Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 3:25 PM
158 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,587 Year: 2,624/19,786 Month: 706/1,918 Week: 294/266 Day: 31/35 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 108 (111843)
05-31-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Chiroptera
05-31-2004 1:23 PM


Re: More irony.
Do you believe in the preternatural? Then you would understand. I see miracles happen. Perhaps if evolution was true, it was one of these said miracles. Christianity is based around a belief in the ethereal. If all you have is your intellect, then you can not know anything else. If God can do ANYTHING, then He can create the world, rise a man from the dead, and flood the earth at will.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2004 1:23 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2004 2:16 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 2:58 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 47 of 108 (111847)
05-31-2004 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 1:42 PM


No argument, No discussion
If God can do ANYTHING, then He can create the world, rise a man from the dead, and flood the earth at will.

Almost none of us here have any problem with your choice to believe any of that. It's completely up to you.

That is all purely a belief in the miraculous and magic. It is in no way claiming to be testable by the methods available to science. No problemo.

However, if you now what to have any influence in the science class you have to play by the rules of science. All of that is in no way useful as any kind of explanation for anything in that context. It is only with the so-called "scientific" creationists that we have any real issues.

So you may keep those beliefs in your church and out of the science class and we have nothing more to discuss.

If you want to continue the discussion based on evidence that we can actually review then we are all willing to play. Otherwise there is no further learning to be had.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 1:42 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 05-31-2004 2:39 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4628
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 108 (111849)
05-31-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NosyNed
05-31-2004 2:16 PM


Re: No argument, No discussion
I agree that science only should be in the science section, and I see your point about evidence.

Ofcourse, macro evolution would not mean christianity is bull***t. Also, we already see how the literal six days makes a farce out of the bible by adding a "new rule" of taking it literally - in every single context and word. This means JC is a lamb and snakes talk. Ofcourse, these things are possible, but unlikely. I think the "six literal days" does more damage than macro evolution.

edit: Darn! I should have made it clearer, it't the sixdays that gives the "young earth" theory that makes the bible a seeming farce. I guess the real flop is the six thousand years, not necessarily the six days.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-31-2004 01:48 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2004 2:16 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 108 (111854)
05-31-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 1:15 PM


Re: Topic
TheNewGuy03,

This statement is consistent. There is nothing inconsistent about my statement. The dead can not give birth to the living, and what does not move does not produce that which moves.

Consistency has nothing to do with it. You have made an assertion, you are now obliged to show why abiogenesis is impossible.

Though creation is also a theory, it has a more consistent basis. Evolution (also a theory) will attempt to make itself work by incorporating tests, some of which are inconclusive or irrelevant.

Er, no. Evolution is supported by evidence, creation isn't. Again, you seem to be attaching unwarranted importance to "consistency".

Watership Down is a consistent narrative. You really believe rabbits talk & have their own god called El-Ahrairah? Consistency in science is the easy bit, the hard bit is supporting evidence. Evolution has it, creation doesn't.

The stratigraphy of the land as it has been dated is out of order. The younger rock layers lie below the older rock layers, and the younger, fresher soil always subsides above the older soil. Something's wrong.

You'll need to support this.

The relative ages of rocks around the world were determined before radiometric dating appeared on the scene. And when it did it supported the relative age sequence. I'd love to know what ministry of misinformation you got that little gem from!

Make no mistake, radiometric dating isn't perfect, but the overwhelming number of results support the original stratigraphic sequencing that has been common knowledge for 150 years. Moreover, different methods with different potential areas for error all corroborate on any given sample, indicating that the potential errors, if present at all, are small.

The only evidence used to support macroevolution is polyploidy. This is, quite simply, mutation. There is no, I repeat, NO, evidence of transmutation between species.

Even polyploidy isn't macroevolution. Macroevolution is the sum of the processes that lead to the defining differences that warrant placement in higher taxonomic ranks. Evolution above the species level, in plain english.

In my opinion the best evidence of macroevolution having occurred is that cladistic analyses (of both fossil & molecular data) match the stratigraphic fossil record as well as it does.

Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.

quote:
Stratigraphic Consistency Index - Michael Benton

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%).


Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.

Some of the above is fairly techie, I'd be happy to explain in more detail if you'd like.

The very nature of the word "abiogenesis" indicates that is has a beginning. See if that theory works when you die...I would love to see you come back to life.

Abiogenesis essentially involves the original appearance of a self replicating molecule. No one, I repeat no one, other than creationists, of course, resort to such an infantile misrepresentation of abiogenesis, to assert an entire multicellular organism popped into existence in a single generation from the "soup".

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 1:15 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by MrHambre, posted 06-01-2004 2:42 PM mark24 has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 50 of 108 (111855)
05-31-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by TheNewGuy03
05-31-2004 1:42 PM


Re: More irony.
TheNewGuy03,

If God can do ANYTHING, then He can create the world, rise a man from the dead, and flood the earth at will.

If, if, if, if....... He presumably is clever enough to remove the evidence as well!

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-31-2004 1:42 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2004 3:10 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 51 of 108 (111860)
05-31-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by mark24
05-31-2004 2:58 PM


Re: More irony.
And put false evidence in its place. Pretty tricky guy, that Yahweh!

Noah and his brood had a pretty busy time, right after the flood, mopping up and removing all the flood evidence, and then burying all those fossils, all in the correct "evolutionary" order.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 2:58 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 2:23 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 108 (112085)
06-01-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Chiroptera
05-31-2004 3:10 PM


Re: More irony.
Chiroptera:
Is that sarcasm? Is that for or against evolution? Just wondering.

Well, everything that has a beginning has an end...all will be revealed then.

And, for that other guy, the six literal days is NOT a farce. Since we Christians believe that God is infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent, then He can create the world in however many days he pleases.

Also for that other guy...what is the definition of abiogenesis? Do you think that the first bacterium suddenly became alive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 05-31-2004 3:10 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2004 2:27 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 3:05 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 53 of 108 (112086)
06-01-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 2:23 PM


Topic
NewGuy, Please stay on topic.

If you are unable to follow the forum guidelines you will find that some or all of the fora will be closed to you.

The topic guideline is not the only one you seem to be having trouble with so you might want to read over them all, very slowly and carefully. If you have questions about them you may ask in the suggestions and questions forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 2:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 156 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 54 of 108 (112090)
06-01-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
05-31-2004 2:56 PM


Completely Scientific, Except For the Miracle
Hey Mark,
quote:
You have made an assertion, you are now obliged to show why abiogenesis is impossible.
It's convenient that only The New Guy gets to summon miracles to defend his theory's scientific plausibility. On the other hand, why do you always have to do things the hard way?

regards,
Esteban Hambre


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 05-31-2004 2:56 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 3:04 PM MrHambre has not yet responded
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 06-01-2004 5:51 PM MrHambre has responded

    
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 108 (112096)
06-01-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by MrHambre
06-01-2004 2:42 PM


Re: Completely Scientific, Except For the Miracle
For the record, the miracle I was speaking of was the miracle of new life. But...that's all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MrHambre, posted 06-01-2004 2:42 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 56 of 108 (112097)
06-01-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 2:23 PM


Re: More irony.
Yes, petty sarcasm on my part. It there was a global flood in historic times (c. 4000 years ago), there seems to be no trace of it left. Floods always leave some signs of it behind, in the deposition of sediments, and a flood this catastrophic would certainly be noticeable in the geologic/archaeologic record. Yet there is no sign of a single, world-wide flood.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that the earth is over four billion years old. The evidence is very unambiguous on this, and the evidence from many different, independent branches of science are quite consistent in this regards.

So, that is quite a god that you have there. To create a young earth with all the evidence to make it look old. And to create a huge cataclism that left no traces in its wake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 2:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 3:15 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 108 (112100)
06-01-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
06-01-2004 3:05 PM


Re: More irony.
Well, if the Flood was worldwide, then there would be traces of sediments deposited everywhere. There is the tectonic plate movement, all that. None of it works AGAINST creation, but it has also found a place in evolution. Therefore, this test is inconclusive.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-01-2004 02:16 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 3:05 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 3:54 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded
 Message 62 by mark24, posted 06-01-2004 5:54 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 58 of 108 (112113)
06-01-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 3:15 PM


Re: More irony.
This thread is concerned with "Macro-evolution". If you wish to find out how we know for sure there was no global flood, and how a sea-worthy boat the size of the ark could not have been constructed with a Bronze Age technology, and how all the animals of the world could not have come to the ark and dispersed to their native habitats, may I direct your attention to an entire forum dedicated Noah and the flood?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 3:15 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:08 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 108 (112119)
06-01-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chiroptera
06-01-2004 3:54 PM


Re: More irony.
OK. I'll do that. I'm sure something will happen in which I get shoved off of that forum too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2004 3:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AdminNosy, posted 06-01-2004 4:23 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 60 of 108 (112123)
06-01-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by TheNewGuy03
06-01-2004 4:08 PM


Shoved off
You haven't been "shoved off" any topic, yet.

You have simply been shoved back onto topic here and there and asked to adhere to forum guidelines.

We all wander off topic quite a bit. That is given a little more leeway than other violations.

You're not even expected to support assertions right way. You are expected to when asked.

The "something" happening is that you haven't clearly supported any of your assertions yet.

I might offer a small suggestion as well. Pick only one or two topics and work on them. If you don't you will not be able to keep up.

Myself I would suggest the dating issue and the flood. The idea of "deep time" is essential to understanding the earth. Even I would agree that evolution could not have happened if the earth is only 6,000 years old. A lot of understanding of history and geology can be had by understanding the reason why believers in the biblical flood gave up on it when studying the earth.

Another suggestion might be that you ask more questions and stop making assertions. You can not point out flaws in any reasoning until you understand the facts of the situation. You may not accept this but the truth is you do not know anything about any of this.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-01-2004 03:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-01-2004 4:08 PM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019