Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
96 online now:
AZPaul3, Dm14174, PaulK, Phat, Stile, Tangle (5 members, 1 guest login, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,779 Year: 891/6,534 Month: 891/682 Week: 126/445 Day: 19/22 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs
Taq
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 661 of 785 (856835)
07-03-2019 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by Faith
07-03-2019 9:48 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Faith writes:

I don't think anyone here has ever been convinced of ANY creationist's views about anything.

That's because we present facts and creationists are not swayed by facts. What we have done is convince many others that creationism is a failed religious dogma impervious to evidence. You have been instrumental in this task.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 11:39 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 662 of 785 (856836)
07-03-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 658 by Faith
07-03-2019 10:31 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
Yeah, you're perfect and inerrant.

But you still have no evidence, just opium dreams.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 10:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4813
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 663 of 785 (856840)
07-03-2019 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 661 by Taq
07-03-2019 11:03 AM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
That's because we present facts and creationists are not swayed by facts.

No, not quite. It isn't that creationists are not swayed by facts, but rather that they abhor facts.

No, that's not quite it either. It's more that creationists are terrified of facts.

They have contrived a false theology that is not only contrary-to-fact, but then it goes even further to preach that if its contrary-to-fact claims and pronouncements are indeed found to be contrary to fact (which they most assuredly and demonstrably are), then God either does not exist or should not be worshipped, they should throw their Bibles into the trash, and become hedonistic atheists (over the decades, far too many creationists have vehemently insisted to me that that is the case).

They fear and know that if they ever do look at the facts honestly, then that would destroy their false theology and that consequence of their false beliefs terrifies them. That is why they are terrified of the facts. Which is why they abhor the facts. Which is why they ignore the facts to the point of denying that the facts even exist. Which is why they are not swayed by facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Taq, posted 07-03-2019 11:03 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:44 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20500
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 664 of 785 (856858)
07-03-2019 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 622 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:16 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
Nobody has replied to this, so I will. Where the quoting was missing I've filled it in:

Faith writes:

Taq writes:

Faith writes:

PaulK writes:

The inability to interbreed seems to be an obviously natural dividing line. Especially when it is an inability to produce fertile offspring even when mating occurs.

This is predominantly a semantic problem which doesn't seem to have a resolution yet. According to the ToE this situation is called "speciation" and "macroevolution" but in my model it's just a variation on a species that has developed this inability to interbreed with other members of that species for whatever reason, probably genetic mismatch perhaps due to genetic depletion.

Can you cite a single example of this?

How can I give an example when all you guys do is assert it without evidence anyway?

All that is being asked of you is to provide an example of two populations of the same species that cannot interbreed. The reason you cannot do this is because you're wrong, for multiple reasons.

The main reason you're wrong is that you're using the wrong definition of species, as has been explained to you many times. What separates species from one another is their "inability to interbreed." If two populations cannot interbreed then by definition they cannot be the same species. Quail and rabbits cannot interbreed, therefore they are not the same species.

Certainly it is true that zebras can mate with horses and tigers with lions because they are very closely related species and are very similar genetically. But squirrels cannot mate with chipmunks, wildebeests, birds, lizards or fish because their genes and chromosomes and too dissimilar. It makes no sense for you to pretend ignorance of something so obvious and that has been explained so many times.

Although there is the occasional surprise, when comparing different species the more different the species phenotypes the more different DNA analysis reveals their genes and chromosomes to be. It doesn't take a very large difference in genes and chromosomes to completely destroy interfertility. This is why ducks and crocodiles cannot mate. There will never be any such creature as a crocoduck.

You can apply the same test to any two populations. Take two populations of creatures and determine whether they can interbreed. If they can then they are the same species. If they cannot then they are different species. If they can interbreed to some degree then they are closely related species.

I've seen examples of a frog that is supposed to be a new species on this standard but I haven't seen a DNA analysis of it.

No one has mentioned frogs in this thread. You'll have to fill in more details about what you're referring to.

Plants are often given as examples, similarly without any DNA analysis.

Which plants are you talking about? Whichever plants they are, if someone provided a DNA analysis (as no doubt they already have) would you look at it? Or would it be too white or too complicated, or would you be too tired or just not interested anymore, or would you just ignore the post altogether?

I'm giving a different interpretation of what you describe as a fact but is also only an interpretation.

This is false. You're using an incorrect definition of species, and you're making interpretations that are at odds with the facts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20500
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 665 of 785 (856861)
07-03-2019 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 624 by Faith
07-01-2019 4:29 PM


Re: Speciation is an illusion
PaulK replied to this message already, but I had a couple other comments:

Faith writes:

The evidence should come from the ToE supporters who push this definition of "speciation"

What other definition of speciation could there possibly be than the origination of new species? You might convince yourself it doesn't actually happen, but that doesn't affect the definition. I don't believe in reincarnation, but that doesn't affect the word's definition.

DNA analysis would show whether there is enough genetic diversity for further variation or not.

A statistical DNA analysis of a population (a DNA analysis of all individuals would not be practical, so the analysis would have to be statistical) would reveal the extent to which all possible allele permutations are represented, which would tell you how much more is possible, and the likely answer for the higher animals (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) would invariably be that only a tiny amount of potential allele permutations are actually represented. Given the number of genes and average alleles/gene in the higher animals, the potential number of permutations would have to be huge, many many times larger than the population itself.

For example, let's say that just 1% of the 20,000 human genes are not fixed, i.e., not homozygous. Let's further say that there are only two alleles (the minimum possible) in the entire population for each of these heterozygous genes. This means that each gene could have any of four different combinations of these two alleles: AA, Aa, aA and aa. The number of ways the four combinations per gene can be permuted across 200 genes is 4200 = 2.6 × 10120, which is quadrillions and quadrillions and quadrillions of times larger than the current human population.

In other words, there is not the remotest possibility that any population of higher animals has exhausted its possible variability. All higher animals everywhere have hugely more potential variation than could ever be represented in their current population.

And mutation increases the potential variation even more.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Faith, posted 07-01-2019 4:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 666 of 785 (856884)
07-03-2019 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by dwise1
07-03-2019 11:39 AM


Creationist mindset
I'm not terrified about anything. I focus on what I think I can understand best and when other subjects come up that I don't understand as well, unless they directly impinge on what I normally focus on, requiring me to spend some time attempting to digest them, I simply can't deal with them. It's not fear, it's mostly just a practical matter. I don't expect to be able to grasp the totality of all the fields that relate to these questions.

However, I've discovered from being at EvC that most creationists who come here have a completely different point of view, something unique to themselves that I often can't even follow. I don't understand this but it means there's no way for any of us to build on each other's thoughts.

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 663 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 11:39 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 668 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 8:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 669 by JonF, posted 07-03-2019 9:26 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 680 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2019 2:16 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 667 of 785 (856886)
07-03-2019 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by dwise1
07-03-2019 11:39 AM


Creationist mindset 2
No fear at all. I'm completely convinced I'm on the right track, which doesn't mean I'm completely convinced of all my hypotheses along the way, just sure of the general direction> And yes in some cases the specifics too. No fear dwise. I know some creationists give up on it, but that's because they never had a good grip on it in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 11:39 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4813
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 668 of 785 (856887)
07-03-2019 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2019 7:00 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
I have to rush to dance classes, so this must be very short for now.

I don't expect to be able to grasp the totality of all the fields that relate to these questions.

You don't have to grasp the totality of all the fields, but understanding even just the very basics would help immensely. Not only don't you, but you refuse to, which is why I call your particular brand of willful ignorance, "willful *********."

Ironically, it is creationists who demand that their opponents be expert in many different fields by shotgunning ignorant and false claims from all fields. For example, in the creationist debate format the professional creationist will refuse to debate on a specific topic, but rather insist that the subject being debated be as broad as possible. That way, he can jump around from topic to topic making one false claim after another for which his opponent must be expert in all those topics in order to respond effectively -- of course, his opponent will also need far more time to refute the multiple false claims that the creationist can fire off in bursts of 10 to 20 per minute; that is called the "Gish Gallop" after its infamous practitioner Dr Duane Gish (an actual PhD, a rarity among creationists). The opponent is constrained by the requirement to be as accurate and truthful as possible whereas the creationist can just make up any old lie he wants to, the facts be damned.

Since the facts work against the creationist, he must avoid them at all costs. Since the facts reveal that his beliefs are false, the creationist must deny them in any way possible. Because his faith is so important to him, the creationist fears the facts.

However, I've discovered from being at EvC that most creationists who come here have a completely different point of view, something unique to themselves that I often can't even follow. I don't understand this but it means there's no way for any of us to build on each other's thoughts.

The reason for that is that the only thing that creationists can agree on is that they must oppose and "disprove" evolution and any and all science that expose their false beliefs for what they are. But with nothing else in common, their attempts to hand-wave the facts away are all different, very often based on entirely different misunderstandings of science. Even a single individual creationist can end up contradicting himself. That is the chaos that comes from denying the facts.

The reason why creationists' opponents are able to keep everything straight and to build on each other's thoughts is because we use the facts. That makes all the difference.

.make the facts appear to be either wrong or non-existent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 9:35 PM dwise1 has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 669 of 785 (856890)
07-03-2019 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 666 by Faith
07-03-2019 7:00 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
You have no understanding of geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, hydrology... at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 7:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 670 of 785 (856891)
07-03-2019 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 668 by dwise1
07-03-2019 8:06 PM


Re: Creationist mindset
How can I be expected to take seriously the constant refrain about how I don't understand this, that or the other when nobody ever even gives an example of what that means? You don't, JonF doesn't, but it's said all the time. If an example IS ever given then I can answer it, because it never really amounts to much and doesn't threaten anything I've been arguing though that's of course what the accusation implies. Mostly it amounts to saying my argument is wrong because it contradicts the establishment argument, really no more than that. So I just shrug off these endless empty accusations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 668 by dwise1, posted 07-03-2019 8:06 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by JonF, posted 07-04-2019 10:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 691 by Percy, posted 07-04-2019 12:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 710 by dwise1, posted 07-05-2019 9:48 PM Faith has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 671 of 785 (856894)
07-03-2019 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Faith
07-02-2019 11:35 PM


Re: The genetic loss idée fixe vs reality
But if all those geological strata with all those fossils were laid down by the Flood, how can you also claim those same waters cut through those carefully laid strata to form the Grand Canyon at the same time?

And if those swirling waters were sufficient to cut away all that rock, why wouldn't they scour the coral reefs bare?

And if they didn't scour the coral reefs bare, weren't the flood waters supposed to deposit (carefully, in perfect order) all those millions of years of sedimentary layers on top of that coral?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Faith, posted 07-02-2019 11:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 11:15 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 672 of 785 (856895)
07-03-2019 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Sarah Bellum
07-03-2019 10:49 PM


Flood stuff
"At the same time???" Good grief. The strata got built during the Flood; tthe canyons and cliffs and buttes got cut as the Flood water was draining away. Besides cutting those formations, the draining action scoured off plateaus such as at the Permian (Kaibab) level in the Grand Canyon area, across which the last streams of water ran and formed meanders and became rivers some of which still exist. The Flood occurred in stages over about a year, it had a beginning a middle and an ending, it didn't occur "at the same time." Anyway that's the scenario I envisage.

And if they didn't scour the coral reefs bare, weren't the flood waters supposed to deposit (carefully, in perfect order) all those millions of years of sedimentary layers on top of that coral?

Sorry, no idea what you are trying to say here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-03-2019 10:49 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-03-2019 11:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 687 by JonF, posted 07-04-2019 10:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 673 of 785 (856897)
07-03-2019 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by Faith
07-03-2019 11:15 PM


Re: Flood stuff
But how could the same waters that laid down the strata, supposedly uniformly, then wash away specific areas of the canyon so non-uniformly?

As for the coral, the flood waters either scoured them away (a much easier task than carving out the Grand Canyon) or the flood waters buried the coral deep under sediment, killing it (or both). Remember Gen 7:4 "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 11:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:02 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 674 of 785 (856899)
07-04-2019 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Sarah Bellum
07-03-2019 11:37 PM


Re: Flood stuff
But how could the same waters that laid down the strata, supposedly uniformly, then wash away specific areas of the canyon so non-uniformly?

I'm not getting your problem here. The waters that laid down the strata were relatively quiet, especially at their height which lasted a couple of months or so. Sediments precipitate out of water into layers when standing quiet. (Layers can also form in rushing water which could have occurred during the earliest phase)

( By the way, if there are problems explaining how the Flood could have laid down the strata, there are surely a lot more problems trying to explain how they got laid down over hundreds of millions of years, often a single discreet sediment to represent a time period of millions of years in which a very particular group of living thins supposedly lived and roamed, after which they were replaced with a new group of living things and a completely different sedimentary substrate, very nicely straight, flat and horizontal as we see them. I find that REALLY incomprehnsible myself.)

So the strata are laid down. And then the Flood waters begin to drain. At this point I have volcanism beginning, and earthquakes, and if you look at a cross section of the Grand Canyon area you'll see that it cuts into a rise in the ground, a little to the south of the uppermost height of the rise. Geology and I of course disagree about the timing of this. TGhey think the strata were built on top of the mound which at the bottom is formed over a tilted block of strata. I think tectonic upheaval tilted the block of strata which pushed up the whole stack of strata above it, which cracked the uppermost layers, permitting the Flood water to enter the cracks and carve out the canyon down which the rest of the water rushed, cutting the canyon deeper and wider as it went. Geology objects but I think it makes sense.

Anyway your answer is strata formed in quieter phase, canyon formed by catastrophic flow.

It was the land animals that all died in the Flood, except the ones preserved on the ark. Many sea creatures lived through the Flood though most no doubt died, so some corals could have lived too. Is that your problem with this or am I still not getting it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-03-2019 11:37 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 12:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 696 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 10:36 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 675 of 785 (856901)
07-04-2019 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:02 AM


Re: Flood stuff
quote:

( By the way, if there are problems explaining how the Flood could have laid down the strata, there are surely a lot more problems trying to explain how they got laid down over hundreds of millions of years, often a single discreet sediment to represent a time period of millions of years in which a very particular group of living thins supposedly lived and roamed, after which they were replaced with a new group of living things and a completely different sedimentary substrate, very nicely straight, flat and horizontal as we see them. I find that REALLY incomprehnsible myself.)

A lot of that is saying that you can’t understand the world as it is now. Sediments are being deposited in many places. Things are living in those places (and I know that you can’t understand that even though it is obvious). Creatures die in those places, and - sometimes at least - their remains are buried. Sometimes even remains from elsewhere end up buried there.

And the rest is the fact that things change. The environment is not constant. The things living in the region are not constant (even - in fact especially - today there are invasive species arriving and thriving in various parts of the world).

quote:

Anyway your answer is strata formed in quieter phase, canyon formed by catastrophic flow.

Except it wasn’t. The canyon meanders, proving that it wasn’t produced by catastrophic flow. It was cut by the river. After the meanders formed in the river.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:28 AM PaulK has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022