Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 374 of 785 (855563)
06-20-2019 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:33 PM


They're all mutations, right? So the creation model explains them as mistakes in replication that may or may not harm the genome.
But there are obvious patterns of them between species. You were asked for an explanation of those patterns, knowing you don't have a meaningful one. Common descent explains them.
All you got is "God chose to do that". No predictive power whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:38 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 376 of 785 (855587)
06-20-2019 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
06-20-2019 1:38 PM


Your "model" explains nothing and leads nowhere.
Why is water H2O? God did it that way. There's no use in studying chemistry, there's nothing interesting there. It's all Goddidit and there's just no explanation for the patterns. Nothing to learn there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 1:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 8:28 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 380 of 785 (855606)
06-20-2019 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Taq
06-20-2019 5:43 PM


Goddidit answers all possible questions. In all of science. In all of life.
There's no reason to ask questions. No way to progress in any field.
Isn't that interesting. In this one petri dish the bacteria are dead in a circle around this strange mold. Praise God! Oh well, into the recycling pile with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Taq, posted 06-20-2019 5:43 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 8:45 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 386 of 785 (855652)
06-21-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Faith
06-20-2019 8:28 PM


It's not false.
You've said that God made all the different genomes different.
The answer to all questions is "Goddidit, let's go to lunch'.
You already understand how the world is put together. Goddidit.
You've said there's no reason to investigate and explain patterns, like the periodic table.
Why on Earth would a creationist think of putting something from that strange mold into a human? With different bacteria, created by God that way.
What questions about biology does your model answer differently than "Goddidit"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 8:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 387 of 785 (855653)
06-21-2019 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Faith
06-20-2019 8:40 PM


To a creationist it's a meaningless question. It has meaning in the context of evolution but not creation.
I agree. "Goddidit, let's go to lunch".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 8:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 388 of 785 (855655)
06-21-2019 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
06-20-2019 8:45 PM


You seem to be confusing the basic difference between the creation of separate Kinds and the evolutionist common ancestor of all llfe with science in general. I've said nothing to justify your blanket accusation of "God did it" in any other context, it applies to the original creation, but ONLY to the original creation.
Why? Why not to chemistry?
If "Goddidit" is an acceptable answer in any science, it's an acceptable answer in all science. If there's no reason to investigate the patterns we see between different genmes, why would anyone investigate any pattern?
I realize you have not used the "word" "Goddidit". It's just a brief but accurate summary of your answers about genomes. Remember?
Then what does the creation model predict for the patterns in those diffeences, or does it make any prediction at all? For example:
1. What should the pattern of differences be for transitions, transversions, and CpG's?
2. What should the pattern of differences be for a comparison of introns and exons?
3. What should the pattern of differences be between different groups of species?
Can the creation model make any predictions with respect to those differences?
There is no reason that I know of why the creation model should try to explain any of that. It's all an artifact of the ToE.
No, they aren't artifacts. They are observed facts. And you say there's no reason to try to explain them.
Goddidit.
Let's go to lunch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 06-20-2019 8:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 403 of 785 (855718)
06-22-2019 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
06-22-2019 10:17 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
I've found it difficult to take the nested hierarchy notion seriously for some reason. I don't think I really get what is being claimed about it. If it's just the fact that there seems to be a regularity in inheritance patterns from generation to generation, that seems rather trivial or obvious and of no real importance.
No, of course that's not it.
First, there's no "seems". The pattern is an observed fact.
Second, it's a particularly unusual type of pattern. The traits used to classify organisms have the rare property that all descendents of a particular ancestor species share the classifying feature, and no organisms not descended from that particular ancestor have exactly that feature.
For example, this diagram shows a small portion of the characteristics we use to classify organisms:
The lines indicate the scope of a feature. In this diagram the outermost container is Chordates (having a spinal cord and some other features), and the fact that all the organisms in the diagram are inside that container indicates that all those organisms are chordates. Similarly all of them are vertebrates (have a backbone and a skeleton). The next level is two mutually exclusive containers, bony fish and chondrichcthyians (cartilage, not bone). Sharks are in the chondrichcthyians and no shark has a spinal chord or skeleton.
Down at the lower levels, amphibians have all the characteristics of tetrapods, lobe finned fished, bony fishes, vertebrates, and chordates. Hominids have all the characteristics of primates, mammals, amniotes, tetrapods, lobe finned fishes, bony fishes, vertebrates, and chordates; but have none of the defining characteristics of birds, reptiles, amphibians, lungfish, or chondrichcthyians.
Common descent can only produce this kind of pattern. Other processes don't. Of course God could have created that pattern but that's getting back to Goddidit with no explanation why and no predictive power.
Many a creationist has tried to argue that this kind of pattern is common, usually by trying to construct a nested hierarchy of vehicles or other things. All have failed spectacularly; it's impossible to (for example) construct a nested hierarchy of vehicles containing more than a few entries without breaking the nesting feature.
Of course you believe that almost all the classes of organisms shown there are not related by descent. But what caused the pattern? Goddidit, let's do lunch?
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 10:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 11:32 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 411 of 785 (855729)
06-22-2019 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Faith
06-22-2019 11:32 AM


Re: Kinds reproduce according to their kind
"Goddidit" is a brief and accurate shorthand for what you claim over and over again.
God didn't change ANYTHING, he designed a genome for each Kind. But the varieties contained in the genome for apes depends on whether all the different kinds of apes come from one common ancestor, or common ancestor pair, and I've wondered about that. Whatever the original genome for a Kind, all the variations were built into it so that they would descend from that one common ancestor, all the apes from the one ape Kind.
Same with cats, dogs, bears, mice, and any others that constitute a Kind.
But human beings aren't an ape and aren't related to apes. There was one common ancestor for human beings too, actually a common ancestor pair, the pair Adam and Eve, and all the races of human beings descended from them, the original genome they both possessed containing all the varieties possible. I saw a Mendelian square for how all the different skin colors were in the original human genome, Adam and Eve having a medium skin color but their genome containing every possible combination of skin colors, from darkest to lightest and different color tones as well. It should be the same for all the varieties of human characteristics.
That's Goddidit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 11:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:10 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 414 of 785 (855732)
06-22-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Faith
06-22-2019 12:13 PM


What you are calling the "scientific facts" I'm supposedly "admitting I can't explain" are what I've been saying are relevant to the ToE but not to Creationism. That being the case there is nothing for me to explain.
There is an objective and staggeringly unusual pattern shared by all life. That demands explanation, no matter what your beliefs. That pattern is a fundamental and undeniable property of life.
Our theory leads directly to a simple explanation. Common descent. Thing
When you can't explain that fundamental property your ideas fail. Trying to claim no explanation is necessary is futile; it's like claiming you can design airplanes without knowing anything about how wings work.
Of course you do have an explanation that's useless and sterile. Do I have to repeat it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 12:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:06 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 415 of 785 (855736)
06-22-2019 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
06-22-2019 12:38 PM


Dupe. .
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 12:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 417 of 785 (855738)
06-22-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Faith
06-22-2019 12:38 PM


qsNo, "facts" that derive from, and are given in support of, the ToE and are NOT relevant to the Creation model are NOT facts I have to deal with. [/qs] The relevant facts (not "facts") do not derive from the ToE. Linnaeus discovered them and published a nested hierarchy of life long before Darwin was born and more than 100 years before Darwin published the ToE.
The relevant facts (not "facts") do not derive from the ToE.
It is true that those facts support the ToE in that the ToE provides a stunningly obvious and simple explanation. But that's what any defensible theory of life must do.
But you have no explanation. This fundamental, possibly [i]the[i] most fundamental, property of life demands explanation. Your ideas fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 12:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:12 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 420 of 785 (855742)
06-22-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:06 PM


We know that's what you question.
The issue is that your ideas provide no explanation for a fundamental, perhaps the most fundamental, property of life. One that demands explanation, just as the fact that sparks fly when you rub certain things. Do you think explaining and understanding electricity was not worthwhile?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:21 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 423 of 785 (855749)
06-22-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Faith
06-22-2019 1:12 PM


I.e. you have no clue about what Linnaeus did.
His top classification was plant or animal or mineral. Here's animal, direct from his book. You'll have to click on the image to get a version large enough to read.
Across the top are the secondary classifications (quadrupeds, birds, amphibians, fish, insects, worms). The left part of each column under those top items is the tertiary classification. In the middle part of those columns is the quaternary classification, and the right part is examples (I think).
I've added a red arrow to Man in the upper left corner. Linnaeus classified Man under Anthropomorphia (man-shaped). He classified Anthropomorphia under Quadrupedia (four limbs), and Quadrupedia under Animalia.
Or, in the same manner as the image I posted previously:
Damned if I know what Bradypus means.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 1:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2019 2:21 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 9:50 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 430 of 785 (855801)
06-23-2019 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
06-22-2019 9:50 PM


I explained why it's a nested hierarchy. Read what I wrote and try to understand why the second image agrees with the first image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 9:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 456 of 785 (855907)
06-24-2019 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
06-24-2019 2:23 PM


Saying it's not relevant to the Creation model is a pathetic excuse for your failure at explanation . The nested hierarchy is a fundamental property of life in any model. It's critically relevant to any model. Goddidit is not an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 06-24-2019 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024