|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism - a clearer picture? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Amusing though. : )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
i'm still having that refresh problem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theo Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theo Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024