Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
65 online now:
dwise1, jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (7 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,191 Year: 4,303/6,534 Month: 517/900 Week: 41/182 Day: 13/16 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 829 of 830 (887932)
08-26-2021 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 828 by nwr
08-25-2021 3:16 PM


Re: I Think We Outlived Our Original Purpose
Ken Ham is arguing that the evolution of COVID-19 does not count as evidence for evolution

LOL. He says it is not "evolution" but only "mutation." But remember that there are no beneficial mutations...

Here's how AiG address that:

quote:
But are there such things as beneficial mutations? In short, no, but let me explain. While I have yet to see evidence of a truly beneficial mutation, I have seen evidence of mutations with beneficial outcomes in restricted environments. Mutations are context dependent, meaning their environment determines whether the outcome of the mutation is beneficial... Thus, the benefit of any given mutation is not an independent quality, but rather a dependent quality based on the environment.

Are There Beneficial Mutations? (bolded for emphasis)

In other news... objects aren't really colored, it's only the light that is reflected back to our eyes that makes them appear to be colored.

It seems pretty obvious that if a mutation has a beneficial outcome then it is a beneficial mutation. And it's also common knowledge that the fitness of a trait is always environmentally dependent - Evolution 101!!!

Is there no end to creationist semantics...

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by nwr, posted 08-25-2021 3:16 PM nwr has seen this message

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 830 of 830 (887937)
08-26-2021 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 764 by Dredge
08-17-2021 5:24 PM


Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
A biblical "kind" may refer to a phylum.

I am not sure how you could make a claim like this with a straight face... I assume you may not have meant "phylum" but your post continues with the claim, so maybe you are not clear on what a phylum is...

Anyway... as Dwise1 explains, the concept of "kinds" was invented because it became obvious that 2 individuals of every modern species would not fit on the ark, so the thought was there must have been a reduced number of species that later diversified. But there is no real reason to believe this. The Bible doesn't make the claim that organisms diversified after the flood. There is no objective definition of "kind" - it is merely "intuitive". The whole concept of "kind" is arbitrary and speculative.

A worse problem is that according to the Biblical record, a "kind" can only give birth to its own "kind". So lets assume that a kind is roughly equivalent to family (as many creationists propose - I think you are the only one I have heard propose phylum). We will use Felidae (the cat kind) as an example. Lets say the creature that left the ark was the species Felidae beta. But according to the Bible, Felidae beta could only give birth to Felidae beta babies, but there are now over 40 extant species of Felidae plus numerous extinct species. How did that occur? At what point did Felidae beta give birth to a Panthera tigris or a Lynx rufus or a Felis catus. What is the mechanism of change between these types of cats? At some point, Felidae beta must have given birth to all these other species.

Even if they are all the same "kind," it seems as if this violates your premise that kinds don't give birth to different kinds. Do you expect a panther to give birth to a puma, or to a lion, or a cat?

So, what is the mechanism of change within a "kind"?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Dredge, posted 08-17-2021 5:24 PM Dredge has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022