Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism - a clearer picture?
joz
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 64 (6120)
03-04-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theo
03-04-2002 11:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
...Gould and others have labelled punctuated mechanism. It is simply a postulate as to why, with darwinian evolution's prediction of finding many transitional forms, there aren't any. What mechanism causes the sudden new morphology of irreducible complexity?
I posted this earlier but you seem to have missed it....
How about a small geographically and genetically isolated population (A) evolves faster than a large population where genes must take longer to reach fixation (B)... at some point the population (A) overcomes the geographical isolation and being more evolved to suit the environment supplants the population (B)....
What we see in the fossil record unless we get very lucky and dig in the area of geographic confinement is an abrupt transition from the species that comprised population (B) and the initial population of (A) to the species which comprised the population (A) at the time of geographic breakout....
Is that mechanism enough for you?
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theo, posted 03-04-2002 11:17 AM Theo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 03-04-2002 12:44 PM joz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 64 (6122)
03-04-2002 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:10 PM


TC,
Lions need vitamin B12, which they can't get from vegetation. Ergo, the lion in question, to survive to 9 years old was privy to B12 from another source. Therefore it wasn't truly vegetarian, was it? If it got supplements from its keepers, or meat, either one makes your analogy null & void.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 03-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 48 of 64 (6125)
03-04-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by joz
03-04-2002 11:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
How about a small geographically and genetically isolated population (A) evolves faster than a large population where genes must take longer to reach fixation (B)... at some point the population (A) overcomes the geographical isolation and being more evolved to suit the environment supplants the population (B)....
What we see in the fossil record unless we get very lucky and dig in the area of geographic confinement is an abrupt transition from the species that comprised population (B) and the initial population of (A) to the species which comprised the population (A) at the time of geographic breakout....

I think that this is a very important concept. It makes sense in that we know geographically isolated populations can speciate and make remarkable adaptations in measureable amounts of time. It is also a very logical explanation for extinction(?) of Neandertals. Do you have a good on-line reference to this mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by joz, posted 03-04-2002 11:28 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by joz, posted 03-04-2002 12:59 PM edge has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 64 (6127)
03-04-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by edge
03-04-2002 12:44 PM


Well it was just a simple definition of how punk eek works gleaned from actually reading up on what it is (unlike Theo apparently)...
I did a quick search on askjeeves and found this though:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/punk_eek.html
Enjoy....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by edge, posted 03-04-2002 12:44 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 50 of 64 (6141)
03-05-2002 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Theo
03-04-2002 11:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
I agree with much of your response. I have made multiple assertions in many posts without proper referencing which I have promised to make good on and will do so but let me clarify one thing.
References would be appreciated when you get the opportunity. After all, you’ve made some pretty sweeping accusations, and it would be interesting to see the evidence.
quote:
Allopatric evolution is not a mechanism. It still does not explain the mechanism of Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory that Gould and others have labelled punctuated mechanism.
You are conflating or plain wrong on several points here. In the first place, allopatric speciation IS a mechanism. Here is a good explanation, if you are interested. According to Gould, allopatric speciation is one of the primary mechanisms for Punctuated Equilibrium (not mechanism): the idea that species change slowly unless something happens — sort of a conservation of species, if you will. His contention makes a lot of sense, because as has been pointed out small populations are more easily effected by changes in allele frequency. There are, of course, other mechanisms. The hopeful monster is a fallacy: no evolutionary theorist predicts that this would occur. There are no lizards-from-chicken eggs giant saltationism. Speciation occurs slowly, and has been observed. PE is merely a more rapid Darwinian evolution. Note: more rapid in this context merely means a few million rather than tens of millions of years. It is still gradualism — only faster. Generally, this type of rapid speciation would only occur when some large-scale environmental change occurred (e.g., major climate change, mass extinction event, major habitat creation, etc) that opened substantial new niches. Otherwise, speciation is a very slow process. That’s all PE talks about. For an excellent generalist explanation, try this article: Species, Speciation and the Environment by none other than Niles Eldridge himself — the co-founder of PE.
quote:
It is simply a postulate as to why, with darwinian evolution's prediction of finding many transitional forms, there aren't any.
What are you talking about? There are tons of transitional forms. What isn’t observed is microscopic incremental changes — simply because this kind of change is soooo gradual and the fossil record is sooo spotty that such change wouldn’t necessarily be recognized. Darwin wasn’t wrong, he simply didn’t have the whole picture (since paleontology, genetics, microbiology, etc hadn’t been invented when he wrote Origin). Only creationists demand that this absolute direct linear descent. Given fossil organisms A, B, and C, where A and C are completely different and unlike, science defines a transitional form B as having traits belonging to A and C concurrently. That’s all. Creationists seem to want a direct father-to-son-to-grandson linear record — which is, of course, impossible. Let me put it to you this way: how many generations back can you trace your own ancestors? 3 or 4? A couple hundred years? Any surprise that science, dealing with timescales a million times greater, doesn’t have this kind of one-to-one ancestry? From the fossil record, no less?
quote:
What mechanism causes the sudden new morphology of irreducible complexity? There still isn't one.
Sorry, this sentence makes absolutely no sense. What does IC have to do with morphology? And what does IC have to do with PE or anything else we were discussing?
quote:
The Wistar institute did the math in the sixties and concluded that even with 4 billion years, mutation and natural selection cannot account for the macro-evolutionary changes embraced on faith by macro-evolutionists. That was part of the push to punctuated equilibrium.
Ya know, I’ve had creationists quote this to me before — supposedly from something called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. Because I’ve never been able to find any reference for the document nor any reference to the alleged series of meetings in the Wistar archives (which date back to the 1880’s), I contacted the Wistar Institute directly last October. A very congenial gentleman by the name of Frank Hoke, Wistar’s Director of Public Affairs, very kindly searched their off-line sources. He regretfully informed me that there was no record of either a series of meetings in 1967 on the mathematical probabilities of evolution nor any reference to an Institute-sponsored book or document by that name. I think you need to come up with a better source than Wistar for this quote. Here’s their website — feel free to contact them yourself.
quote:
The Bible predicts the first law of thermodynamics when in Genesis it says God quit creating and the second law is predicted in Genesis when God put the curses put on Adam and eve which is referred to in Romans eight when it says the creation waits to be delivered from the bondage of decay.
Well, I confess I’m no biblical scholar. That hasn’t been one of my interests. Obviously you’ve read the book more closely than I have. I certainly don’t remember any mention of the words entropy or thermodynamics. Maybe I just had a bad translation. I’ll let one of the better informed on this forum answer this bit. ludvanB, are you out there?
quote:
As well, the Bible predicts the law of biogenesis given to us by Pasteur which evolution violates.
In the first place, biogenesis (life comes from life) is not a law, it’s an observation. In the second place, evolution (change in allelic frequency over time), certainly follows the principle. How can you have evolution without life? Third, this is another term that doesn’t appear in my translation of the bible — I’ve really got to learn Aramaic some day. I’m obviously missing a lot in the translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Theo, posted 03-04-2002 11:17 AM Theo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Quetzal, posted 03-06-2002 1:23 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 51 of 64 (6170)
03-06-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Quetzal
03-05-2002 3:30 AM


Okay, I can admit it when I'm wrong. Weirdly enough, yesterday I received an email from the head archivist at Wistar (must be divine intervention or something). Although she couldn't provide an on-line version of the symposia papers, it turns out that the Institute did in fact hold a series of seminars as Hovind and AiG claimed (although both the purpose and results were different).
Here's the gist of her email:
quote:
Dear Mr. [ ... ],
Your inquiry on the monograph "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" was forwarded to my attention as Archivist of The Institute. This monograph was published by Alan R. Liss, Publ., New York, in 1966 and is a compilation of papers given at a conference held at The Institute April 25-26, 1966. It is edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan. This monograph is listed in OCLC as being owned by more than 280 academic libraries in the U.S. If you are in the Ukraine, however, it might be hard to locate.
The symposium focused on mathematically defining rates of evolutionary change, and exploring variance and mutations in evolutionary change as defined by Darwin's theory, questions which are of key importance to biologists. Participants included professors from the Univ. of Washington, Harvard, Univ. of Durham (England), Univ. of Pennsylvania, Univ. of Rochester and Univ. of California.
I hope this information will be helpful to you.
Nina P. Long
Director of Library Services & Archivist
Curator of The Wistar Museum Collections
The Wistar Institute
(Emphasis added)
Evidently, the symposium focused on trying to define the rate at which natural selection could occur. Somehow, I doubt that the conclusions were as anti-evolution as the creationists would have us believe. I detect a creationist "Colin Patterson-ism" here - taking one or two sentences out of context and concluding with the typical rant that "evolution is impossible".
Anyone have access to a library where the final document might be housed? If for nothing more than historical interest (it is, after all, 35 years old), I'd like to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2002 3:30 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 64 (6176)
03-06-2002 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theo
03-02-2002 1:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
I find the lack of understanding in these posts of what creationism claims to be appalling. The straw man fallacy is repeated over and over.
I suggest that if one want's to understand the creationist view before critiquing it they read Oliver Wendel Bird's two volume set "The Origin of the Species Revisited." Evolutionist scientists recommend it. In volume one he reviews the scientific data. In volume two he reviews the philosophy of science, definitions of science and legalities. He does not address the issue of the Young Earth however.
If one did their homework they would find that creationism does make testable predictions. I have found no one critical of creationism in these posts that even have a clue as to what they are. Shouldn't one know what one is critiquing before one critiques it?
Evolution made predictions, mutation and natural selection for change from a single cell to man and then when science proved that mutation and natural selection could not have done this, evolution simply changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of evidence. Yet Punk Eek cannot provide a mechanism. This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs. That's what evolution has done. Popper's criteria of falsifiability as part of the definition of science apparently doesn't apply to evolution science. Evolution science is to plastic violating definitions of science. For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates.
We'll go from there

March 4th, 2002
Enlightened Creationist Deals Stunning Blow to Evolutionists
After nearly a hundred years of evolutionist victories, an astute creationist, known only as Theo, has dealt what is being called the "Upset" of the century to the evolutionist camp. "She released her entire arsenal", said the late Stephen Hawking, who was found dead at his home after committing suicide, "She toppled the tower of evolution- my life is over..."
According to eyewitnesses, a band of creationists were seen storming a forum late last night.
"They started hurling unbased claims everywhere", said one evolutionist, fleeing the scene, "It was horrible!"
Creationists applauded the events- "The actions were commendable- I've never seen anyone so skilled at barraging scientists with claims without any credible evidence. She deserves some sort of award."
Theo held a press conference outside of her Salt Lake City home this afternoon. When asked how she felt about the unfounded attacks on evolution, she made a clear response, "A creationist's gotta do what a creationist's gotta do- anyone who challenges our beliefs deserves to face enternal pain and indescribable suffering in the deepest pits of hell- I was just helping out." When asked what she planned for the future, she replied, quote, "I want continue my noble career as an evolutionist basher- because that'll prove that creationism is right."
Reports that several evolutionists, including Elvis Presley and ET, were meeting with Hitler's clone and a demonic satan in antarctic to discuss a neo-nazi plan to destroy god and degrade our society could not be confirmed as of press time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it's true most stupid people are conservative.
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]
[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theo, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM Theo has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 64 (6177)
03-06-2002 5:01 AM


percy- i hope that post wasn't too harsh, but i'm really sick of the verbal diorrhea flowing from theo's mouth... any ott harshness is regretted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-06-2002 12:41 PM quicksink has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 64 (6193)
03-06-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by quicksink
03-06-2002 5:01 AM


Amusing though. : )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by quicksink, posted 03-06-2002 5:01 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 64 (6227)
03-07-2002 3:17 AM


i'm still having that refresh problem

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:23 AM quicksink has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 56 of 64 (6274)
03-08-2002 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by quicksink
03-07-2002 3:17 AM


Quicksink,
Ad-hoc/Ad-hominem attacks are a sign of ignorance. I enjoyed your fictional piece however and by the way I am a guy. I'm sure you are aware that personal attacks and denial are not refutation.
Quetzal,
Punk Eek does not have a mechanism as I stated. Here's why: The original postulated mechanism was mutation and natural selection. Natural selection selects the beneficial mutation. Over time this was to lead to macro-evolution, change of kinds, not just speciation. Creationists accept speciation and natural selection (which was originally postulated by Creationist Edward Blythe 30 years prior to Darwin's origin of the species). We do not believe that kinds have changed. In another string people were fussing over kinds which most creationists will define as groupings above species. Dogs v cats, reptiles v mammals, birds v reptiles. The fossil record bears this out as no transitional forms have ever been found and Darwin predicted that they would. You claimed that there were lots of transitional formsl. Go ahead name some,hell, name one. In the sixties the Wistar Institute's report concluded, not that evolution was impossible, but that there was not enough time for mutation and natural selection to account for macro-evolution i.e. change between kinds. In response Gould and Eldridge modified Gouldschmit and came up with Punk Eek. However, the morphology of irreducible complexity I referred to, cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection via geographical boundaries. By the way morphology is simply structures and irreducible complexity just means that the interdependent structures do not have halfway forms. They must be whole and intact or nothing. Darwin referred to this at the end of the origin of the species in the last chapter titled problems with the theory. His original analysis of complete complex structures was correct. A wing cannot have half feathers or half musculature to power them. Gould and Eldridge have postulated about irreducible structures spontaneously arising referring to bursts of evolution within the geological boundaries. The problem is still what would cause the sudden morphology that then was naturally selected? There is no known mechanism and mutation has been demonstrated to be incapable. All punk eek has is natural selection via geography but no cause of the structure that is selected. Hence no mechanism.
Next, the law of biogenesis. Gee, I learned that phrasing from my High School Biology class. You claim it is only an observation,however; there has never been an exception observed. That's pretty much the definition of a natural law. Repeated observations without exceptions.
As well, the Bible doesn't have to use the latin phrases does it? Since Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic (the original Biblical languages, mostly Greek and Hebrew) predate latin that just doesn't seem fair. The concepts are there, however. In Genesis it says (in Hebrew) that God quit creating. No more creation is the first law of thermodynamics, no more matter, a constant amount, just transition of one to the other (Vacuum fluctuations are things by the way which require energy by the way and require particle accelerators which are artifical designs and constructions by man.) Steady state is still just a hypothesis.
Entropy is also in Romans eight which I already posted, but again, it says the Creation waits to be delivered from it's bonday to decay. The translation is from the New American Standard Bible, which is a word for word translation from the Greek. One of the best translations available.
Both of these predictions of natural laws that are in the Bible and contradicted by macro-evolution.
So somebody please explain the mechanism of Punk Eek without just rehashing selection via geography. That is an incomplete explanation. As well, how would one falsify Punk Eek?
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by quicksink, posted 03-07-2002 3:17 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 12:58 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 59 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 1:02 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 64 by Quetzal, posted 03-08-2002 8:02 AM Theo has not replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 57 of 64 (6276)
03-08-2002 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Darwin Storm
03-02-2002 2:26 AM


This is for Darwin Storms questions:
I believe that macro-evoltion violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics because the first law has seen no exceptions (vacuum fluctuations not withstanding see previous post). Creationists generally believe that for macro-evolution to be true it must account for the origin of matter via a natural cause. There appears to be no satisfactory natural explanation, the Big Bang has too many problems such as too much unburned hydrogen, the angular momentum of galaxies, the origin of the original super compressed hydrogen egg etc... The alt's are steady state or oscillating both of which have many problems as well. Oscillating universe just delays the question, where did the original matter come from? It seems that these theories are super-natural by definition as super just means beyond. If there are no natural mechanisms as explanations and one still believes that there will be a natural cause found one day, then by definition that is a super-natural explanation.
The second law is entropy. The property of matter to move to simplicity. In order for macro-evolution to be true creationists believe adherents have to demonstrate an inherent self-organizing property of matter, which has never been observed. This would be crucial to the first cell forming and then being able to replicate and then move towards complexity, multiple celled animals ect. That's why we make such a big deal of the first cell, then single cell to man. By no known natural mechanism can a cell form by chance then evolve to the complexity of man no matter how much time is given. It is a violation of Entropy. False responses will tell you that if a system has an influx of material and energy that localized reversals of entropy are possible but they leave out the fact that to utilize the materials and energy a 'program' is needed but a program has always required intelligence to preceed it. In the case of life, the program is DNA but it is too complex to ever have occurred by chance.
Hence we believe that macro-evolution theory violates the first two laws but creation science predicts them.
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 2:26 AM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 1:14 AM Theo has replied
 Message 63 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-08-2002 4:05 AM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 64 (6277)
03-08-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
So somebody please explain the mechanism of Punk Eek without just rehashing selection via geography. That is an incomplete explanation. As well, how would one falsify Punk Eek?
I already did a couple of times...
"How about a small geographically and genetically isolated population (A) evolves faster than a large population where genes must take longer to reach fixation (B)... at some point the population (A) overcomes the geographical isolation and being more evolved to suit the environment supplants the population (B)....
What we see in the fossil record unless we get very lucky and dig in the area of geographic confinement is an abrupt transition from the species that comprised population (B) and the initial population of (A) to the species which comprised the population (A) at the time of geographic breakout....
Is that mechanism enough for you?"
You seem to have failed to understand the bit that says positive mutations reach fixation in a small geographicaly and geneticaly isolated population faster than in a large geographicaly unconstrained population....
Hence you don`t understand why the isolated population evolves faster than the large sister population...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:23 AM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (6278)
03-08-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
In response Gould and Eldridge modified Gouldschmit and came up with Punk Eek.
Actually Punk eek is a Darwinian idea...
"Charles Darwin wrote in 1859:
Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:23 AM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 64 (6279)
03-08-2002 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
The second law is entropy. The property of matter to move to simplicity. In order for macro-evolution to be true creationists believe adherents have to demonstrate an inherent self-organizing property of matter, which has never been observed. This would be crucial to the first cell forming and then being able to replicate and then move towards complexity, multiple celled animals ect. That's why we make such a big deal of the first cell, then single cell to man. By no known natural mechanism can a cell form by chance then evolve to the complexity of man no matter how much time is given. It is a violation of Entropy.
Firstly that would be the tendency for matter to become on average more disordered in the whole system
Its a violation of entropy in the same way as cleaning a room is, you know you go through the room cleaning and at the end the ammount of disorder in the room has decereased, have you violated the 2LOT then? The answer is you haven`t because the entropy of the universe as a whole has increased (or at best remained the same)....
Life is a similar case sure the ammount of disorder is decreasing, but we also happen to be given energy from the sun to play with, ie while entropy decreases here it increases in the universe as a whole....
Ergo no problem with 2LOT.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:53 AM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 3:42 AM joz 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