Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Macroevolution: Its all around us...
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 179 of 306 (216634)
06-13-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by EZscience
06-13-2005 7:58 AM


Re: Your dilemma
Virtually every phenomenon we see in living things makes sense ONLY within the framework of ToE - there is no equivalent alternative.
That's a totally bogus claim on your part.
Imo, it's a little disingenious to claim ToE explains natural selection and developing of resistance when ToE is not exclusive to that. That's totally bogus.
The fact is even YECism explains those things as well. YECism predicts those exact same things as OECism and ID.
By your logic then, all of these things are true.
Sorry, but the continual resort to overstatements indicates a serious flaw in common descent arguments.
The truth is no one has ever really contested the idea that things can evolve. What is disputed is the degree organisms can evolve, and the methods of how they evolve.
Imo, evolutionary theory has been largely disproven by the evidence that mutations are not random. I think convergent evolution also is strong evidence against evolutionary models, which by definition posit natural selection and random mutation along with normal genetic recombination as a result of reproduction as the ONLY means acting to create change and evolution.
We know that's false. Convergent DNA shows that this is false. The seeming duplication of forms, even the 3 inner earbones in mammals, proves that evolutionist mechanisms cannot fully explain the data.
I am not sure we have enough facts to know for sure how things all happened, but the attempts by evolutionists to insist on elimination of common factors like the possibility of common authorship, embedded design as a guiding force, etc,...imo, show the fallacy of evolutionary theory.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-13-2005 12:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by EZscience, posted 06-13-2005 7:58 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by EZscience, posted 06-13-2005 3:28 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 182 of 306 (217173)
06-15-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by EZscience
06-13-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Nope
In typical fashion, you make a ton of unsubstantiated claims, never backing any of them up, and then proclaim victory.
You claim, for example, that YEC makes no predictions, and yet I suspect you argue that it is falsifiable.
You claim ID makes no predictions as well, which is a false statement. Irreducible complexity is a prediction, for example.
You erroneously claim ToE is falsifiable by having the gall to state that just because other theories predict the same results, that this somehow means ToE is exclusively true.
You refer to convergent DNA by saying "it was explained to you" and ignore the fact itself. No, that's BS on your part. Convergent DNA does show a guiding, non-random rule, and most molecular geneticists realize mutations are not actually totally random. That's just an artificial claim of evolutionists. Mutations are governed, for example, by the chemical properties involved. The fact that convergent DNA is real means that DNA does not strictly mutate in a random fashion, but there are in-built predispositions within the DNA.
The question is who put the predispositions in there? You can say, well, they evolved from the properties of matter, and if that is the case, then we need to include physics and particle physics as part of evolutionary theory since the argument is the in-built design evolved from matter.
If that's the case, where did the matter come from? Specifically, where did the design come from, and considering that matter is fundamentally a probability patter, a design (information), where is the intelligence behind the design?
Asserting it all occurs by chance and randomly is unscientific since we have no examples within our own experience of design and information brought into existence from nothing before it, without intelligence present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by EZscience, posted 06-13-2005 3:28 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by EZscience, posted 06-15-2005 4:16 PM randman has replied
 Message 200 by Kapyong, posted 06-19-2005 6:18 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 184 of 306 (217224)
06-15-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by EZscience
06-15-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Where is a moderator when you need one?
I would say my characterization of your comments is correct. Let's look at the heart of what you said in response to my comments earlier.
I said other theories that provided the same results as ToE would be redundant and superfluous. To be worth serious consideration, they would have to prove that ToE is wrong somewhere, or provide an explanation that is superior.
You are trying to have it both ways. You want to claim something as evidence for ToE, but for it to be evidence for common descent, it cannot be equally just as good evidence for something else. In claiming it is evidence for common descent, you are claiming it represents some sort of exclusive evidence, and then when called on it, you speciously, imo, commented on it being redundant and superflous.
Maybe you don't get the point. If it is redundant, then it's not solid evidence for common descent any more than it is evidence for anything else.
The sky being blue is evidence too! Yippee! Everything is evidence, by defitinition, but not exclusive evidence of one thing or another.
Remember that this is your claim.
Virtually every phenomenon we see in living things makes sense ONLY within the framework of ToE - there is no equivalent alternative.
That's completely bogus on the face of it, a total overstatement, and just outright hogwash!
For example, you specifically used the idea of plant breeding. So according to you, plant breeding "ONLY makes sense within the framework of ToE."
I showed you where you are wrong, and you refuse to admit it. Plant breeding makes sense within the framework of YEC, OEC, ID, theistic evolution, alien guidance, and any and every other concept out there.
No creationist, IDer, skeptic, etc,...has ever said that we could not manipulate plants to breed better plants, and plant breeding preceded the whole concept of evolution, and plant breeders could do their jobs perfectly well if they did not believe in common descent, or vice versa.
In typical propaganda fashion, you overstate your case, essentially insisting that natural selection and adaptation only make sense with a ToE framework when they make perfect sense for all the other frameworks, including Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, or even aliens seeding the planet.
If you want to argue the weight of evidence backs your view, do so, but to claim no natural phenomena in living things makes sense in any other framework is entirely bogus on your part.
Yes, where are the mods when you need them, and where are the creationist mods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by EZscience, posted 06-15-2005 4:16 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by EZscience, posted 06-15-2005 9:31 PM randman has not replied
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2005 10:41 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 187 of 306 (217296)
06-16-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
06-15-2005 10:41 PM


And, in fact, any model that encorporates selection and mutation is the exact same thing as evolution. It's an evolutionary model.
So Young Earth Creationism is now by definition ToE.
Yippee!
You guys ever get tired of overstating things. Every model out there incorporates natural selection and mutations. Every creationist I have ever read or heard of does that.
But that's not the same thing as accepting all life spontaneously generated all on it's own, and then evolved from one single common ancestor all via randomness and chance.
That's a myth, could be a true myth, but a myth nonetheless.
The fact that things evolve has never been contested and still is not contested by anyone today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-15-2005 10:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by AdminNosy, posted 06-16-2005 2:26 AM randman has replied
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2005 6:43 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 199 of 306 (217989)
06-19-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by AdminNosy
06-16-2005 2:26 AM


Re: Time for remedial reading classes?
They are not errors in context, but nice ban when plenty of totally unsubtantiated and wrong statements are said on the other side, but you don't seem to censure them at all.
For example, my basic point is quite clear. You cannot tout the fact things evolve as exclusive evidence of ToE when all the other theories include the same data.
The guy I was debating went as far as to make the absurd statement that any theory that admits the basics of plant breeding is a theory of evolution.
Personally, I consider what you and others are doing is tantamount to a lie because you equate evolution in the general sense with the specific theory of common descent from a single common ancestor. His posts and your ban and statement are proof of that. He claims that if creationism includes natural selection, that it too is the ToE, but that's a lie.
Be honest and specific. The fact things evolve is not exclusive evidence that everything evolved from a single common ancestor. That's a bald-faced lie, if you ask me, and does not do justice to the fact that no one discounts the fact things evolve, but that does not prove that everything evolved from a single common ancestor, and that my friend, is why a YEC, an OEC, an IDer, or just about anyone else besides an evolutionist can be just as good a plant breeder as an evolutionist, and why all of those theories work just as well for plant breeding as ToE, regardless of the rants and bans of evolutionists.
Moreover, to talk about the TOE in this context, it is indeed perfectly reasonable to bring up the beliefs of the "story" of evolutuionists which does indeed include abiogenesis, separate theory (equally-held in the camp) nonetheless, and to bring up randomness and chance is valid.
Of course, the method is mutations and natural selection, but the idea of randomness is part of that.
But once again, you seem to have no problem ignoring the false statements of evolutionists, despite them being corrected numerous times, but have no problem banning me.
Selective treatment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by AdminNosy, posted 06-16-2005 2:26 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-19-2005 9:59 AM randman has replied
 Message 202 by AdminNosy, posted 06-19-2005 10:17 AM randman has replied
 Message 203 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 10:34 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 204 of 306 (218045)
06-19-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AdminNosy
06-19-2005 10:17 AM


Re: Time for remedial reading classes?
Why don't you look at the statement in context?
And, in fact, any model that encorporates selection and mutation is the exact same thing as evolution. It's an evolutionary model.
So Young Earth Creationism is now by definition ToE.
Yippee!
You guys ever get tired of overstating things. Every model out there incorporates natural selection and mutations. Every creationist I have ever read or heard of does that.
But that's not the same thing as accepting all life spontaneously generated all on it's own, and then evolved from one single common ancestor all via randomness and chance.
That's a myth, could be a true myth, but a myth nonetheless.
The fact that things evolve has never been contested and still is not contested by anyone today.
I was responding to a quote by an evolutionist here that claimed "anything that incorporates selection and mutation is the exact same thing as evolution. It's an evolutionary model."
Of course, that was my point to a degree, that Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and ID all incorporate natural selection, but still disagree with the overall Theory of Evolution. I was the one here speaking truth and trying to clarify something, namely that is absurd to continually, as most evolutionists, do and overstate the evidence and claim that just because things evolve that common descent must be true. Crash seems to be backing off now and claiming that with genetic evidence, that it is conclusive, but that's not what EZ was arguing when Crash jumped into the conversation, and regardless, to lightly dismiss critics by saying on the one hand they are an evolutionary model, and the other that they are wacko, is quite telling.
Why not just concede the truth? Evolution in the larger sense is not equal to the Theory of Evolution or Darwinism? You guys use the terms interchangeably, even after being told repeatedly the obvious error on your part. A reasonable conclusion is that you guys are deliberately obfuscating here.
Getting to the quoted section, considering the context here, I think it is entirely appropiate. Every creationist accepts the fact things evolve. No one debates that, but they don't accept things like all life evolved from a single life source which sponteneously generated and continued to evolve via random mutations and natural selection.
Sorry, but imo, creationists are right to not buy into those things, which evolutionists do buy into, even if they separate abiogenesis out.
It looks to me, personally, like just selective editing and banning on your part. You claim someone like me "hasn't learned anything" as if my role is to learn from evolutionists when in fact, it is usually the other way around. People like myself have heard your arguments ad nauseum, and can generally argue them as well as you can.
But you guys refuse to concede even basic points, such as the observation that evolution occurs is not the same thing as the ToE which creationists and IDers question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AdminNosy, posted 06-19-2005 10:17 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 2:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 216 by EZscience, posted 06-19-2005 5:20 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 206 of 306 (218057)
06-19-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
06-19-2005 2:04 PM


But they don't. They simply reject the logical, necessary conclusions of their own models.
No, the question crash is when you will grow up and realize that the fact species evolve does not logically, scientifically equate common descent as you claim.
It's time for you to be honest. Your quote above indicates you think incorporating natural selection and the fact things evolve leads only to the "logical, necessary conclusion" of universal common descent.
Will you finally and unequivocally admit that?
The next thing for you to realize is that it is not logically necessary that just because species can evolve, that they did all evolve from a single common ancestor.
That's why creationists and IDers can logically include evolutionary processes without accepting what I call the evolution myth (the story) that all life evolved from a single common ancestor which spontenously generated all on it's own without any help from an Intelligent Cause.
That's the myth you cling to, which many disagree with. The myth could possibly be true, but claiming it is well-nigh proven as evolutonionists do is false. It is not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", and the fact speciation and micro-evolution occurs is not exclusive evidence for universal common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 2:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 3:04 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 207 of 306 (218059)
06-19-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Andya Primanda
06-19-2005 9:59 AM


Re: Time for remedial reading classes?
As for common descent, plagiarized genetic errors make good evidence for it, don't you think?
I am not sure if I know 100% what you refer to, but genetic similarities in non-coding DNA, if that's what you refer to, could also be explained by convergent DNA possibly. I think we'll know more in a few years when we understand the mechanisms responsible for convergent DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Andya Primanda, posted 06-19-2005 9:59 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 3:05 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 210 of 306 (218066)
06-19-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
06-19-2005 3:04 PM


Crash, repudiated what claim?
1. the claim that you claim the fact things evolve leads only to "the logically necessary conclusion" of common descent, as you reiterate here:
They simply reject the logical, necessary conclusions of their own models.
2. Or are you asserting you do hold to that position and think you have repudiated how evolutionary processes can be included in alternative theories?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 3:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 4:05 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 211 of 306 (218067)
06-19-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
06-19-2005 3:05 PM


Crash, are you denying that convergent DNA occurs?
LOL.
So you think that just has to be wrong, eh?
Lemme ask you something. Is this something that falsifies universal common descent? If I can show you that convergent DNA is real, does that mean common descent is not true?
Your mocking tone suggests it is such an audicious concept to you that you feel it undermines common descent and is tantamount to God playing tricks on people, if true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 3:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2005 4:04 PM randman has replied
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 4:09 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 215 of 306 (218091)
06-19-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NosyNed
06-19-2005 4:04 PM


Re: Definition of convergent DNA?
Ned, this was discussed at length on a thread with your participation. Here is a link discussing the issue.
In this study, Vowles and Amos used the published sequence of the human genome to track down and compare thousands upon thousands of microsatellites. If the molecular clock ran smoothly, they would expect to find no similarity at all between the DNA sequences surrounding any pair of unrelated microsatellites. To their surprise, they found the complete reverse, with entirely unrelated microsatellites showing widespread and obvious similarities in their flanking DNA. This meant that mutations near microsatellites were not random, but favored certain letters in certain positions. Just as a new shipwreck will attract its own special community of marine life, so microsatellites appear gradually to change the surrounding DNA towards a common pattern. The result is convergent evolution, an unusual state of affairs where, as time goes by, DNA sequences become more similar, not less.
As yet, the exact mechanisms remain unclear,
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509321
Maybe instead of berating me for "learning nothing", you would do well to take some of your own advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 06-19-2005 4:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 217 of 306 (218102)
06-19-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by EZscience
06-19-2005 5:20 PM


Re: Misinterpretations, etc.
EZ, you are still wrong because plant breeding preceded ToE. That fact alone disproves your entire point. Creationists used plant breeding techniques long before Charles Darwin was even born.
Basically, your argument is to try to stretch the fact things evolve into proof of universal common descent.
The truth is ID and creationism all offer the same insights into plant breeding as you common descenters do. Your claim that they offer not a shred of insight into breeding, etc,...is demonstrably false then.
You are just misrepresenting your critics, in typical evolutionist fashion, because you don't want to honestly deal with their criticisms, nor are willing to give up overstating your case.
Furthmore, your insistence they run claims "counter to common descent" as evidence for common descent is specious. Your whole line of reasoning is specious.
No one denies evolution occurs. What people are less convinced of is that this fact equates that all living things evolved from a single common ancestor.
Why is that so hard for you to get your head around and deal honestly with?
This message has been edited by randman, 06-19-2005 05:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by EZscience, posted 06-19-2005 5:20 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by TimChase, posted 06-19-2005 10:53 PM randman has not replied
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2005 11:31 PM randman has not replied
 Message 220 by EZscience, posted 06-20-2005 7:41 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 233 of 306 (218778)
06-22-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by TimChase
06-21-2005 10:36 AM


Re: "Convergent DNA"
Tim, I find your blather about misuse and misunderstanding applied towards me to be rather amusing, especially since it took you longer that it did me to find the relevant section.
But you did quote the exact same area as I had done on an earlier thread, eventually.
Maybe after awhile you will concede I was correct in my assessment of convergent tendencies within DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by TimChase, posted 06-21-2005 10:36 AM TimChase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-22-2005 9:49 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 235 of 306 (218837)
06-22-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by pink sasquatch
06-22-2005 9:49 PM


Re: convergence to ancestry leap
Sure...First off, genetics is still fairly young as a science, and we will probably know more in a few years.
Secondly, my "assessment" is pretty simple. There exists convergent tendencies in DNA. The degrees of which, types, etc,...are still somewhat undetermined by science. But regardless, it is incorrect to think of mutations are purely random.
Thirdly, we need a better understanding of both convergency in DNA and via environmental conditions to properly assess whether claiming evidence (similar traits) can be "only explained" via common ancestry is accurate. It is that an accurate assumption?
The best we can say is maybe. Affirming common ancestry based on shared traits is an unfounded leap, an assumption that is falsified to a degree by convergency in general.
that you are asserting that: because convergent evolution is apparent in certain non-coding sequences, sequence similarities cannot be used to establish common ancestry.
I am not stating that, but I am not stating the opposite either. I think the issue is unclear. Sequence similarities, it seems reasonable, can be explained by some sort of shared commonality.
Evolutionists pretty much assign all shared similarities as the product of common descent except where this seems impossible to them, and then they advocate convergent evolution.
I think there is an inherent problem there since it is assumed that our impressions of likelihood, based on incomplete evidence, backs up assigning similarities to common ancestry instead of convergent evolution.
Creationists offer other reasons for similarities such as common authorship.
My view, in general, is that there are a lot of problems with evolutionary theory and the best approach is to try to take a good look at each piece of evidence without assuming the Big Picture.
In that regard, I am willing to consider any number of commonalities as causes for similarities. Similar causes equal similar effects.
Some are:
common ancestry
convergent evolution (maybe)
common authorship via special creation
common design embedded in the universe manifesting in DNA convergency

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-22-2005 9:49 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-22-2005 11:57 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 237 of 306 (218876)
06-23-2005 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by pink sasquatch
06-22-2005 11:57 PM


Re: convergence to ancestry leap
I think it's hard to deal with your post if you deny convergent DNA in light of the data.
There is no evidence for convergent evolution of coding or pseudo-coding sequence.
There is evidence of convergent DNA, and that's the point. Since your line of reasoning rests on that, there is not much else to say except you are just incorrect there.
To put it slightly differently, why would all of the sequences in the human and chimp genomes end up more closely convergently evolved than, say, the mouse genome?
That's exactly what you would expect if the 2 were created via special creation. The data fits special creation perfectly.
But let's don't debate that now.
Let's just say that the reason we see genetic similarities between morphologically similar species is due to the fact genes produce morphology.
As far as the non-coding genes, it is established and an area of intense study that non-coding DNA exhibits convergent tendencies, that there is a predisposition within the DNA.
It is not surprising then that similar sequences of DNA would exhibit a similar predisposition.
What would be interesting is to study DNA over a long perdiod of time within a species and see if the pattern od predisposition can be unveiled, and even more interesting if we knew what caused convergent DNA.
One last note, I am not like evolutionists. I don't argue a sole explanation, as you suggest I do. Please open your mind enough to realize that I listed several commonalities, not just one, that could theoritically produce common features and similarities.
it is evolutionists always trying to fit everything into one commonicality cause, not me.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 02:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-22-2005 11:57 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2005 7:03 AM randman has not replied
 Message 249 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-23-2005 1:28 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024