, changing slightly, then disappearing. No evolution is seen. The same proves special creation. The fact of IC explains why evolution is not seen in the crust of the Earth. All of the same corroborates special creation to be a scientific fact.

Ray


Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2008 8:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2008 9:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019