Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:40 PM
41 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (5 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,595 Year: 3,632/19,786 Month: 627/1,087 Week: 217/212 Day: 32/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Creationism - a clearer picture?
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 61 of 64 (6285)
03-08-2002 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by joz
03-08-2002 1:14 AM


Your responses are incredibly selective, quoting only part of what I said and ignoring the part that refutes you.

As I said, what is the mechanism (i.e. mutation)that produces irreducible morphology to be selected by geographical boundaries. Mutation has been shown not to be able to produce irreducible morphology. I asked for someone to complete the punk eek mechanism w/o reviewing the geographical selection and all you did was reiterate the geography & mutation argument. One more time. What produces the irreducible morphology? Mutation cannot accomplish that. = NO MECHANISM Other posts have recognized that (the saltation posts)

As well, you ignored the necessity of a program to utilize energy & materials to have a localized reversal of entropy which I warned about. And you have the gall to ask if I can read? Lighten up!

------------------
theo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 1:14 AM joz has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 64 (6286)
03-08-2002 3:52 AM


theo- sorry about that post- i was in a bad mood and couldn't resist.
  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 64 (6288)
03-08-2002 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
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.

[[STOP! TOE has NOTHING do to with the creation of the universe! The big bang theory is a seperate theory and is part of astrophysics! Now, if you want to debate astrophysics and its theories, that is fine, but PLEASE know which theories you are discussing. It is a serious blow to your integrity as a debater when you make missrepresentations of such theories. As for the big bang and astrophysics, if you want to discuss that, that is fine. However, please don't lump seperate theories from different disciplines together. You do some research on what TOE actually states, and then lets talk about it. As for the astrophysics, lets both research into that, and have a meaningful debate. You make alot of half formed assertions statements without any supporting evidence.
You also state that, "Creationists generally believe that for macro-evolution to be true it must account for the origin of matter via a natural cause". Nowhere does TOE does it say anything about the creation of matter. This is invalid logic used to try and link TOE and the Big Bang Theory as if they were the same theory. If this is what creationists believe, it is a sad commentary on the creationist side's basic comprehension of TOE.]

The second law is entropy. property of matter to move to simplicity. [1] 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.[2] 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. [2] 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.[3] It is a violation of Entropy.[4] 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. [5] In the case of life, the program is DNA but it is too complex to ever have occurred by chance.[6]

Hence we believe that macro-evolution theory violates the first two laws but creation science predicts them. [7]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 12:53 AM Theo has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3950 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 64 (6304)
03-08-2002 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theo
03-08-2002 12:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
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.

That's true: you stated. You are, however, incorrect. Did you even bother to read the article I posted by Eldridge? PE's mechanisms include allopatric speciation, habitat tracking, inter-species selection (disputed), genetic drift, etc. PE is merely the observation that large-scale transitions (macroevolution) are visible in the fossil record, but that species-to-species transitions (microevolution) are not. PE postulates that species/populations appear "abruptly" in the record, and remain unchanged for a greater or lesser period of time. Change only occurs following a disruption of some kind, and is basically a region-wide ecosystem change that causes numerous unrelated species to disappear (through habitat tracking or extinction) at roughly the same time.

The basic contention of coordinated stasis is quite in line with observations of living systems. The phenomenon is called "evolutionarily stable strategy" (ESS). In an effort to avoid getting too technical, ESS basically refers to inter- and intra-species allelic codependency. Under ESS, coevolutionary equilibrium, once reached, is maintained unless something happens to upset the balance. When disequilibrium occurs, species either adapt, move, or die under selective pressure thus spurring speciation.

You also have a really erroneous view of natural selection: the main effect of NS is to weed out deleterious mutations. Positive selection only works on those rare beneficial mutations that provide a net fitness advantage for a particular organism. Over all, the larger the mutation, the less likely it will be beneficial. Hence the expectation that change will occur slowly (gradualism) - all other things being equal (PE). Get it now?

quote:
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.

Okay, here's the transitional clade between reptile and mammal:

quote:
Therapsida
|?-Tetraceratops
-`--+--Biarmosuchia
-.`+--+--Eotitanosuchus
-.........`-Ivantosaurus (?=Eotitanosuchus)
-......`--Eutherapsida
-........|--Dinocephalia
-........|..|--Anteosauria
-........|..|..|--Stenocybidae
-........|..|..`--Anteosauridae
-........|..|.....|--Syodon
-..........|.....`--+--Titanophoneus
-........|...........`--Anteosaurinae
-........|..|...........|--Doliosauriscus
-........|..|...........`--Anteosaurus
-........|..`--Tapinocephalia
-........|.....|--Styracocephalidae
-........|.....|--Estemmosuchidae
-........|.....`--+--Titanosuchidae
-........|........`--Tapinocephalidae
-........`--Neotherapsida
-...........|--Anomodontia
-...........`--Theriodontia
-..............|--Gorgonopsia
-..............`--Eutheriodontia
-.................|--Therocephalia
-.................`--Cynodontia
-....................|--Dvinia
-....................`--+--Procyonsuchidae
-.......................`--+--Galesauridae
-..........................`--+--Thrinaxodon
-.............................`--Eucynodontia
-................................|--Cynognathus
-................................`--Probainognathia
-...................................|--Tritylodontoidea
-...................................|..|--Diademodontidae
-...................................|..|--Trirachodontidae
-...................................|..|--Traversodontidae
-...................................|..`--Tritylodontidae
-...................................`--Chiniquodontoidea
-......................................|--Chiniquodontidae
-......................................|--Tricuspes
-......................................|--Eoraetia
-......................................|--Kunminia
-......................................|--Tritheledontidae
-......................................`--+?-Abelobasilus
-.........................................`--+?-Sinoconodon
-............................................|?-Gobiconodontidae
-............................................`--Mammalia
From this source. The page also has the diagnostic to go with the cladogram.

Answer your question?

quote:
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.

You're going to have to provide the actual papers on this one. Wistar indicated that your assertion was NOT the case. Put up or shut up on the paper.

quote:
In response Gould and Eldridge modified Gouldschmit and came up with Punk Eek.

See above. Actually, Gould refutes Goldschmit. Better tell AiG to re-read their primary sources, since you apparently won't.

quote:
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.

There's so much utter nonsense in here I don't even know where to begin...

Since you apparently just invented the term, you'll have to give me an example for "morphology of irriducible complexity" before I can even start to respond. Morphology doesn't mean what you think it means. Bald assertions aside, the entire concept of irriducible complexity is merely a thinly-disguised argument from personal incredulity. Behe's idea has been so thoroughly refuted it isn't even worth time discussion. However, if you'd care to give it a go, why don't you start another thread.

Gould and Eldridge never even discuss the concept, because there isn't any such thing. Claiming that they used the concept to develop PE is ludicrous. Especially claiming that they made any statement whatsoever about "irriducible structures arising spontaneously" is either ignorance or plain bad scholarship. I flat out refuse to discuss the issue further with you until you can PROVE to me that you've actually read one single word they ever wrote. Your Chick Tract Comic Book version of PE is simply so far wrong that any further discussion is pointless.

quote:
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.

Of course, Pasteur wasn't talking about modern theories of abiogenesis - since little things like genetics, microbiolgy, pre-biotic chemistry, astrochemistry, etc hadn't been invented. He was refuting the Victorian-era theory of spontaneous generation of life from nothing (i.e., the idea that mice arose spontaneously from piles of old clothes or the animation of vermicelli). So yeah, I maintain that it is merely an observation. If your high school biology teacher said otherwise, s/he shouldn't be teaching. Obviously you think that if something is written once - even if by an expert - it is immutable for all time. No wonder you're a biblical literalist.

quote:

[ ... ] (Rediculous attempt to prove book written by pre-scientific tribe of Middle Eastern pastoralists is science text snipped.)

quote:
Both of these predictions of natural laws that are in the Bible and contradicted by macro-evolution.

And macroevolution contradicts the first and second law how, exactly?


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

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019