Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4429
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 36 of 127 (812139)
06-15-2017 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
06-14-2017 9:58 PM


Re: Simple Example
To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

I should know better than to try to talk with you.

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

Define your terms! Just what the frak is a "KIND"? Do please be extremely specific!

Are you trying to pull the usual creationist bullshit of claiming that evolution requires puppies giving rise to kittens? Well, that is damned creationist lie and if you are invoking it then you are yourself damned to your own Hell!

And if your idea of evolving "a new KIND" is such complete and utter bullshit, then so is your entire position.

Evolution tells us that every descendant species continues to belong to its original "kinds", AKA "nested clades". That is also what we observe. Creationists, including yourself here, try to tell us otherwise. Sorry, but you are greatly mistaken.

Evolution as I'm using it ...

Please consider this: you are using it wrong!

If you come up with some false and deceptive idea of what evolution is and you argue to disprove that false and deceptive idea, then are you actually saying anything at all about evolution? No, you are not!

Why is what you are doing called a "strawman"? In traditional stage productions going back to medieval times, when a body needed to be torn apart in triumph, a dummy had to be constructed. Back in medieval times, actual animal abdominal organs would be incorporated into that dummy; gory, but the crowd loved it! In more modern times as evidenced by silent films, a dummy filled with straw would be used -- more specifically, I watched a silent film sequence in which an actual person fell from a loft to the ground and then they cut (not very seamlessly, FWIW) to the hero beating up that dummy filled with straw and throwing it to the side, where through yet another not very seamless cut the actor appeared.

So, what you are doing is to create a false caricature of evolution (a "strawman") which you are then free to beat up on in whatever manner would make you appear more manly.

Have you at any point actually addressed evolution? Nope! In fact, you have avoided doing so at all cost. Which tells us that your position is total bollocks. Which is to say completely untrue in oh so many ways.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 9:58 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 4:33 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4429
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 116 of 127 (815318)
07-18-2017 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
07-18-2017 11:59 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Why do you specify "6000 years?"

I do not doubt that CRR will ignore that question. Actually, I'm surprised that he said "6000 years" and not 10,000. Most YECs in the USA know that their "creation science" strategy depends on their false and deliberately deceptive claim of basing their claims "purely on science and having nothing to do with religion" (paraphrased). Saying "6000 years old" is a dead give-away that your reasons are purely religious, so they instead say "10,000 years" in order to be more deceptive. A furriner like CRR would not know better -- mind you, I am not familiar with the legal landscape in Australia concerning these matters; perhaps CRR could enlighten us about that.

Back in 1996 in a local creationist organization's newsletter, a local activist YEC published an article tracing the age of the earth according to the Bible. Many, myself included, have attempted that exercise, but most of us can get no further than the Flood. This article carried it further up to an actual historical event whose date was known independently of the Bible. Even though I do not agree with his conclusions nor premises, still I thought that it was a valuable example of such an exercise, so I reposted it on my site: ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?. An interesting read.

BTW, I'm sure that he copied it from somewhere else, but that does not matter.

Our dating systems are AD ("Anno Domini") and BC ("Before Christ"), but also CE ("Common Era") and and BCE ("Before Common Era") which are temporally equivalent to AD and BC but are for non-Christian consumption (eg, Jewish scholarship). This YEC employs a very useful system of AC ("After Creation"), useful since all the biblical dating is ultimately in reference to Creation and it isn't until later Cyrus the Persian that we can tie that dating system with BCE and so unify them.

In summary, here are this YEC's dates:

Creation -- 6202 years ago, 4185 BCE
Flood -- 1656 AC == 2529 BCE

But basically, 6000 years don't mean squat! The clock starts right after the Flood, at 2529 BCE! "Basic created kinds"? Don't mean squat until after the Flood at 2529 BCE! After all, the only reason the creationists ever came up with "basic created kinds" was to try to solve the problem of crowding all those different species into one teensy-weensy Arc. So whatever hyper-evolution may have happened before the Flood don't mean squat! Creationists have 1656 years less time to play with utilizing their hyper-evolution.

And then there's Baron Georges Cuvier, the "Father of Paleontology". I believe that he originated the practice of taking a single bone and extrapolating the entire animal from it -- far less of a reach than you may think.

He was also a staunch anti-evolutionist. Back in college (late 1980's verging on 1990) I personally read an English translation of his Théorie de la terre (Theory of the Earth). From his Egyptian Campaign (whose other contribution was to use the Sphinx' nose as artillery practice, thank you very much, Nappy!) Napoleon had brought back many Egyptian artifacts, including a large number of mummies of both humans and animals. Those mummies dated back to thousands of years BCE; according to Wikipedia, the oldest animal mummies date back between 5500–4000 BCE, well before the Flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/...d_non-human_animal_mummification).

The problem for him was that he was still a young-earther. So he looked at the mummies from thousands of years ago, very shortly after creation by his reckoning, and he looked at the same modern animals and he saw virtually no change at all. Therefore he deemed evolution to be impossible.

So, then, CRR doesn't actually have 6000 years to play with, but rather about 4546 years. But not even that much, since Baron Georges Cuvier firmly established that by thousands of years BCE all the animal species had been fully evolved.

Instantaneous evolution??? Is that the creationist solution? Well, that is the only bullshit that you are feeding us at this time.

Very early on, I heard a presentation which stated that a single speciation event required about 50,000 years. I cannot tell you what that could have been based on. But the creationist model of near-instanteneous evolution over multiple taxonomical levels is .... mind-blowing.

No, absolutely ridiculous!!!!


ABE:

Of course creationists will try to explain away their near-instantaneous evolution by claiming that the original basic created kinds had been created with incredible amounts of genetic variability.

The problem with that is that that genetic variability would have been all used up long before the Flood. Remember, the Flood happened 1656 years after Creation.

Also remember that the only reason for that entire "basic created kinds" and its associated near-instantaneous evolution is to be able to get all those animals onto the Ark. So the fact that the near-instantaneous evolution would have happened very shortly after Creation and more than a millennium before the Ark renders that entire line of claims moot and utterly useless.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 07-18-2017 11:59 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by caffeine, posted 07-19-2017 4:33 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4429
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 120 of 127 (815352)
07-19-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by herebedragons
07-19-2017 10:14 AM


Re: 6,000 years?
One need only look to Jesus and his ministry to see this. Jesus taught primarily in parables... does the truth of what Jesus taught in parables depend on the historical accuracy of the parable? No, certainly not.

Remember also the reason for teaching in parables: to keep the audience from understanding what he was teaching. They were intended for those with ears to hear and eyes to see -- IOW, those initiated into those mysteries so that they understood the true meaning of the symbols and metaphors being used.

Certainly, taking a parable at face value as literally true would be extremely foolish. So if the rest of the Bible is in the same form as the other parables, then biblical literalism is a fool's errand in the extreme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 10:14 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 11:24 AM dwise1 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