Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, kjsimons (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,526 Year: 18,562/19,786 Month: 982/1,705 Week: 234/518 Day: 58/50 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 137 of 752 (575910)
08-21-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by dennis780
08-21-2010 5:22 PM


Macro evolution
Micro evolution works on existing information. Macro evolution works on the introduction of new information. With me now?

No, this is not correct. There is only microevolution.

If you set out to walk to the opposite coast you do it through a series of single steps.

Evolution of, for example, the primates operates through a series of small steps that over time add up to a large step. Looking back on the process we can say that a species change has taken place between points x and y, and can call that macroevolution, but it was really just a series of small microevolutions that added up over time.

Information changes at each small step, sometimes added, sometimes subtracted, but always changed.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 5:22 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 7:06 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 143 of 752 (575924)
08-21-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by dennis780
08-21-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Macro evolution
Your responses are completely off the wall.

I'm no longer going to bother trying to explain things to you. It seems to be a complete waste of my time.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by dennis780, posted 08-21-2010 7:06 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 174 of 752 (576136)
08-22-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
08-22-2010 9:27 PM


you will soon find out (if you haven't already) that arguments here from evolutionists are quickly of the sort of "you don't know what you are talking about," "you are comically wrong" "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing" blah blah ad infinitum.

The problem is that creationists are talking nonsense. St. Augustine warned about this very thing, but creationists have ignored that too:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982).


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-22-2010 9:27 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 184 of 752 (576941)
08-26-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Tram law
08-26-2010 3:19 PM


What evolutionary purpose does laughter serve? Have the actual physical functions that trigger laughter been discovered?

Some things such as laughter might have a cultural component as well.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Tram law, posted 08-26-2010 3:19 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 285 of 752 (579771)
09-05-2010 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by dennis780
09-05-2010 11:46 PM


The fall again?
It sounds like you believe in the myth of "the fall," where there can't be any improvement in the genome--only degredation due to "sin."

Sorry, but that is not reflected in real world evidence.

The idea that humans are born sinful or wicked is itself about the most evil idea that has ever come from the fevered minds of shamans in all of human history.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by dennis780, posted 09-05-2010 11:46 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 298 of 752 (579965)
09-07-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by dennis780
09-07-2010 12:55 AM


Macroevolution again?
If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.

How many micros does it take for a macro?

Seriously!

Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.

There is no magic line that must be/cannot be crossed. Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one. But over time those little changes can add up. When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.

The lines drawn between these "species" are arbitrary, as again, each generation is almost exactly the same as the previous. But when you look at long temporal spans you see significant changes.

Those little changes are micros, and lots of them add up to macros.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 12:55 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:04 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 311 of 752 (580029)
09-07-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by dennis780
09-07-2010 2:04 AM


Re: Macroevolution again?
quote:
How many micros does it take for a macro?

You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?


Absolute non sequitur. Your answer doesn't address the question in any way.

A micro is change, not an addition or loss (although an addition or loss may cause that change). Each micro takes the individual farther from the original. It's like the old "telephone" game where one person gives a message to the next, and so on down the line. Eventually the message hardly resembles the original. That's what we are talking about here! Change. Eventually the population hardly resembles the original population. When those changes are significant, they can be called a macro although there was never a macro change all at once. The macro is only seen when looking at long time periods and in retrospect.

quote:
Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.

Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution.

Nonsense! The macro is just a measure of change from the original population. In terms of human evolution it is not something that occurs from one generation to the next.

quote:
Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one.

I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution).

Glad to hear it, but that's a non sequitur again. And belief has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence. As is shown on these threads daily, when it comes to creationists, belief gets in the way of learning (as Heinlein noted).

quote:
When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.

This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information.

No, all information does not need an ultimate source; each individual gets his "information" from his parents. That's all the source we need to understand evolution, because we are tracking change over time, not origins.

And you ignored the point I made, in which I explained micros and macros. You seem to want some miraculous change, all at once or something, giving instant "new functional genetic information." Sorry, this comes in the form of a lot of micros, not as an instant macro.

Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond.

Whatever.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:04 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 8:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 330 of 752 (580284)
09-08-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Tram law
09-08-2010 1:09 PM


10% of the brain
I think the 10% figure is a myth.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Tram law, posted 09-08-2010 1:09 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Modulous, posted 09-08-2010 1:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 351 of 752 (580424)
09-09-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by dennis780
09-09-2010 12:03 AM


Flood disproved by science
Global flood aside even, the levels of any natural substance changes over time, and no one could possibly know what those were over 5000 years ago.

Not so. In my own archaeological research I tested a site recently that was dominated by a component we dated at about 5,600 years ago.

From that component I was able to recover a lot of archaeological data, but also pollen, macrofloral remains, protein remains from various stone tools and the soil, a large number of bones (mammal, bird, and fish), and shellfish, as well as human remains--all from a time before the purported flood. From that evidence we could tell a great deal about the environment at about 5,600 years ago. And we could tell a great deal about how the people who lived there were making their living.

And, the mtDNA from one of the skeletons matched the mtDNA of individuals still living in the same area. That disproves the flood right there.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by dennis780, posted 09-09-2010 12:03 AM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by dennis780, posted 09-12-2010 7:09 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 367 of 752 (580987)
09-12-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by dennis780
09-12-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
...which method of dating did you use?

Radiocarbon dating, along with artifact typologies and stratigraphy. Also obsidian hydration, but that is nowhere near as accurate.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by dennis780, posted 09-12-2010 7:09 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:42 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 381 of 752 (581976)
09-18-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:42 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
quote:
Radiocarbon dating, along with artifact typologies and stratigraphy. Also obsidian hydration, but that is nowhere near as accurate.

And what results were found from each method?

Most of the radiocarbon dates were from a component about 5,300-5,800 years ago, with a few stretching back past 7,000 years ago.

Artifact typologies dated later components, confirming the stratigraphy (older toward the bottom, younger toward the top).

Obsidian dating supported those age estimates.

There was no evidence of a flood in the site deposit. So, based on this one site you either have to move the flood past 7,000 years or admit that it is a myth.

(And there are a lot of sites around the world that are older--no global flood deposits there either.)

If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:42 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:14 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 392 by IchiBan, posted 09-19-2010 11:59 PM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 384 of 752 (581980)
09-18-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Genetic Information
So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down. I hope you are right, because I am in need of a new truck for work.

Throwing rocks off the mountain will only get you a chevy.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:54 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 388 of 752 (581989)
09-18-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by dennis780
09-18-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.

You're right, I forgot this was a free for all thread!

How big was the study? Or were the dates conflicting by a few thousand years?

The site I tested was occupied for several thousand years, with more occupation at certain time periods and less at others.

The dating included 31 radiocarbon samples taken from a variety of proveniences and materials. When there were questions, additional dates were done to clarify those questions.

Your suggestion of dates conflicting makes no sense. People occupied that site for a long time, not just one season. Our dating was able to determine the duration of that occupation.

Neither, since your dating methods argue against each other, I don`t have to argue them at all.

The dating methods supplement each other. There was no evidence that any of the dating we did was inadequate.

You might not like to see dates which disprove the global flood, but you can't just hand wave them away because you don't like them. You have to come up with evidence, and show how the dates, or the dating methods, are in error.

Also, how would you know whether or not any layer of the earth were a flood layer (since if there were a global flood, almost all of the layers in the earth would have been caused by the flood, due to water erosion, and eventual settling).

Easy! Flood deposits have a particular characteristic. They can be readily identified. First, depending on the speed of the water you get sorting of cobbles, pebbles, etc. Slow moving water will deposit larger grains than standing water. After a large flood, when the water is carrying a load of materials, those will settle out in a predictable manner. Expect to see silt and clay deposits. The clay deposits can be pretty dense and compact.

What we had in this site was normal soils laid down in a normal manner over thousands of years, augmented by what the occupants brought to the site--shell, bone, rocks, wood (charcoal and ash), plant materials (macrofloral remains and pollen), etc.

Better stick to what you know something about. You're not doing too well at showing there was a global flood.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:14 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 393 of 752 (582166)
09-20-2010 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by IchiBan
09-19-2010 11:59 PM


The flood myth
No one knows when the flood was. including the Biblical scholars whom you like to quote. So your insistence of selecting a date is only a red herring so you can go trot out & say that you found no evidence of a flood at that time.

That's pretty convenient, having the largest historical event of all time being free-floating in time. Then you can always say, "Well, you looked in the wrong place." This silly flood has been placed anywhere from 4,000 years ago to 550 million years ago and beyond.

Sorry, that's the way myths work, not scientifically verifiable events.

The date of about 4,350 years ago is the one selected by biblical scholars. If you don't like that date, come up with a better one.

Also it is easy to notice that you try to place people in a double bind by the way you present your replies when there could other answers. Why is it easy to notice? because you do that in almost every answer you give.

Without examples this doesn't make any sense.

It is obvious that you have an agenda and you are obsessed with certain topics. And since scientists and researchers have been known to cook their data and salt the sites, I find your conclusions in those areas suspect and unconvincing.

I am an archaeologist and I regularly deal with soils that are 4,350 years old. I find the lack of flood evidence telling. Don't you?

By the way the topic of this thread is or was 'problems with evolution' not anything to do with the flood.

This is in Free For All. The normal rules don't apply.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by IchiBan, posted 09-19-2010 11:59 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by barbara, posted 09-26-2010 10:11 AM Coyote has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 395 of 752 (583325)
09-26-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by barbara
09-26-2010 10:11 AM


Re: The flood myth
I am not disagreeing about the flood myth but I do wonder why pieces of seashells can be found everywhere on the planet.

That is due to uplifting. It is a phenomenon that is well understood.

The claim that these sea shells are related to a global flood has been refuted so often that it has been given a number:

Claim CC364


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by barbara, posted 09-26-2010 10:11 AM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 4:30 AM Coyote 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 © 2019