Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Reply to topic
Neatras
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:24 pm  Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!! Reply with quote

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 121: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:52 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 117 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Really, why is that.

The scientific method in any science book is as follows.
1. Observe an unexplained phenomenon.
2. Ask a testable question
3. Form a testable question
4. Form an experiment
5. Analyze results.
6. Form a conclusion
7. Communicate results


One last time, please explain why you link to creationist sites like creation.com, when they clearly do not follow the scientific method as you outline here, those sites that have statements of faith where they quite literally forbid any questioning or testing of certain dogmas, such as whether or not Noah's flood happened, where certain ancient books are declared superior to evidence gathered.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 122: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:10 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 120 by DrNoGods]
Quote:
That experiment was debunked in about a week. So what's your point? You continuously cherry pick some old event where new science shows an original result was wrong, or needed refinement, and try to present that as if it were proof of some point you are trying to make. But you obviously don't know how science actually works. New experiments and new ideas (eg. general relativity) very often supersede older results which were based on knowledge at the time they were published. You seem to think that any prior result that is subsequently shown to be in error, or incomplete, is proof that the entire field should be discarded.


The point was how it was debunked. It was debunked because their experiment was falsified because it could not be replicated. The point was this is the way that normal science works. Results are published and then others see if they get the same results.




Quote:
And there are many examples of beneficial mutations in humans and other animals. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine called Google ... correct? Search on "beneficial mutations" and you'll find plenty of articles that even a non-scientist like yourself can follow and understand.


Really, mutations that do not cause a deletion of information. Mutations do not build up in organisms causing extinction, like the H1N1 virus. How many generations can an organism survive before mutation build up kills it? The negative and neutral mutations far out way any beneficial mutation so there will always be a build up of negative mutations.

We can observe this build up in all organisms today.

Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation. All the other mutations that happen contribute to the build up that will eventually kill the organism. At least that what OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE points towards.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 123: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:


We can observe this build up in all organisms today.


Your turn. Provide evidence. The H1N1 article you cited stated that RNA viruses are prone to degradation through mutations. Specifically RNA viruses. However you have bumped up your claim to "all organisms today." Provide evidence.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 124: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 122 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Really, mutations that do not cause a deletion of information. Mutations do not build up in organisms causing extinction, like the H1N1 virus. How many generations can an organism survive before mutation build up kills it? The negative and neutral mutations far out way any beneficial mutation so there will always be a build up of negative mutations.

We can observe this build up in all organisms today.


Then explain how horseshoe crabs have been around for 445 million years, or alligators, gharials and crocodiles for 85 million years, or sturgeons for 200 million years, etc. Why hasn't a buildup of "negative" mutations killed them off?

Quote:
Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation.


What?

Quote:
All the other mutations that happen contribute to the build up that will eventually kill the organism.


So are you claiming that all extinctions are the result of the buildup of "negative" mutations? Tell that to the dinosaurs. How did they diversify into an incredible number of species over some 180 million years, and still going strong 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub impact and the Deccan Traps conspired to wipe them out? What about the 4 other mass extinctions before that which had nothing to do with buildup of "negative" mutations? How many extinction events (mass or otherwise) can be attributed to buildup of negative mutations, vs. other, completely unrelated, causes?

OBSERVATIONAl SCIENCE does not point towards a scenario where most organisms are eventually killed by a buildup of deleterious mutations. It points towards continuous diversification in order to adapt to an ever changing environment, creating new species via mutations and natural selection. It works.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 125: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:28 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

This is a great rebuttal it really gets to the key differences.

Quote:
Then explain how horseshoe crabs have been around for 445 million years, or alligators, gharials and crocodiles for 85 million years, or sturgeons for 200 million years, etc. Why hasn't a buildup of "negative" mutations killed them off?


They didn't. There is absolutely no discussion about how there are way more negative mutation that positive. We have ample observational evidence in support of that. There is ample observational evidence to support mutation build up in organism.

The next logical step would be to conclude that this build up of negative mutations would cause organism to become extinct. At the present time there is no mechanism that turns back the negative build up of mutations. I understand that H1N1 is a virus so it is not as complicated as a bacteria. It still undergoes mutations and can show the end result of mutation build-up.

Quote:
Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation.

Wow did not come out well. "dirvies mutation." sorry.

Quote:
So are you claiming that all extinctions are the result of the buildup of "negative" mutations? Tell that to the dinosaurs. How did they diversify into an incredible number of species over some 180 million years, and still going strong 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub impact and the Deccan Traps conspired to wipe them out? What about the 4 other mass extinctions before that which had nothing to do with buildup of "negative" mutations? How many extinction events (mass or otherwise) can be attributed to buildup of negative mutations, vs. other, completely unrelated, causes?


Nope, not claiming that at all. Build up of mutations would not predict mass extinctions all at the same time. I am saying that all of the "different" extinctions that we observe in the rock record are a result of one catastrophe not many catastrophes.

Quote:
OBSERVATIONAl SCIENCE does not point towards a scenario where most organisms are eventually killed by a buildup of deleterious mutations. It points towards continuous diversification in order to adapt to an ever changing environment, creating new species via mutations and natural selection. It works.


Current theory says that most organisms that have become extinct in the past has been caused by catastrophes, like the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I am not saying that genetic build up caused animals to die. I am simply saying that it is becoming hard to believe that any organism can exist millions of years of genetic build up.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 126: Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:51 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 125 by EarthScienceguy]

The individual negative mutations in a populations go extinct. Population success is measured in offspring, detrimental mutations would therefore have a lower chance to reproduce. So the individuals who have negative mutations would have fewer offspring than those who don't. And the mutation would go extinct from that population whiteout killing off the whole population. This is what we mean when we say that natural selection is a filter. Because individuals with benefits have more offspring than those without it and the inherited mutations grows in the population, while individuals with detrimental mutations gets fewer offspring then those without it and the inherited mutations go extinct.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version