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 7:59 AM
139 online now:
candle2 (1 member, 138 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,559 Year: 2,596/19,786 Month: 678/1,918 Week: 266/266 Day: 3/35 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 108 (113114)
06-06-2004 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
06-06-2004 9:48 PM


Re: Giving up
I have a bunch of stuff on Kent Hovind, and some of his information is legitimate. However, it is still a theory.

This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 06-06-2004 10:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 06-06-2004 9:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 06-06-2004 11:21 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 108 (113116)
06-06-2004 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by TheNewGuy03
06-06-2004 11:06 PM


Re: Giving up
Before you decide, you might want to check This site

Kent Hovind has less credibility than Ron Wyatt. In particular, on the introduction page, look at the link to conspiracy quotes.

Then perhaps we can get back to discussing macro-evolution, which should be easy to get through. You are a quick learner and will have no trouble with it at all.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-06-2004 11:06 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-09-2004 4:47 PM jar has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 108 (113972)
06-09-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
06-06-2004 11:21 PM


Re: Giving up
I have a lot of information on Kent Hovind. I have tapes and other media. Well, I will consider and analyze the information you've given me. Thanks, anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 06-06-2004 11:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:55 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 108 (113974)
06-09-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by TheNewGuy03
06-09-2004 4:47 PM


Very good
and once you finish, come back and there are many here who can help point you towards some real information. I know that you can do it and have complete faith in your ability to handle reality.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-09-2004 4:47 PM TheNewGuy03 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-10-2004 2:40 AM jar has responded

  
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 108 (114092)
06-10-2004 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
06-09-2004 4:55 PM


Re: Very good
What's reality to you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 06-09-2004 4:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by AdminNosy, posted 06-10-2004 2:59 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded
 Message 98 by jar, posted 06-10-2004 11:35 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

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


Message 96 of 108 (114094)
06-10-2004 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by TheNewGuy03
06-10-2004 2:40 AM


Topic
Nope nope nope, that is going to end up a long long way off topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-10-2004 2:40 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 97 of 108 (114135)
06-10-2004 11:11 AM


How hard is this Concept?

Alot of micro = macro... I hate to say it but you have to be dumb not to get such a simple concept... and as for Kent Hovind.... he lies to get your money.. thats all... He must know he is lying... He is just a scam artiest..


My site The Atheist Bible

My New Debate Fourms!


    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 108 (114139)
06-10-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by TheNewGuy03
06-10-2004 2:40 AM


Well, trying to answer that and stay on topic
I would say the sum total of the very small changes that led from the first amino acids to the life we see about us today.

The key to understanding that there is no such thing as Macro vs Micro evolution is time. Big changes are simply the sum of many small changes happening over very long periods of time.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by TheNewGuy03, posted 06-10-2004 2:40 AM TheNewGuy03 has not yet responded

  
Monsieur_Lynx
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 108 (123691)
07-11-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
01-25-2004 11:52 PM


Perhaps this would help clarify things a bit. Consider the 2 different ways the term evolution is used.
1)We can speak of bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics. Now, the bacteria are still producing bacteria! This kind of evolution is probably accepted by just about everyone (I seriously doubt you would find a creationist who would dispute this!)
2)According to the theory of universal common descent, bacteria (prokaryotes) evolved into eukaryotes. Here, the word evolution is taken in a different sense.

The distinction is a bit tricky to grasp, but a more formalized way of putting it is that microevolution is a modification of structures that are ALREADY in place. Whereas in macroevolution, new structures appear out of seemingly nothing. For example, when evolutionists speak of fish evolving into amphibians, creatures without lungs, over sufficient time, produce creatures with lungs. This leads to other problems, namely how a transitional form could survive, etc. But anyway that's another topic.
But then, what sense of "evolution" do creationists accept? That fish and amphibians both evolve is accepted by all creationists. That is populations do not remain fixed, they change over time. So, a creationist would say that the frogs that existed millions of years ago are not exactly the same as the frogs that are there today. They've "evolved".
I'd like to emphasize this point again--all the icons of evolution, the evolution of horses, the formation of new species, the evolution of flowers--there are no new structures forming at all. That is, explaining how horses change over time says nothing about how the first horse (err..every horse has a mother and father that's a horse, so it's more accurate to say the first 2 horses) got there. Once you've created a creature, you can then have the various creatures evolve over time. So, yes, what I mean is that these creatures are "designed" for their specific niches, not evolved to match their niche (for example, a fish has to have gills to breathe underwater, if one of the ancestors of modern fish didn't have gills, how would it have breathed? If it was able to breathe perfectly well without gills, then what evolutionary advantage do gills have? If there is no evolutionary advantage for gills, then how can we say that natural selection is the force that drives the evolution? All these problems are avoided if we accept some initial population of fish with gills that are created).
I realize that this concept of "first" flowers is a little hard to grasp for many evolutionists. They think of the evolution of life as being a continuous progression from single celled bacteria to multicellular creatures like plants and humans. This meaning of evolution is rejected by creationists, and IMHO it's impossible to prove that all life is descended from a single cell.
Even in cases like polyploidy we're simply duplicating what's already there, so if there's DNA specifying how gills are to be constructing, duplicating that DNA won't give us the DNA that specifies how lungs are to be constructed. Modifying (evolving) the structure of gills won't give us lungs. And no, it doesn't suffice to point out the existence lungfish. Lungfish produce other lungfish and come from other lungfish. There's no rationale for thinking that it or some creature similar to it was a transitional form between ancient fish and modern amphibians.

Monsieur Lynx


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2004 11:52 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 07-11-2004 9:39 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 2:37 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2004 11:47 PM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded
 Message 107 by gbunty, posted 07-12-2004 2:03 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 100 of 108 (123727)
07-11-2004 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Monsieur_Lynx
07-11-2004 2:30 AM


This is supposed to sound incredible...

... in macroevolution, new structures appear out of seemingly nothing.

yet, this...

All these problems are avoided if we accept some initial population of fish with gills that are created).

... is supposed to sound credible?

How does the formation of entire collections of parts out of nothing, ever get to sound more reasonable than new parts forming in existing species from mechanisms we may not fully understand yet?

In your own definitions you used prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes as the example of mystifiying "macro"evolution.

Yet this is not so mystifying and goes beyond simple DNA mutations (something creationists and ID theorists keep avoiding). Prokaryotes and indeed simple eukaryotes arrange themselves into structures to better preserve themselves in an environment. A process called symbiosis reinforces this arrangement over successive generations such that the arrangement becomes permanent.

The DNA within the ultimate structure ends up reflecting the new arrangement, but did not "suddenly appear from nothing".

There is a valid question of how much a complex system can change from its existing form (at least without further symbiosis), but on the flip side it is valid to say there is essentially no limit on how complex a system may be created from simpler forms.

One can argue that this is not a fully detailed process. Okay. But I have yet to see the beginning features of a process beyond the word "created" for those believing whole beings sprang out of nothing.

By the way "all life is descended from a single cell" is not exactly correct. There could have been multiple occurences, with different cells doing this or that (some surviving and some not), and in any case for eukaryotic life there may have been many different "single cells" that were the initial strains of different branches of species (a "bush" rather than "tree" of life)...

Which means the best we can say is that all life came from the same prokaryotic biomass.

This message has been edited by holmes, 07-11-2004 08:43 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 07-11-2004 2:30 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 108 (123752)
07-11-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Monsieur_Lynx
07-11-2004 2:30 AM


Here, the word evolution is taken in a different sense.

Really? I disagree. I don't see a fundamental difference between a bacteria with a mutation allowing it to operate without an antibiotic-targeted chemical and a bacteria with a mutation allowing it to have membrane-encased organelles.

For that matter I don't see a fundamental difference between a single-celled bacteria (with the aforementioned eukaryotic mutation) and a colony of "bacteria" where the individuals specialize in different functions, i.e. metazoan life.

The distinction is a bit tricky to grasp, but a more formalized way of putting it is that microevolution is a modification of structures that are ALREADY in place. Whereas in macroevolution, new structures appear out of seemingly nothing.

Seemingly nothing? That never happens. Every evolutionary change is a modification to previously-existing structures. There's exrtemely little biological novelty - in fact I challenege you to identify an organism or structure that is totally novel. Even life itself displays similarities to non-living chemical replicators.

That's why I say there's no difference between micro- and macro-evolution - there isn't. There's almost no biological novelty in the world of life.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-11-2004 01:53 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Monsieur_Lynx, posted 07-11-2004 2:30 AM Monsieur_Lynx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 07-11-2004 4:49 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 108 (123772)
07-11-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
07-11-2004 2:37 PM


I don't see a fundamental difference

Sure there is. There is a manyfold potential difference in mechanisms employed to make the change, and the time/environment required to make such changes.

I would argue those are fundamental differences between those types of changes.

The fallacy would be believing that those fundamental differences in how the change occured, gives anyone the ability to doubt either one is less natural or likely to have occured.

Inherent in his argument (as is usually the case) is a willful ignorance of time and mechanisms which could connect one "kind" with another. Only by blowing off evolutionary explanations to begin with can one make statements like the changes came from no where, and there is inadequate reason to believe intermediates would be capable of survival.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 2:37 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 4:53 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 108 (123775)
07-11-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
07-11-2004 4:49 PM


There is a manyfold potential difference in mechanisms employed to make the change, and the time/environment required to make such changes.

I disagree that any of those differences are fundamental. For instance, they're still controlled by genes, catalyzed by enzymes, and formed by proteins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 07-11-2004 4:49 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-11-2004 6:01 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 108 (123779)
07-11-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by crashfrog
07-11-2004 4:53 PM


I disagree that any of those differences are fundamental.

Perhaps it depends on what one defines as fundamental. I think my definition may be a bit more generalized than yours (although I might note that symbiosis involves something a bit more than the three items you mentioned) and so I see differences.

A person could argue that you are selecting criteria to make your argument correct. I'm not saying that I will, just that someone could.

Perhaps you should take this as my saying I don't think your argument was strong enough given how one can use the vague phrase "fundamental differences". Msr Lynx might be able to put up a fight over that issue.

(added in... just to let you know I thought the last part of your original post was strong, which is why I didn't discuss it. )

This message has been edited by holmes, 07-11-2004 05:03 PM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 4:53 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 11:03 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 108 (123835)
07-11-2004 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Silent H
07-11-2004 6:01 PM


Perhaps you should take this as my saying I don't think your argument was strong enough given how one can use the vague phrase "fundamental differences".

Well, I certainly agree with that - in a living world of almost infinite variation, "fundamental differences" could mean so many things that it means nothing.

Maybe that was my point - it's fairly stupid to talk about "fundamental differences" when we don't even know what the fundamentals are.

But, ultimately, all known living things derive their phenotype from their genotype. Therefore I wouldn't consider any difference based on genotype to be "fundamental", in the sense that if I cut and pasted the base sequence for antibiotic resistance and the sequence for eukaryotic membranes, there'd be no way you could tell which was which.

Genes are genes. They may do different things but I wouldn't say there's any fundamental difference about what they do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 07-11-2004 6:01 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2004 7:36 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019