|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And you are neglecting one important imaginary factor, namely magic. Prominent evomagicologists have determined that in the imaginary presence of large quantities of magic, such as are imagined to have been present during the imaginary magic evoflood, everything magically works out so that evolutionists are magically right ... or so they imagine. Does Polly want a cracker? Back in the real world outside your head, "evos" are the ones that attribute things to non- magical causes. That's basically our whole schtick.
Now you do realize that evos have a global flood also, don't you? No, because this is a lie that you made up. Which is why you can produce no evidence for the lie that you made up. Because it's a lie that you made up. I say a lie that you've made up because this is not even a conventional creationist lie. Indeed, I am hard put to know what you are lying about, unless perhaps it is the occasional global rises in sea level which have never ever flooded the entire world. Please could you add some substance to your lie. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And the evidence for that is ... ?
And even if true, what does that have to do with the topic or the absolute FACT that the Biblical Flood never happened? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh about 4bya in evo time Which landmasses were flooded 4bya? Oh, right, there weren't any. You are, then, lying about the time when the Earth was originally covered with ocean and there was no land to be flooded. You are a funny little man. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
No, I wasn't referring to that. A much bigger global flood. The one where it rained for forty days....Sorry 1000's of years and covered most of the earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
No, because this is a lie that you made up. Which is why you can produce no evidence for the lie that you made up. Because it's a lie that you made up. I say a lie that you've made up because this is not even a conventional creationist lie. Indeed, I am hard put to know what you are lying about, unless perhaps it is the occasional global rises in sea level which have never ever flooded the entire world. Please could you add some substance to your lie. It's really not nice to call someone a liar when they are only referring to the science in which you believe. When this earth was evo formed,not matter how it was evo formed, there were no oceans. Now there are! Do you realize that there really is land under the oceans? And that that land is flooded? So is much of the land on the continents in what we cal lakes. The evo magic made it rain a lot longer than forty days for all this flooding to take place. I can provide citations if you want, but only you will be embarrassed to find out that I am not lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sheesh.
No one has ever said there have not been floods. Certainly there was a time when the surface of the earth was too hot for standing water. Certainly, as the surface cooled the water that had been suspended in the atmosphere condensed out. Was it "A Flood"? Nope. It was lots of floods over a very extended period. BUT as usual, that has nothing to do with the topic, would not in any way falsify the theory of evolution or add any support to the Biblical Flood. Try to at least bring up things that might be related to the subject. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's really not nice to call someone a liar when they are only referring to the science in which you believe. When this earth was evo formed,not matter how it was evo formed, there were no oceans. Now there are! And this you wish to refer to as a "global flood". Well, if you want educated people to have no idea what you're talking about, and creationists to be deceived, then I advise you to continue to do so.
The evo magic ... ... is a stupid lie that you've made up in your head, since geologists (I presume that that's what you mean by "evos" --- did you take a vow to be wrong about everything?) ascribe real things to real non-magical causes. Now that you've finished being wrong about this, could I remind you that you were meant to be being wrong about genetics? Your latest drivel seems no more than a smokescreen to escape the point that your fantasies about genetics contradict your fantasies about Noah's Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
But Aok says it was a global flood not lots of floods!!
It was lots of floods over a very extended period. AOK writes:
So it must have happened!! Now you do realize that evos have a global flood also, don't you? Unless Aok is lying, of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't think he is lying, or that such a charge is warranted at all. He is simply ignorant of what science actually says and what evidence actually is.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
jar writes:
His blatant equivocation in his later posts leads me to think he is not debating honestly. I don't think he is lying, or that such a charge is warranted at all.I think he knows when he gets things wrong and lies to cover up his mistakes. I could be wrong, but that is what my instincts are telling me.*shrug*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
My claim is that genetic entropy is real, and it can be modelled using MA. If it is real then you should be able to point to a naturally occuring population in which genetic entropy is occuring and can be verified. Can you point to one? The only populations you have pointed to thus far are populations that are declining because of habitat loss, not because of deleterious mutations.
The problem is not the environment. Humans live and have lived in many environments. So have most other animals. The problems are the mutations and mutational load that doesn't allow for adaptation. Evidence please. For a specific example, can you please point to the genetic differences between humans and chimps that could not have been produced by the observed mechanisms of mutation and selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not at all.
You make the mistake of thinking "he knows when he gets things wrong" when in fact, I imagine he knows that he is right. Remember, he comes from a training regimen that requires taught him that if one thing in the Bible is not factually true, then it is all false. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Alpha writes: bluegenes writes: You entered the thread making the claim that "genetic entropy" would falsify "macro-evolution", or so I understood. No, not at all. My claim is that genetic entropy is real, and it can be modelled using MA. Through this modeling, it is apparent that using real world values for the variables only fitness declines relative to ancestral populations are possible. This effectively falsifies neo-Darwinian evolution. Can you model the following for us? A population of African elephants with an average long term adult population of 100,000 with about 125,000 infants being born to each generation (2.5 per average adult female lifetime). About how many generations would it take before this population would become extinct according to your model using your "real world values"?
Alpha writes: bluegenes writes: Yet you seem to be making a case against the view that modern animals could have descended from bottlenecks of two emerging from the Ark after the flood. Well actually just the opposite. Sanford has data on humans anyway, that the human bottleneck is modeled extremely well using the flood story. It is not modelled well using the theistic evolutionist model or the neoDarwinian model. Our mtDNA mutation rate forbids a common female ancestor at less than about 15,000 years ago, minimum. Also, do you think it has occurred to Sanford that, on the flood model, stone age skeletons found in the various regions of the world from which DNA can be extracted should be much more similar to each other than they are to their modern regional counterparts? What if that isn't the case?
Alpha writes: The problem is not the environment. Humans live and have lived in many environments. So have most other animals. The problems are the mutations and mutational load that doesn't allow for adaptation. Yet all the threatened mammals that we know of are known to have suffered from adverse environmental conditions that have occurred recently and too rapidly for the fixation of any mutations, advantageous or disadvantageous, to be a factor.
Alpha writes: bluegenes writes: It would have been impossible for the herbivore populations to achieve the necessary expansion in the first few generations because the carnivores are in their environment, and the numbers aren't balanced (balance requires a lot more individuals in the "prey" species than the "predator" species). There would also be little or nothing for the herbivores to eat. This is an argument from incredulity. No. It's based on observations and calculations. Just 100 individual predators (50 species) coming off the Ark and each killing one herbivore per. week would have killed 5,000 herbivores in the first year, meaning that somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 species would have lost one or both members, and would go extinct. Now, that's what I call a real bottleneck. However, I probably shouldn't have mentioned the flood bottleneck as it seems to have led to a diversion from the main topic. Stick to the elephants and their extinction due to accumulated detrimental mutations. About how many generations would it take on your model?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
And this you wish to refer to as a "global flood". Why yes, of course! Your flood rained for thousands of years over the entire earth which had to have flooded everywhere, which left the end result of 3/4's of the earth still flooded today. In comparison, Noah's flood only rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and covered a mere 1/4 of the earth's surface for less than a year and then it all ran off into the flooded areas of the oceans.
Well, if you want educated people to have no idea what you're talking about I'm certain you couldn't possibly be referring to yourself. You haven't demonstrated your ability of adulthood graspability of some simple genetic concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why yes, of course! Well, if you wish to be misunderstood ... ... then you might just be a creationist.
I'm certain you couldn't possibly be referring to yourself. And like many of the things that you are certain of, you are of course completely wrong.
You haven't demonstrated your ability of adulthood graspability of some simple genetic concepts. Am I to gather from your latest whining that you still don't understand the difference between inbreeding depression and genetic meltdown? This is amusing. Let's take it step by step. Do you notice how these two phenomena have two names, which are different? That they are not, for example, both called "genetic meltdown"? If you can get your head round that, then we can continue. --- I note that you still haven't begun to explain how your fantasies about genetics can be reconciled with your fantasies about Noah's Ark. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024