Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
GDR, jar, kjsimons, ringo, ssope, Taq (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15371
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 211 of 301 (703252)
07-17-2013 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
07-17-2013 4:15 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
quote:

The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.

But it doesn't. There's no evidence connecting the unusual genetic depletion in cheetahs (produce by bottlenecks AFTER cheetahs became a distinct species) and their lack of interfertility with other cats. You would need to take a far more detailed look at the evidence to even be able to make a case for your claim.

So again we come to the question of why you think that people ought to accept your opinion in the absence of adequate supporting evidence or reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 4:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 212 of 301 (703253)
07-17-2013 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
07-17-2013 4:15 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.

The lack of genetic variation in species would be extremely strong evidence - probably undeniable evidence - for the Noah story where a global flood 4,000 years ago caused the deaths of all but a breeding pairs of all animals and plants.

Every living animal and plant would show the cheetah's genetic bottleneck marker. Unfortunately for you, we find no such evidence, in fact the opposite, no bottleneck exists, therefore there was no global flood. It's as simple as that.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 4:15 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 6:08 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 213 of 301 (703254)
07-17-2013 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Tangle
07-17-2013 4:51 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
I've answered this many times already. At the time of the Flood the genetic diversity would have been enormously greater than it is now so that the bottleneck would not have produced the high percentage of homozygosity found in the cheetah. Genetic diversity basically means high heterozygosity.

The branching into many variations (breeds or races) by the splitting off of smaller populations gradually reduces the genetic diversity in a given population over many generations, so NOW in some populations such as the cheetah, we see the condition of almost total homozygosity.

The Flood bottleneck would have brought about a reduction in the heterozygosity and an increase in homozygosity but there was still a great deal of variability left. Enough to produce everything we see today with more to spare.

Yet an overall reduction in the total heterozygosity would have occurred. An estimate of the present percentage of heterozygosity in humans is something like 7%. That's enough for a great deal of variation still, and it would have been much much higher back in the time of the Flood.

"Junk DNA" figures in this too. There should have been much less at the time of the Flood, and its accumulation was likely the result of the loss of alleles since then, the reduction in genetic diversity in other words, the reduction to greater and greater homozygosity until some genes completely lose function altogether and become junk or dead DNA. Greater homozygosity over the generations, plus more Junk DNA. I've discussed this many times before.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 4:51 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 8:11 AM Faith has responded
 Message 215 by jar, posted 07-17-2013 8:52 AM Faith has responded
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 07-17-2013 11:51 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 214 of 301 (703255)
07-17-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
07-17-2013 6:08 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I've answered this many times already.

You appear to be confusing the word 'answer' with a pile of made up shite.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 6:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:50 AM Tangle has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31262
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 215 of 301 (703259)
07-17-2013 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
07-17-2013 6:08 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

I've answered this many times already. At the time of the Flood the genetic diversity would have been enormously greater than it is now so that the bottleneck would not have produced the high percentage of homozygosity found in the cheetah.

And you have been shown, numerous times, that at the time of the supposed flood genetic diversity was NOT enormously greater than it is now.

You really need to stop repeating falsehoods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 6:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:43 AM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 216 of 301 (703261)
07-17-2013 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:05 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Not when you say YOUR opinions are representative of ALL creationists. You make yourself out to be THE voice for YEC's. You accused me "refusing to understand creationists" because I attributed standard creationist rationale to you. Well, I didn't. You simply have different views than most creationists. Even the biggest groups.

So, again, which is it? Are CMI and AIG not true young earthers and need your corrections?


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:46 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 301 (703267)
07-17-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:55 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, but all this division does is isolate that new "species" in its genetically reduced condition so that it has no further direction to evolve in. The whole point of the idea of speciation within the context of the theory of evolution is that it is a stepping stone to further evolution, but genetically it is either very close to the end or has reached the end of all possibility of further evolution. This is the case with the cheetah, formed by a bottleneck but still characterized by the same kind of genetic situation speciation naturally produces. It can't interbreed with other cats and it also can't evolve new variations within its own population. If you want to call it a Species unto itself you only succeed in obscuring the fact that genetically it remains part of the Cat Species or Family.

What would obscure the facts is using the word "species" to mean family, when it doesn't. No-one in the world (except you) would call a pussy-cat the same species as a tiger. This is what we have the word "family" for.

Would it kill you to speak the same language as the rest of us?

(Your fantasies about genetics are, as we know, nonsense from beginning to end, but that seems to be beside the point. Could you at least try to be wrong about one thing at a time?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 218 of 301 (703268)
07-17-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by jar
07-17-2013 8:52 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Nobody has ever shown that, or even bothered to argue it, that I recall.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by jar, posted 07-17-2013 8:52 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by jar, posted 07-17-2013 12:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 219 of 301 (703269)
07-17-2013 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by hooah212002
07-17-2013 10:13 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
I make myself out to be the voice for YECs? Huh? I believe I simply pointed out recently that I AM a YEC and share their basic point of view on the Young Earth, as opposed to the other Creationists who post here, who aren't YECs; hardly a claim to "be the voice of" YECs, and hardly implying anything that would require me to agree with absolutely every point made by a YEC ministry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 10:13 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 12:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 301 (703270)
07-17-2013 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2013 11:38 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, I do believe that all cats big and small are of the same Species or original created Kind. Therefore I can't use your nomenclature.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 12:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 234 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 10:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 221 of 301 (703271)
07-17-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Tangle
07-17-2013 8:11 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
It answers your objection perfectly: you say the bottleneck of the Flood would have produced the same results as a bottleneck today and I explained why it wouldn't.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 8:11 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 222 of 301 (703272)
07-17-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
07-17-2013 6:08 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

At the time of the Flood the genetic diversity would have been enormously greater than it is now....


Why "would" it have been? What "would" have caused that greater diversity? What evidence do you have for your claim?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 6:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 12:06 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 223 of 301 (703275)
07-17-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
07-17-2013 11:50 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

It answers your objection perfectly: you say the bottleneck of the Flood would have produced the same results as a bottleneck today and I explained why it wouldn't.

You simply asserted with no evidence whatsoever, that pre-flood the animals would have been 'enormously greater than it is now'. That's pure nonsense.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 224 of 301 (703276)
07-17-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ringo
07-17-2013 11:51 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
It's of course hard to produce evidence for this but logically it hangs on the fact that the production of varieties breeds or races involves the splitting of populations into smaller populations which remixes the genes/alleles and of necessity reduces the proportions of some (while increasing the proportions of others), so that overall over time there is an increasing reduction in genetic diversity down the generations as alleles that don't contribute to the new breed eventually drop out altogether. This can happen enough to kill some genes altogether (junk DNA). You get new breeds or varieties or races from new populations that have an overall reduced genetic diversity from the parent populations. Tracing this back extrapolates to greater diversity the further back you go.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 07-17-2013 11:51 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 12:33 PM Faith has responded
 Message 229 by ringo, posted 07-17-2013 12:35 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 10:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 225 of 301 (703277)
07-17-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
07-17-2013 11:48 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Faith writes:

Yes, I do believe that all cats big and small are of the same Species or original created Kind. Therefore I can't use your nomenclature.

No you don't believe that.

You can't believe that because that is not what a species is. You are not allowed to use scientific names to mean anything that you choose them to mean.

When you need to use a term that means what you want to believe rather than how science describes it, you have to make up a non-scientific word; like kind.

I suggest you adopt the nomenclature used here:

http://folk.uio.no/alied/TMoL.html

In Life*, there are many hundreds of common experiences, feelings, situations and even objects which we all know and recognize, but for which no words exist.
On the other hand, the world is littererd with thousands of spare words which spend their time doing nothing but loafing about on signposts pointing at places.

Our job, as wee see it, is to get these words dow off the signposts and into the mouths of babes and sucklings and so on, where they can start earning their keep in everyday conversation and make a more positive contribution to society.

Douglas Adams
John Lloyd


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 11:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 12:13 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019