|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism - a clearer picture? | |||||||||||||
Theo Inactive Junior Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
theo- sorry about that post- i was in a bad mood and couldn't resist.
|
|||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: 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: Okay, here's the transitional clade between reptile and mammal:
quote: Answer your question?
quote: 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: See above. Actually, Gould refutes Goldschmit. Better tell AiG to re-read their primary sources, since you apparently won't.
quote: 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: 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: quote: And macroevolution contradicts the first and second law how, exactly?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024