|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: General Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
The theme of Defiant Heretic’s post is the oft-used illusion whereby if you can’t support your theory with evidence, make it true by redefining it! I have an article on the evolution definition shell-game here:
404 Not Found
quote: Interpretation: I am going to perpetuate the illusion of evolution using the equivocation method of debate as described on page 1 of my evo-handbook.
quote: Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism, and placed a solid barrier on upward evolution (FYI, Mendel was a creationist). It forced evolutionists to embrace random mutation (LOL!) as the root mechanism to create the new genetic information necessary to evolve new complexities. It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution (I suppose that is why Darwin espoused Lamarckism, and why some evolutionists still cling to the Lamarck fairytale today).
quote: Item 2b is incorrect, regardless of whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.
quote: ROTFL! The classic mistake of defining selection as a tautology!
quote: ROTFL! (see previous ROTFL for the reason for my ROTFL)
quote: Here DH engages in question begging (specifically item #7). He skips over an important problem— how did the chameleon get the ability to camouflage? DH assumes evolution is true and expects us to not catch this glaring omission. It’s all part of the illusion of the power of selection. Yet selection can only work with *pre-existing* traits! Where did this trait come from? This question is at the root of the C/E debate, yet DH tries to skip right over it, to the praise and adoration of his peers here on this board.
quote: This is precisely natural selection (provided you add more before beneficial & detrimental). Please discard your previous tautological arguments. Natural selection primarily acts as a conservation mechanism. Those with diminished traits due to harmful mutation are weeded out to the benefit of the population (a protection mechanism to combat error catastrophe and eventual extinction). Here evolutionists and Creationists have always agreed and in fact Creationists espoused this view before Darwin [Edward Blyth, 1835].
quote: And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true! For the truly nave, here is the root problem with DH’s claim: Where did the beneficial traits come from? That is what we are debating. This is the crux of the C/E debate. Creationists say that In the Beginning God created all life and all traits were initially beneficial, and over time certain traits have degraded or were lost. Evolution says In the Beginning Slime (or to appease the evolution isn’t abiogenesis crowd, In the Beginning a single cell) evolved through random mutation + selection to produce all the traits of all life on earth. Yet DH has already established the existence of what his theory seeks to prove, beneficial traits!! This is the current state of thinking in our schools, and it is quite sad. Logic gets thrown out the window for the sake of the sacred cow of evolution.
quote: LOL! Here is yet another glaring error that your peers have failed to notice while they were busy patting you on the back for your story. Evolutionists like to say populations evolve, not individuals. If we accept here that evolution refers to micro-evolution (adaptation), then this statement is correct and can be used to show you the error of your ways. Say both parents each have 5 beneficial traits. That represents 10 beneficial traits in the population. After their offspring are produced, regardless of how many offspring they have, guess what? The offspring still only contribute 10 beneficial traits to the population! Perhaps you are claiming that each parent is contributing 10 *new* beneficial traits to their offspring. If so, please provide any evidence that new beneficial traits outpace new detrimental traits. Any evidence whatsoever. Please provide a documented example of a population whose gene pool was observed to have a net increase in beneficial traits over detrimental traits; that is, a decrease in genetic load. On the other hand, I can provide a ton of evidence that the opposite is true, that new detrimental traits are outpacing new beneficial traits in organisms. Ready to go to battle?
quote: The problem is, you did not properly state the usual evolutionist re-definition illusion correctly above. You could have kept the illusion simple, as most evolutionists do: evolution is allele frequency change over time. The capitulation and equivocation is complete!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: It’s quite relevant, and has everything to do with this thread. You are trying to defend the general theory of evolution, and have used the fact of Mendelism as part of your thesis. What you failed to realize is that Mendelism works *against* upward evolution, and shattered a powerful weapon of evolution accepted by many at the time of Darwin (including Darwin), Lamarckism. From Mendelism we learned that there is a 50% barrier for every new mutation that occurs in an organism. In other words, only half the offspring will get the mutation. Because of this enormous barrier in a sexual population, Fischer calculated the odds of a beneficial mutation with a high selective value only has a 1 in 50 chance of surviving (the odds are worse when more reasonable selective values are used). Lamarckism on the other hand does not incur this barrier, and new beneficial traits can become fixed in a population rapidly. Lamarckism would also completely alleviate Haldane’s Dilemma (a model that showed only one beneficial substitution could fix per 300 generations in a sexual population). Even if Haldane’s model is off, it still does not remove the fact that traits must go from few to many in a population, and the speed at which this can occur is governed by the organism’s reproductive capacity. This problem totally goes away if Lamarckism were true. But we know Lamarckism is false, and we know Mendelism is established fact. Too bad for the fairytale of upward evolution.
quote: Yes, it is the issue, but you don’t want it to be the issue because I suspect you know there is no evidence for upward evolution, so you equivocate what evolution means. I have to be frank and say I find this intellectually dishonest, always have. I don’t think it is unwitting on either your part or the majority of other evolutionists who engage in this shell-game (not all evolutionists do this).
quote: I don’t know of a single creation scientist who disputes micro-evolution. Regardless, your penultimate sentence is a vague assertion, and if you are implying beneficial traits outpace detrimental traits then you need to provide evidence to support this. This is what evolution is really all about.
quote: I did elaborate. In a nutshell, your illusion is that a lizard changing into a lizard means that a lixard can turn into a bird. You make the false extrapolation that if micro-evolution is true, then so is macro-evolution. I again refer you to my article that deals with your illusion: 404 Not Found
quote: See above. The relevant term used to describe your illogic is non-sequitur.
quote: Why certainly. For starters: http://www-bml.ucdavis.edu/imc/loadstatus.html Several studies have reported deviations from classical Mendelian segregation ratios in controlled crosses of bivalve molluscs (oysters, mussels, clams and scallops) These results imply that the Dabob Bay population of oysters has a large load of recessive deleterious alleles and that this genetic load is responsible for the distortion of Mendelian segregation ratios that was previously observed. Here we have a clear case where Mendelian segregation ratios (see Hardy-Weinberg law) are distorting due to heavy selection against harmful mutations. With such readily observable distortions at these loci it is clear the mutations are fixed or nearly fixed in the population. We would need an equal number of loci under positive selection (Hardy-Weingberg is also distorted when positive selection occurs on a beneficial mutation) to compensate and keep the genetic load in equilibrium. Where are they? I can provide many more examples. Where are your citations documenting a distortion in a direction favorable to upward evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4886 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Great! So you admit that your theory is now re-defined so that it fits nicely within a creationist framework? So you agree there is no evidence of upward evolution? In other words, do you agree that there is no evidence for the naturalistic development of new complex systems such as organs, sonar, feathers, etc?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024