|
Author
|
Topic: A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: Creationists beg scientists: Please prove my point for me!
mjfloresta,
I'm talking about the transformation of one organ into another (presumably with the same function, although ToE postulates that the same function need not be conserved) Whether the order is photosensitive light spot becoming simple eye becoming complex eye, or whatever lineage you want, where's the proof that such transformations occur? And that mutations are the mechanism? The purpose of this thread is to identify a barrier to macroevolution. As such, the burden of proof is on creationists to show the above can't happen, not everyone else to show that it can. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by mjfloresta, posted 09-13-2006 1:24 AM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
mjfloresta,
It's blatantly untrue the the burden of proof is on proving that a mechanism exists to prevent mutation...etc... when mutation has never been proven to be that mechanism... If you are saying it is a barrier, then the burden of proof is most definately on you to show it. The burden of proof always rests on the claimant. This thread is about showing a barrier to macroevolution, if you think you have one, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. This thread has just turned over 100 posts & yet still no evidence has been presented for the alleged barrier. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
mjfloresta,
ToE is making the claim, whether you want to recognize it or not. No it isn't. You are saying something can't happen. You have to show it.
The claim is: There is a mechanism which allows successive changes to accumulate and account for life's diversity. Mutation is that mechanism. Start a new thread to discuss this claim if you wish. But this thread is about you showing that there is a barrier to evolution. Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. The claim here in this thread is not as (quoted) above, but that there is a barrier to macroevolution. It is a positive claim awaiting evidence. Now, please can you present something other than incredulity? 100+ posts is an awfully long time to wait. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by mjfloresta, posted 09-13-2006 3:39 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 4:07 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 127 of 303 (348906)
09-13-2006 6:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-13-2006 4:07 PM
|
|
Re: No new thread is needed
Faith,
This thread is not just about defining the barrier but about the various objections to such definitions of a barrier, and those objections are just as open to refutation as anything else. I believe you think the barrier is a reduction in genetic diversity that cannot be compensated by mutation. Please provide evidence. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 4:07 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 7:21 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 131 of 303 (348918)
09-13-2006 7:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
09-13-2006 7:21 PM
|
|
Re: No new thread is needed
Faith, Like I say, "please provide evidence" that mutation is incapable of reintroducing genetic diversity. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 7:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 149 of 303 (348995)
09-14-2006 5:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
09-13-2006 11:33 PM
|
|
Re: Diversity is reduced in reality; increase has not been SHOWN
Faith,
You do NOT "know" this. This is pure THEORY, merely being asserted as fact as usual. No more evidence than your silly money-adding analogy is evidence. I ask again, Faith, please provide evidence of a barrier to macroevolution. I expext you to meet your own standard and have the evidence be so conclusive that we "know" that such a barrier exists. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Faith, posted 09-13-2006 11:33 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 179 of 303 (349173)
09-14-2006 9:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-14-2006 6:06 PM
|
|
Provide EVIDENCE!!!
Faith,
All hypothetical, Mod. My argument is that there is nothing BUT hypotheticals in favor of mutations as the explanation for a supposed gain in numbers of alleles after a bottleneck or any speciation or population splitting event. Of course it can be rationalized. The point is there is no actual evidence. But of course this thread isn't about evo's having to support their argument, it's about you supporting your contention that there is a barrier to macroevolution. For the third time of asking, please provide evidence that such a barrier exists. Requiring other people to support a counter argument is shifting the burden of proof. The veracity of your claim is not enhanced by XYZ not showing that mutation increases diversity to a required degree. Either you can show that a barrier to macroevolution exists, or you can't. Given this thread is approaching its 180th post without any attempt to provide, I have to conclude that you have no evidence that such a barrier exists. Why are you even arguing? Why didn't you start a thread titled, "A place for Evo's to provide evidence of genetic diversity being increased sufficiently by mutation so that an extrapolation over longer time periods potentially allows for macroevolution"? Wouldn't that have been more honest than just pissing in the wind with your opinion that mutation can't provide enough change for macroevolution to occur, & simultaneously shifting the burden of proof to your opponents? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-14-2006 6:06 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 213 of 303 (349547)
09-16-2006 4:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
09-15-2006 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: empirical evidence of an increase in allele diversity after a bottleneck
Faith,
RickJB writes: This IS the science forum, so I will ask for possibly the ninth time. Do you have any evidence? And I will ask for the tenth. This IS a science forum so please provide evidence. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:00 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 219 of 303 (349616)
09-16-2006 2:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
09-16-2006 12:44 PM
|
|
Re: Request to Debate Constructively
Faith,
I've provided evidence, in fact I've provided more evidence than anybody else here, actual factual scientific evidence. The claim that I haven't is some kind of delusion. My apologies, could you point to wchich post did this? Thanks, Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:44 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 231 of 303 (349747)
09-17-2006 7:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
09-17-2006 4:27 AM
|
|
Re: The debate is now about the cod allele count
Hi Faith, Could you point me to the post where you provided evidence for your position, please. Mark
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Faith, posted 09-17-2006 4:27 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 249 of 303 (349907)
09-18-2006 4:15 AM
|
|
|
Evidence
Anyone & Everyone, Faith says she has provided evidence in support of her position, but despite repeated requests to Faith to point to the particular post that does this, & trawling through the entire thread myself, I am still drawing a blank. Can anyone point me to the post where Faith provides evidence of her own position, please? Cheers, Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
™ Version 4.2
