Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
48 online now:
Hyroglyphx, PaulK (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,225 Year: 4,973/23,288 Month: 94/1,784 Week: 192/353 Day: 1/32 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 12 of 252 (812337)
06-16-2017 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
05-22-2017 12:55 PM


Do you truly think it fair expecting creationists to prove the changes were not the result of mutations, when you can't prove that they were?

That asked, the chances of the mutations required between human and primate, occurring in the right gene and often enough in the population to change the genome of the entire species, are next to naught.

By themselves, random base substitutions, and deletions, resulting in beneficial changes to the organism, do not occur frequently enough.

When the assumption was made in the 1930s that point mutations could be the cause of an organism's progress, they could not properly calculate the chances of that happening. We can forgive them, for this assumption.

We now know how tiny the odds are, and so can not be forgiven for making the same mistake.

As for genetic insertions and recombinations, while occurring fairly often, aren't random processes like mutations, but are functions inherent in the genome.

Doctor Shapiro states: "In the pre-DNA era, students were all taught that genetic change is random and accidental. Because the molecular details were inaccessible, this was the
default assumption. But once we learned about DNA carrying hereditary
information, we could research the
details of how changes occur. We no
longer needed to assume. We could
investigate."

As his article describes, genetic recombination is not at all random: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1743647

Regards, aristotle

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 05-22-2017 12:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 4:34 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 6:24 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 06-16-2017 7:36 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:48 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 31 by caffeine, posted 06-23-2017 4:35 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


(1)
Message 15 of 252 (812354)
06-16-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
06-16-2017 4:34 AM


We don't expect creationists to be able to
prove anything - our expections are very,
very low based on prior observation.

But yes, if you could show that mutations do not contribute positively to the evolutionary process by using actual research - and not simply quote mining - that would be a very valuable addition to science.

So posting one quote is 'quote mining'?! Okay then

Btw, the quote was not about mutations, it was about recombinations

Again, I ask you how you can ask me to show that mutations were not the cause of our evolution, when you can't prove that they did?

I never asked you to prove that the mutations evolved us, you chose to be an Evolutionist, but then at least have the courtesy to try and prove your own assumptions, instead of just expecting others to disprove them.

Btw, it's always useful to know with a newbie
creationist, how old do you think the earth is?

Again you pigeonhole me as a creationist, it shows your extremely narrow view. I don't know how old the earth is, and I'm certainly not as arrogant as evolutionists to think that I know how life was created.

Regards, aristotle


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 4:34 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 11:54 AM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:52 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 16 of 252 (812355)
06-16-2017 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
06-16-2017 6:24 AM


That's not quite what he asked in Message 1. He
actually asked:

Show us a single genetic difference between the human and chimp genome that could not have been produced by known microevolutionary processes in either the chimp or human lineages. eg - compare the genomes and show which differences could not occur through mutations of the type observed in organisms today.

Do you see the difference?

Noted, but the poster cannot prove that the genetic differences were the produced by ME processes, any more than I can prove they were not.

That's a lot of genetic changes and a fair proportion of them are documented by historical observation in recent (geoplogical) years.

If we compared the skeletons of those dogs to one another, would we see more or less variation than see here:

Ok, but those dogs were selectively bred, those homonids were not.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 6:24 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 8:01 AM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:56 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 19 of 252 (812367)
06-16-2017 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by JonF
06-16-2017 7:36 AM


Similarly, the chances of evolution producing one pre-specified result are next to naught, but the chances of evolution producing something viable are nearly 1.

The problem is that the 'result' that you claim evolution produces, is always 'pre-specified', because it is incredibly complex and cannot function without all it's parts. Michael Behe in his book 'Darwin's Black Box' states, for example,

"You can’t start with a signal sequence and have a protein go a little way towards the lysosome, add a signal
receptor protein, go a little further, and so forth. It’s all
or nothing."

He concludes that "it is extremely implausible
that components used for other purposes fortuitously
adapted to new roles in a complex system."

Show your calculations or references.

"Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½) , or one chance out of 10 . The number 10 , if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200- component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion,
trillion, trillion!" - Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

http://www.icr.org/...e/mathematical-impossibility-evolution


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 06-16-2017 7:36 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by JonF, posted 06-16-2017 9:18 AM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 9:27 AM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 9:59 AM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:55 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 5:30 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 06-23-2017 3:20 PM aristotle 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 © 2020