Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Introduction to Genetics
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 106 of 236 (719524)
02-14-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
02-14-2014 4:16 PM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
I did remove the militant "Get off this thread" at least.
That cup of tea we talked about last year does fit you well and I appreciate your action.
"Macroevolution" in relation to speciation is an artificial definitional ploy.
I can't do the same with "speciation" because in that case it does describe something that actually happens ...
Then I am confused, again. You accept that speciation occurs and yet you reject the word "macroevolution" which is the same thing just repeated over and over from one species to the next to the next.
You acknowledge that the "Ark cat" gave rise to house cats, lions, cougars and the like, all of which would have had to be the products of multiple speciation events along separate lines from that original Ark cat. In evolution that is classic macroevolution.
The only difference in our positions is that Evolution posits this process took place over deep time which is something in which you do not believe. But by definition it is macroevolution no matter how much time it took or did not take.
The other thing you do not care for because of your deep time issue is that we can trace even further back to a kind of "Ark cat" equivalent, called Miacidae, that gave rise over millions of years to the lineages of feline, canine and ursine. All by the same kind of speciation events you already acknowledge from Ark cat but just a whole lot more of them.
So macroevolution is no ploy but the definition of a process. A process with which you already agree: a line of speciation events.
So what is the problem with using the word as classically defined?
You're already inundated with enough stuff. Don't answer. Just consider this rhetorical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 4:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 10:01 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 107 of 236 (719529)
02-14-2014 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
02-14-2014 5:05 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
"Macroevolution" is an interpretation, it is not a simple factual description of what has actually occurred.
Personally I don't like to use the words microevolution or macroevolution. I really see no distinction between the two, and using the terms just causes confusion and divisiveness.
"Speciation" is an interpretation, it is not a simple factual description of the fact that a subspecies has simply become unable to interbreed with its parent species. "Divergence" is an interpretation, not a simple factual description of the differences between chimp and human DNA. "Mutation" as used in many contexts is also an interpretation, an assumption, when it implies that it produced all the known functioning alleles.
These terms are all descriptive, not interpretive. When you say that a population splits into two daughter populations that become reproductively isolated, that IS speciation. These two populations diverge, so divergence refers to the process. Mutation describes a change in a DNA sequence. What you take issue with is the implications of those words or processes. And I understand that. I am trying to be "neutral" in my descriptive terms, but sometimes that is just what the words mean.
I was thinking you wanted this thread to go in the direction of comparative genomics - comparing one species to another, which is why my previous posts went in the direction they did. However, it seems as if a better way to go would be to discuss genes, chromosome and alleles. Would you be interested if I posted some introductory material on those topics?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 5:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by dwise1, posted 02-14-2014 7:48 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 9:33 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 108 of 236 (719530)
02-14-2014 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
02-14-2014 1:09 PM


Re: Speciation
Faith writes:
No, I guess I need to say it every time it comes up, I do not regard speciation as macroevolution. it is an event that does occur though so I keep the name for it
That's convenient, so long as you can have a personal definition of a term you're safe.
It doesn't change anything about the facts though does it? If the creation of a new species is not a macroevolution event wtf is it?
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[1][4]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 1:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 9:28 PM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 109 of 236 (719534)
02-14-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by herebedragons
02-14-2014 6:47 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
Personally I don't like to use the words microevolution or macroevolution. I really see no distinction between the two, and using the terms just causes confusion and divisiveness.
Actually, I had never seen those terms before until creationists started using them as part of their "variation within created kinds" rhetorics. So as far as I know, they're creationist terms anyway! So why would a creationist feel compelled to avoid them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by herebedragons, posted 02-14-2014 6:47 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 8:28 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 236 (719536)
02-14-2014 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Tangle
02-14-2014 7:02 PM


Paradigm clash
No, I guess I need to say it every time it comes up, I do not regard speciation as macroevolution. it is an event that does occur though so I keep the name for it
That's convenient, so long as you can have a personal definition of a term you're safe.
Nobody here seems to understand the nature of this debate. It really is a paradigm clash. Paradigm clashes involve different views of the facts. That involves different definitions, certainly in a case where the prevailing paradigm has stacked the deck with interpretive views of its own, which is the case with the ToE. If the ToE had simply honestly stuck to simple descriptive factual definitions of words the clash would not be as severe as it is. While paradigm clashes usually do involve some degree of hostility between the views, it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them, and heap ridicule on them and all the rest of it.
It doesn't change anything about the facts though does it? If the creation of a new species is not a macroevolution event wtf is it?
As I said, it's not the creation of a new species; it's a subspecies that simply happened to develop inability to interbreed with the rest of its species. There is no other difference. The only reason it is called "macroevolution" is because of the definition of a species as incapable of breeding with others. That may or may not be the best definition in general, but when one knows that the speciation event is merely the loss of that ability in a known subspecies, the definition is decidedly artificial.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2014 7:02 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2014 9:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 236 (719537)
02-14-2014 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by herebedragons
02-14-2014 6:47 PM


Re: Factual versus interpretive tendentious terminology
These terms are all descriptive, not interpretive.
Oh how sad. Oh well, I've struggled along this far with a stacked deck against me, can't expect that to change I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by herebedragons, posted 02-14-2014 6:47 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 7:51 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 112 of 236 (719538)
02-14-2014 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
02-14-2014 9:28 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
Nobody here seems to understand the nature of this debate. It really is a paradigm clash. Paradigm clashes involve different views of the facts. That involves different definitions, certainly in a case where the prevailing paradigm has stacked the deck with interpretive views of its own, which is the case with the ToE.
I think many of us understand the nature of the debate quite well.
It is between one "paradigm" which is derived from evidence, leading to hypotheses and theories to best explain that evidence, and a second "paradigm" which is derived from ancient tribal myth, with a series of beliefs not supported by evidence.
If the ToE had simply honestly stuck to simple descriptive factual definitions of words the clash would not be as severe as it is. While paradigm clashes usually do involve some degree of hostility between the views, it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them, and heap ridicule on them and all the rest of it.
Science does not look to religions, of which there are some 40,000 different branches, sects, and denominations worldwide, for permission or guidance on how it conducts its affairs.
Why should it? The tens of thousands of religions can't agree among themselves, and rather than use evidence to settle differences, more often split into competing sects based on differing beliefs.
Science is correct to ignore those various religions.
If anyone, religions or whatever, want to influence science they need to bring evidence, but that's the last thing most religions want to deal with. We see evidence of that in your posts--virtually all the evidence on dating you simply reject as being wrong. You have no coherent reasons or evidence, you just believe it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.
And then you seem hurt or mystified when science, and in this specific case scientific terms, doesn't accord much credibility to your particular beliefs?
You shouldn't be surprised, and you're not alone. Science doesn't accord much credibility to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo or any of that other weird stuff either.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 9:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 10:07 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 236 (719539)
02-14-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AZPaul3
02-14-2014 5:55 PM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
Then I am confused, again. You accept that speciation occurs and yet you reject the word "macroevolution" which is the same thing just repeated over and over from one species to the next to the next.
I accept that the EVENT called "speciation" occurs but I do not accept the name "speciation," I simply feel obliged to put up with it because it DOES describe an actual event. "Macroevolution" does not so I feel free to discard it. The actual event is merely the loss of ability to interbreed with the parent species that occurs in a particular subspecies, nothing more than microevolution, and the loss of breeding ability can happen just because there has been such a great loss of genetic variability the genomes no longer work together. There is nothing about this whole scenario that supports the ToE at all, in fact it challenges it, so the terminology is wrong from every conceivable point of view.
You acknowledge that the "Ark cat" gave rise to house cats, lions, cougars and the like, all of which would have had to be the products of multiple speciation events along separate lines from that original Ark cat. In evolution that is classic macroevolution.
As long as it remains a cat a creationist shouldn't call it "speciation" or "macroevolution." If you have to call it something, call it "subspeciation." However, many of those cats retain the ability to interbreed with others of the cat kind so "speciation" doesn't fit their case anyway.
The only difference in our positions is that Evolution posits this process took place over deep time which is something in which you do not believe. But by definition it is macroevolution no matter how much time it took or did not take.
"Macroevolution" implies that the genome can eventually morph into another kind of genome. Evolutionists believe that happens, creationists don't. Yes, I know, they keep giving definitions that try to deny this but what else can it mean if all creatures have descended from ancestors way back there that are completely different? Besides, if "speciation" in actuality brings about inability to interbreed through a loss of genetic variability which makes the genomes incompatible, which is really very likely, then it works against the whole idea of evolution from species to species or genome to genome anyway, even over millions of years.
The other thing you do not care for because of your deep time issue is that we can trace even further back to a kind of "Ark cat" equivalent, called Miacidae, that gave rise over millions of years to the lineages of feline, canine and ursine. All by the same kind of speciation events you already acknowledge from Ark cat but just a whole lot more of them.
Sigh. Once boiled down to the actual facts with the interpretive baggage removed from them, such claims can be explained in creationist terms. I have no doubt that this is just the usual case of similarities being mentally transformed into genetic descent, just say it and abracadabra presto changeo it is whatever your magical incantation wants it to be, which is how the ToE works. Just interpret the facts to fit the theory, who needs to prove any of it? but I don't want to take the time now to try to sort this one out, it would only take this thread even farther off course.
So macroevolution is no ploy but the definition of a process. A process with which you already agree: a line of speciation events.
Except they are not speciation events but subspeciation events and nothing has changed in the structure of the genome itself which is what macroevolution requires, and again, the reason for the loss of interbreeding ability is probably loss of genetic variability which oddly enough the ToE never anticipates, because it's such an optimistic formula, everything is always onward and upward. That genetic variability often actually decreases with the formation of daughter populations just can't exist in the ToE framework.
So what is the problem with using the word as classically defined?
It would completely muddy up the creationist point of view and it's important to try to keep it as clear as possible.
You're already inundated with enough stuff. Don't answer. Just consider this rhetorical.
No way, it needed to be answered.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2014 5:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 02-15-2014 12:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 126 by herebedragons, posted 02-15-2014 7:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 236 (719540)
02-14-2014 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
02-14-2014 9:54 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
Just the usual formulaic answer based on theory and utterly devoid of actual fact. Oh well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2014 9:54 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2014 10:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 236 (719542)
02-14-2014 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-14-2014 10:07 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
Just the usual formulaic answer based on theory and utterly devoid of actual fact. Oh well.
If by formulaic answer you mean one you have heard on numerous occasions, you are probably right. That doesn't mean it is wrong.
Why should science change its methods and terminology to accommodate various folks who are inherently anti-science?
Creationists are just about 180 away from science in their approach (paradigm, worldview). They follow what are in essence old tribal myths and deny what evidence shows. When the results of scientific investigations disagree with their beliefs, they seek to destroy those offending branches of science.
Actually, first they tried to emulate science with creation "science," but when that failed they attacked the scientific method itself with the "its just a theory" campaign, and the "teach the controversy" campaign, both of which failed. Now it seems to be "were you there?" and "observational science vs historical science."
But the bottom line really is evidence vs. belief. You mentioned differing paradigms in a previous post--that's a fancy term for the same thing. Or you could call it a worldview difference and be just as accurate.
I would have no argument with your beliefs if you just stated them as beliefs. It is when you try to destroy certain branches of science to accommodate your beliefs, against the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary, that I take umbrage.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 10:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 3:54 AM Coyote has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 116 of 236 (719543)
02-15-2014 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
02-14-2014 10:01 PM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
I accept that the EVENT called "speciation" occurs but I do not accept the name "speciation," I simply feel obliged to put up with it because it DOES describe an actual event.
As long as it remains a cat a creationist shouldn't call it "speciation" or "macroevolution." If you have to call it something, call it "subspeciation."
Tomato, potato.
The parent and daughter populations' genomes become so distinct they can longer play well together. Sub-speciation, potato, whichever.
Now that we're done with the vegetables how about goose and gander?
Didn't you just say ...
... it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them ...
and yet here you are.
"Macroevolution" implies that the genome can eventually morph into another kind of genome. Evolutionists believe that happens, creationists don't.
But you already know that since the sub-species' genome is no longer compatible with the parent it has already started to morph around the edges, hasn't it. A couple thousand more generations and that far ending sub-species, now called a Bengal Tiger, has morphed so much it doesn't see Ark cat as a mate so much as it sees a tasty juicy lunch.
I know, allele changes and loss of diversity only. Allele changes and diversity loss so sever that the metabolic pathways are altered to the point of incompatibility. That is a pretty hefty dose of genome morphing right there.
Now on the other side of the Ark cat lineage is that trail of sub-species begetting sub-species out to the sub-species called the Domestic House Cat.
In keeping with the nested hierarchy (an evolution concept that this Ark cat scenario demonstrates quite well) House cat and Bengal tiger are still feline, as in "of the cat kind" but their genomes have morphed a considerable distance from each other, haven't they.
I know you don't like the word for religious reasons, but, House cat on one side and Bengal tiger on the other with very similar and yet considerably different genomes is macro-evolution accomplished with nothing more than a lineage of "sub-species", micro-evolution, centered on and spreading out from your Ark cat.
If you believe that some Ark Cat populated all the separate and wide spread "sub-species" of cat-kind in the world today then you believe in the concept of macro-evolution whether you accept the appellation or not.
And yes, Faith, for Ark Cat's genome to branch out and develop such a variety of disparate cat "sub-species" it morphed a considerable amount indeed.
I have no doubt that this is just the usual case of similarities being mentally transformed into genetic descent, just say it and abracadabra presto changeo it is whatever your magical incantation wants it to be, which is how the ToE works. Just interpret the facts to fit the theory, who needs to prove any of it?
There you go, again, calling generations of very smart people stu*pid for finding and following the facts that you are not smart enough to see sitting right in front of you.
And yet, again, what happened to ...
While paradigm clashes usually do involve some degree of hostility between the views, it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them, and heap ridicule on them and all the rest of it.
You give sanction then turn right around and violate it. That is not appropriate behavior for a lady. Or anyone else for that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 02-14-2014 10:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 2:41 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 117 of 236 (719544)
02-15-2014 12:59 AM


Punctuated Opprobrium
Bach is good for the soul, unravels the knots brought on by lies and misrepresentations and other kinds of abuse.
Quite nice with a cup of tea.
Bach said "Music's only purpose should be the glory of God and the recreation of the human spirit." I need the recreation, and this thread needs an interruption.
Oh yes I know this will only bring on an avalanche of more of the same.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 236 (719545)
02-15-2014 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by AZPaul3
02-15-2014 12:53 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
I accept that the EVENT called "speciation" occurs but I do not accept the name "speciation," I simply feel obliged to put up with it because it DOES describe an actual event.
As long as it remains a cat a creationist shouldn't call it "speciation" or "macroevolution." If you have to call it something, call it "subspeciation."
Tomato, potato.
The parent and daughter populations' genomes become so distinct they can longer play well together. Sub-speciation, potato, whichever.
But it's not a change from a cat genome to the genome of some other species. It's still a cat genome. The cheetah's genome is still a cat genome but its many fixed loci prevent it from breeding with other cats. That's a change at the gene level but not in the structure of the genome itself.
Didn't you just say ...
... it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them ...
and yet here you are.
"Macroevolution" implies that the genome can eventually morph into another kind of genome. Evolutionists believe that happens, creationists don't.
As I explained just a few posts ago, the terminology I insist on is not tendentious interpretive terminology, as the evolutionists' "macroevolution" and "speciation" and "divergence" are. This obvious fact was absurdly denied but it remains true. Those are interpretive and not descriptive factual terms. "Subspecies" describes the actual situation that is wrongly called "speciation;" it is also still microevolution, not macroevolution. Those terms are based on the ToE, they are not simply descriptive terms. I'm asking for descriptive factual terms, neutral terms, which do NOT compromise your ToE.
But you already know that since the sub-species' genome is no longer compatible with the parent it has already started to morph around the edges, hasn't it. A couple thousand more generations and that far ending sub-species, now called a Bengal Tiger, has morphed so much it doesn't see Ark cat as a mate so much as it sees a tasty juicy lunch.
I know, allele changes and loss of diversity only. Allele changes and diversity loss so sever that the metabolic pathways are altered to the point of incompatibility. That is a pretty hefty dose of genome morphing right there.
Now on the other side of the Ark cat lineage is that trail of sub-species begetting sub-species out to the sub-species called the Domestic House Cat.
In keeping with the nested hierarchy (an evolution concept that this Ark cat scenario demonstrates quite well) House cat and Bengal tiger are still feline, as in "of the cat kind" but their genomes have morphed a considerable distance from each other, haven't they.
I know you don't like the word for religious reasons, [?] but, House cat on one side and Bengal tiger on the other with very similar and yet considerably different genomes is macro-evolution accomplished with nothing more than a lineage of "sub-species", micro-evolution, centered on and spreading out from your Ark cat.
If you believe that some Ark Cat populated all the separate and wide spread "sub-species" of cat-kind in the world today then you believe in the concept of macro-evolution whether you accept the appellation or not.
And yes, Faith, for Ark Cat's genome to branch out and develop such a variety of disparate cat "sub-species" it morphed a considerable amount indeed.
If it's a cat, it is not "speciation" and it is not "macroevolution." Period. The morphing is all internal to the cat genome, it is not a morphing OF the cat genome into some other kind of genome.
I have no doubt that this is just the usual case of similarities being mentally transformed into genetic descent, just say it and abracadabra presto changeo it is whatever your magical incantation wants it to be, which is how the ToE works. Just interpret the facts to fit the theory, who needs to prove any of it?
There you go, again, calling generations of very smart people stu*pid for finding and following the facts that you are not smart enough to see sitting right in front of you.
And yet, again, what happened to ...
While paradigm clashes usually do involve some degree of hostility between the views, it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them, and heap ridicule on them and all the rest of it.
You give sanction then turn right around and violate it. That is not appropriate behavior for a lady. Or anyone else for that matter.
Again, my call is for neutral descriptive terminology which defines nobody's paradigm out of existence, although the ToE terminology certainly defines creationism out of existence and you along with all the rest of them are insisting on doing just that.
And my remark about magical incantation is very seriously meant to be descriptive of what is actually going on, genetic descent is merely ASSUMED, it is not proved, cannot be proved, it is assumed based only on various similarities, and so aggressively assumed nobody dares point out that it is NOT a proven fact. A great deal of the ToE is merely MENTALLY CONJURED, it is nothing but unproven and unprovable hypothesis. That is true for instance of the idea that mutations are the source of viable alleles. That is simply an article of faith, an assumption, raw theory. And all that is meant seriously, it is not the usual ridicule for ridicule's sake that is heaped on creationists.
I don't care how smart anybody is, the ToE has you all under a spell.
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 116 by AZPaul3, posted 02-15-2014 12:53 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2014 3:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 236 (719547)
02-15-2014 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
02-14-2014 10:29 PM


Re: Paradigm clash
But of course I disagree with your entire assessment of creationist thought and I'm just as serious about my view of the ToE as you are about creationism. I think the ToE is NOT scientific and that you are all fooling yourselves into thinking it is. I really believe that. Most of the tenets of the ToE are unprovable, merely unvalidated hypotheses. You can't prove that mutations do anything but damage DNA. You ASSUME mutations create alleles, there is no evidence whatever for that assumption. You ASSUME genetic relatedness between various species. That can't be proven either, it starts as an assumption and it remains an assumption. You CALL it science but it is very far from the usual requirements of science.
Why should science change its methods and terminology to accommodate various folks who are inherently anti-science?
Well 1) it isn't much of a science, and 2) its methods and terminology and definitions are tendentious and interpretive rather than descriptive and factual as one would expect of a genuine science, and of course 3) creationists are not anti-science at all, only anti the unscientific science of the ToE and of course the Old Earth.
Oh, also you said that Creation Science has disappeared? Not that I know of. It's still going strong.
Peace.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2014 10:29 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 02-18-2014 11:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 120 of 236 (719548)
02-15-2014 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
02-15-2014 2:41 AM


Re: This thread should be about facts not interpretaions
So Faith, has this micro/macro evolution now stopped? Are all the critters that we call species now fixed?
And, as a corollary, when did the all the critters that we have now, become what they are? How soon after leaving the Ark?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 2:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 02-15-2014 4:04 AM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024