Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
98 online now:
dwise1, nwr (2 members, 96 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kiwi bird and its wings
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 23 (885205)
03-28-2021 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sarah Bellum
03-27-2021 7:11 PM


Sarah writes:

So if I read you correctly, you're saying that "devolution" means descendants of earlier creatures may be substantially different from those earlier forms? So speciation does occur?

Creationists accept speciation. Both allopatric and sympatric. We also accept natural selection, sexual selection, normalised selection, genetic drift, a change in allele frequencies and more. (population genetics)

what you have BEEN TOLD we don't accept because you are told we are, "science deniers", I am afraid was only propaganda against creationists.

We don't define speciation as macro-evolution because you can get speciation occur without it leading to any macro-scale change.

Sarah writes:

Also, doesn't this mean your answer to the original post is no, the kiwi's wings were NOT designed, they evolved from an earlier, flight-capable form?

Creationists do accept "change" but we stay away from the equivocal word, "evolution". You see to say a Kiwi bird's wing "evolved from an earlier wing" would give the impression we see this as an example of macro-evolution.

The truth is we don't deny the science facts. So if an animal can change we accept that, we just don't accept it can ever change into another animal kind completely. For example if the Kiwi bird's wing devolved from a flight-wing then we would see that as the kind of change that doesn't represent macro-evolution because with Darwin's macro-claim he is saying that all wings were invented by evolution.

So then to have a wing that already exists as a flight wing CHANGE into a flightless wing doesn't support his claim that wings invent themselves by macro evolution.

Technically I don't know if the Kiwi has lost function or if it was made that way because I don't jump to conclusions.

You see basically vestigials were an example of humans conclusion-jumping and thinking that certain features are vestigial. But like the article I shown says now dozens and dozens of features thought to be vestiges now have been found to have a designer purpose.

To compound that error evolutionists are now making the same mistake with what they call, "pseudo genes". They are now finding functions and reasons why these areas of genetic code exist they call, "pseudo genes".

So evolutionists are repeating the same mistake with "pseudo genes".

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-27-2021 7:11 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 7:58 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 23 by Sarah Bellum, posted 03-29-2021 10:40 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 17 of 23 (885207)
03-28-2021 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 7:49 AM


quote:
The truth is we don't deny the science facts

Sure you do. The Earth is billions of years old. There are many transitional fossils, The fossil record was not produced by a global flood. Those are all science facts.

I will also point out that the fact that creationists accept some evolution - even macro-evolution - does not mean that it is not evolution. Thus the evidence for the evolutionary changes that creationists accept is still evidence for evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 7:49 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 8:09 AM PaulK has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 23 (885208)
03-28-2021 7:59 AM


Sarah there are a lot of answers creationists have for these issues. I am writing a new topic called, "There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose." Perhaps you could read it.

I suspect like most people you have heard about creationists but not really ever paid much attention to what we actually say rather than what people say we say.

Don't forget a forum like this is extremely biased and hateful towards creationists, the people here exist to hate on us basically.


  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 23 (885210)
03-28-2021 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
03-28-2021 7:58 AM


Paul K writes:

Sure you do. The Earth is billions of years old. There are many transitional fossils, The fossil record was not produced by a global flood. Those are all science facts.

We obviously don't accept those are science-facts. I regard facts as things which are indisputably provable. For example the earth is a factual thing. Fossils are factual things. The fossil record is a factual thing.

But this bare-assertion fallacy of yours is a statement that certain things are factual which you are elephant-hurling onto my lap.

Sadly at this forum it is now common place that ASSERTIONS that X is fact is considered some sort of intellectual offering.

Lol.

So naturally I would dispute these are really facts. A fact for example is the soft dinosaur tissue we find. A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal. A fact for example, is that 99.99% of the transitionals of evolution are missing by definition, as you would need that many to exist if there really was an evolution.

So then pertaining to the past historical scenarios, I don't think these things you say are fact, actually are fact in the usual way a "fact" is defined. They are explanations and hypotheses and stories FROM fact as far as I see.

So reasonably I do accept science facts I just don't accept inferences from facts that depend on fantastic claims.

Paul writes:

I will also point out that the fact that creationists accept some evolution - even macro-evolution - does not mean that it is not evolution. Thus the evidence for the evolutionary changes that creationists accept is still evidence for evolution.

I have ALWAYS accepted evolution, in terms of the word, "change". There are compelling changes that can occur for sure.

But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).

So then we delineate where you equivocate.

That is to say, we agree that it's a big change if for example something loses it's flight characteristics, however it isn't the sort of change that would be needed to support Darwin's claims which require nascent organs and new genetic code in an uphill capacity.

It doesn't take the invention of a new design of wing like say an insect wing, if there is a change whereby an organism LOSES a wing. That type of change is unimpressive and all it takes is natural selection.

But macro evolution requires mutations and natural selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 7:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 9:19 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 03-28-2021 4:07 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 23 (885213)
03-28-2021 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 8:09 AM


quote:
We obviously don't accept those are science-facts.

So you only reject the science facts you reject.

quote:
I regard facts as things which are indisputably provable. For example the earth is a factual thing. Fossils are factual things. The fossil record is a factual thing.

Unless you are going to weasel on “indisputably proven” I would suggest that all three of my examples qualify.

quote:
Sadly at this forum it is now common place that ASSERTIONS that X is fact is considered some sort of intellectual offerinG

In that case I hope you will manage better than assertions in reply.

quote:
So naturally I would dispute these are really facts. A fact for example is the soft dinosaur tissue we find. A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal. A fact for example, is that 99.99% of the transitionals of evolution are missing by definition, as you would need that many to exist if there really was an evolution.

We do not find soft dinosaur tissue. The C14 found in diamonds is only in trace amounts, and the “missing” transitionals are overwhelmingly at the speciation level - the sort of evolution you accept. As Stephen Jay Gould noted transitional sat higher levels are abundant.

[quote@]
But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).

quote:
But if the changes we accept are macro-evolution then that would mean we would be evolutionists and because we are not evolutionists then those changes cannot be examples of macro evolution. (modus tollens).

Since Kinds are often equated to the Family level of taxonomy they must involve the evolution of new Genera - which is certainly macro-evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 8:09 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 03-28-2021 4:03 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 21 of 23 (885225)
03-28-2021 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
03-28-2021 9:19 AM


Since I'm certain that Mike will just ignore this in order to continue to spread that BS claim "attacking" radiocarbon dating:

mike the wiz writes:

... A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal. ...


... The C14 found in diamonds is only in trace amounts, ...

That the amount of C14, when any, in diamonds is so small is not why that creationist claim is bogus. Rather that claim in bogus because that C14 is unimportant since it has absolutely nothing to do with radiocarbon dating, in intended target of the claim.

To produce C14 (6 protons, 8 neutrons), you hit a nitrogen atom (7 protons, 7 neutrons) with radiation which changes one of its protons into a neutron turning that nitrogen atom into a carbon atom (but with two too many neutrons).

There are many possible ways to get that radiation to that nitrogen atom. In the atmosphere, it's cosmic radiation. Inside the earth, it's any number of radiogenic sources, such as isotopes of uranium -- that would be a good candidate for the occasional C14 found in diamonds or in coal. But radiocarbon dating doesn't use that buried C14.

Radiocarbon dating only uses the C14 found in the atmosphere. Radiocarbon dating relies on that C14 having been incorporated into organic material. Therefore, only atmospheric C14 matters for radiocarbon dating, not C14 produced deep in the ground.

Since we need to explain it to mike, let's review how life and the food chain work. Most animals use respiration with takes oxygen from the air and releases carbon-dioxide. But through photosynthesis, plants take carbon-dioxide from the air and release oxygen. Therefore, it would be plants and not animals that would take in C14 from the air and incorporate it into their tissues. Animals would then take in C14 by eating the plants (or by eating animals that had eaten plants) -- that becomes important when addressing other bogus creationist claims about C14.

There have been a number of claims about living animals being given erroneous ages through radiocarbon dating; eg, seals, freshwater clams. That is due to the "reservoir effect" in which "old carbon" (ie, organic material that has been removed from the mechanism of incorporating "new C14" into the food chain, hence much of its original C14 has already decayed) is taken in by living organisms.

In the case of the freshwater molluscs, they were in a stream fed by water that had flowed through limestone and hence contained dissolved limestone -- limestone consists of shells, the same material needed for new shells. Hence the molluscs were incorporating "old carbon", which led to the anomalous dates.

In the case of the seals, they fed off of sea life, much of which itself fed off of other sea life, including what ended up on the bottom. All isolated from the atmosphere and its "new carbon". The only sea life that might incorporate C14 from the atmosphere would be phytoplankton (plant plankton) and I'm not even sure about that. To remind mike, even though seals breath air, that is not how animals incorporate C14, but rather they do so through what they eat. And what those seals eat is from an "old carbon" reservoir.

 
Now, the sad part of this story is that mike doesn't understand the science that he so fervently rejects. Because anyone with even a passing familiarity with radiocarbon dating and very basic biology should immediately realize that C14 in diamonds or coal have nothing whatsoever to do with radiocarbon dating.

Edited by dwise1, : Clean up in the last aisle (vestigial remains of something I had started writing earlier)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2021 9:19 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4740
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 22 of 23 (885226)
03-28-2021 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 8:09 AM


A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal.

Please explain exactly why you think that to be important enough to have mentioned it.

What are you trying to say?

And please refrain from hand-waving. The more specific you can be, the better.

Edited by dwise1, : Added "What are you trying to say?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 8:09 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 753
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 23 of 23 (885235)
03-29-2021 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 7:49 AM


How can you accept speciation and not accept that, for example, humans are descended from earlier primates that were a different species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 7:49 AM mike the wiz 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 © 2021