Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next

Reply to topic
Donray
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:34 am  KINDS and ADAPTATION Reply with quote

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals” that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 391: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:01 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:
A few things:

Firstly, you possibly didn’t understand my criticism of the study you cited. It’s a mathematical model, not an experimental observation. I asked whether it had been compared with actual observed large population studies. Since the authors acknowledge the large number of biological factors affecting population changes over time, it would be useful to compare the real world with their model. You are very fond of calling for ‘direct’ evidence when it suits, I notice. Why not in this instance?


Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced. It is not an extrapolation based upon an a priori but rather a summary of such results and how they confirm the accuracy and consistency of the mathematical model.

Quote:
Why can you assign this? This is nothing more than you dismissing evidence without basis.

Au contraire, I am dismissing a ‘basis’ that has no ‘evidence’. If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct. What evidence do you have to show that 861.3 million species ever existed? It is certainly not in the fossil record? What evidence is there of these supposed 861.3 million different species? What is the evidence for this figure? Or is it just extrapolation according to the a priori of ToE?

Quote:
Thirdly, I love how you had to add ‘according to evolutionary thinking’ when you are citing fossil evidence to disprove the importance of Tiktaalik. Either your evidence is sound, in which case you don’t need to imply the dates could be wrong, or it isn’t- in which case you shouldn’t even bring it up. Why not agree with me about the true age of those fossils and save yourself a lot of mental gymnastics?


No, the purpose of my referencing the paper that I did was to show that evolutionary or naturalistic scientists no longer accept Tiktaalik as the transitional they once did.
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking”, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches. Unfortunately, in the past, after earlier citing evolutionary based papers, some members have later accused me of contradicting myself by thinking in ‘millions of years’ here and only ‘thousands of years’ there. I’m just citing actual evidence from the author’s standpoint, not that I agree with the a priori behind it. Hope that clears it up.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 392: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:01 am
Reply

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 391 by Still small]

Before I address your responses, I would like to point out that your persistent use of the phrase a priori isn’t helping to advance the debate. I went backwards through the thread to page 30 to try and tally the number of occasions you’ve included it in your posts. The first mention of it that I’ve seen was in post 314. From then on, we have had:

Post 325: 5 instances
Post 331: 1 instance
Post 334: 3 instances
Post 352: 3 instances
Post 354: 1 instance
Post 355: 4 instances
Post 383: 1 instance
Post 385: 2 instances
Post 387: 1 instance
Post 391: 4 instances

I’m not the only one to have noticed this. You were called on it roughly halfway through that posting period:
DrNoGods wrote:

You've used a priori many times before with the implication that science can be interpreted in different ways, and it is just a matter of that interpretation that is important.

Let’s clear up what we mean when we use the phrase ‘a priori’.

The a priori fallacy occurs when someone decides ahead of time what the conclusion to an argument is, then either only considers evidence that supports that conclusion, or, twists what evidence there is to support their predetermined conclusion.

You appear to be using it differently, as an attack on scientific enquiry by equating basic propositions (axioms) with assumptions (hypotheses). For example, the axiom that gravity exerts a force of 9.8Nm-2 can be incorporated into hypotheses of how planets and galaxies move in relation to each other. Think of science as having to keep answering a child who asks, “Ah, but how do we know that?” Once you get to the most ‘solid’, known facts about the physical world, you can be more confident of using them as your ‘building blocks’ for testable hypotheses. And of course, the more successful the hypothesis in predicting experimental results, the more axiomatic the underlying assumptions become. Thus, our ability to predetermine where a particular planet will be several years in the future, by applying axioms of orbital mechanics.

Therefore, an important question you need to answer (if continuing to use the phrase ‘a priori’ is to have any value to the discussion) is: “What are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?”

This is important, because otherwise, you’re simply saying (in effect), “ah, but your assumptions are wrong!” without clearly demonstrating either which assumptions you are referring to, or what exactly is wrong with them.

_______________________________________________________________

OK, back to your response above.

Quote:
Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced.

I know that. I looked at the references, which is why I asked the question. In fairness to you, it was rhetorical, but I was really just hoping that you’d consider other evidence that doesn’t necessarily support your conclusion.

Quote:
If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct.

We could perhaps go back and forth over who’s extrapolating more, but for the purpose of debate, we could agree on that figure if you like. After all, scientists know that plants and animals only fossilize under special conditions: usually in sedimentary rock, and almost never if the species lacks hard features like bone, shell, or teeth. They also know that a lot of fossils are lost to tectonic activity, and many more still are just impossible for us to access (depth, extreme environments). Therefore, the relatively miniscule number of fossilised species discovered would be expected to constitute only a small fraction of the total number of species that ever existed. Remember that this includes microbes, algae, zooplankton, fungii, etc. Not just the ‘animals’. Claiming that we should see 861.3m species of fossil is simply absurd.

And if anyone’s asking, “how could 861.3m species disappear?”, then have a read about ‘extinction events’ here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Quote:
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking”, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches.

<bolding mine>

OK, so please explain the logical steps you have used to reach this belief, and also demonstrate that this is not reached using a priori assumptions.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 393: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
StillSmall cannot explin his belief in creation by an invisible wizard in the sky.

I have asked him several time to provide a timeline of what happen when and he cannot even do that. I have asked for a list of the animals (at least a few) that were on the ark and that "adapted" into todays with some fossil record and distribution path. Again the best that he comes up with is "I don't know, the wizard did it all".

All the StillSmall (and other creationists) do is try to discredit science through the use of bad articles written by other creationists.

Small cannot think for himself and answer question and just uses other creationist science fiction to make himself fell good about his beliefs. Like other Christians they have nothing to live for if there god is not real. After all, the only good thing for them is dying and getting to heaven.

Thus far creationists are unable to provide a test book that could be used to teach there belief at a college level.

StillSmall cannot answer even simple question about his belief without saying that he does not understand why or how his wizard does things, but he knows that his wizard can do anything so

Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 394: Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.


Yes. As a matter of fact I can. Being set free from this belief was very hard. I assume others live their lives in fear of a hell, or at least in a hope for a heaven.

If I was a god, and wanted to bless those that are good. I would favor those that are good for goodness sake over those that are scared or bribed into being good.

A 'good' atheist would have more integrity than a person acting good to please a god concept so they can avoid some punishment or achieve some end goal like a heaven. I have to wonder if believers ever consider this while feeling that atheists or those that don't worship their perferred god concept deserve to go to hell.

Maybe thats why the latest Pope says even atheists can go to heaven?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 395: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:59 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:

We know that evolutionary change at that scale only occurs over millions of years. So anyone presenting what they claim to be direct evidence of such a change would be dismissed as mistaken.

Actually, evolution on ToE scales doesn’t take ‘millions of years’, it takes millions of generations. An example which I have posted on numerous occasions is that of Lenski's on-going experiment with E. coli. It basically asks the question: "How evolutionary change can occur in E. coli under a restricted diet in lab conditions?" The 30-year exercise remains extremely repeatable. It uses very direct measurements, even to the level of analysing time-stamped, freeze-dried bacterial genomes from generations long past (link). Now Lenski's research clearly shows 'microevolution' or adaption occurred in these bacteria but it took 33,000 generations and about 10 trillion individual E. coli in order to merely duplicate one gene and damage another (link). And they are still E. coli. This would be an example of "something like A begets a different style of A - maybe a cursive A or a Roman script or perhaps Comic Sans or Century Gothic" but it certainly is nowhere near 'macro evolution'. This is an example of high-confidence science, being testable, observable and repeatable.
Richard Lenski’s ongoing study of E. coli has documented many minor genetic changes over 67,000 generations. One particular change—the development of an ability to metabolize citrate—was hailed by some as a marvel of evolutionary accomplishment. Upon determination of the genetic changes, however, all of the genetic components were already present; the new ability had resulted from changes in the expression of two existing genes (link 1 & link 2). This is a clear example of adaptation but not macro-evolution, as such.
In a study that was 10 million times as large as the Lenski study, malarial parasites developed resistance to chloroquine. The genetic changes in this case included an accumulation of four to eight point mutations in one gene. The malaria that evolved resistance were also found to be at a disadvantage when chloroquine was not present. (link). Again, adaptation not macro-evolution.

Quote:
However, there have been many good examples of indirect observations made that support ‘changes at the family level’. This has come about through the discovery of what are called ‘molecular clocks’ as well as interdisciplinary research between evolution and genetics - including something called phylogenomics.

The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time. And as with many evolutionary dating methods, there are also a number of conflicting dating between various aspects.
Since its first use in the early 1960s, molecular genetic clock methodologies assume evolution and deep-time calibrations taken from paleontology. In addition, the following problems plague its use: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. Because the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, recent discoveries in full codon utility and pervasive genome-wide biochemical functionality negate its foundational premise.” - (link)

Quote:
It’s that ‘gene family evolution’ aspect that concentrates on establishing the common ancestor of two different species by comparing complete gene sets, and using them to describe detailed genetic ‘family trees’. All descendants of a particular organism on such a tree comprise what’s known as a ‘clade’, which could be at any level (order, family, genus, etc).

Forgive me if I’m wrong but I assume your use of the term ‘gene family evolution’ you are referring to -
- ”Gene families comprise several to many genes of similar nucleotide or amino acid sequences; they share similar cellular functions and commonly arise as a result of gene or genome duplication events.” (link) -
which leads to the idea of common genes with common functionality in different species are inherited from a common ancestor thereby reinforcing the standard image of the ‘tree of life’. The idea of common genes being an indication of common ancestry can, under a creationist view, be explained by the idea of ‘common design by a Common Designer’. Where different organisms have or share similar functions, a Designer can use the same gene set to perform the same functions, e.g. a motor vehicle can have wheels just as a stroller has wheels, as does a scooter and skateboard. They may appear different with different purposes but the same basic wheel design concepts can be used in all. Or, as the saying goes, “you don’t need to re-invent the wheel”.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 396: Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:12 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): benchwarmer, brunumb
Still small wrote:
Actually, evolution on ToE scales doesn’t take ‘millions of years’, it takes millions of generations.

<snip>

Richard Lenski’s ongoing study of E. coli has documented many minor genetic changes over 67,000 generations.

So we can perhaps infer that in 6,700,000 generations, we’d expect to see approximately 100x the number of genetic changes. One part of the study’s recent conclusion that you avoided mentioning was that there was evidence of some separated populations being ‘on their way to speciation’ - in other words, becoming a new species, not E.coli.

Quote:
The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time.

The source for that argument is a creationist website. I’ll leave it up to the general reader to decide whether a truly unbiased, evidence-based approach is being used or not.

Quote:
The idea of common genes being an indication of common ancestry can, under a creationist view, be explained by the idea of ‘common design by a Common Designer’.

The ‘Common Designer’ argument fails the test of Occam’s Razor, as genetic evolution can be more fully explained by observable, testable independent experiment, whereas ‘God did it’ has to introduce the extra step of a deity’s involvement.

Either God drew up the ‘plans’ and just ‘set off’ the natural processes that we now call genetics, OR he’s personally involved in every single genetic change that’s ever happened and ever will. In the former case, we can just as easily describe the process without God. If you are arguing the latter position, then God is responsible for every genetic disorder that exists (examples in the link below) as well as for some very poor designs, e.g. the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe (Link: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laryngeal_nerve)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

Another point to ponder for the general reader: we’re forty pages into this debate, and really no further forward. It’s perhaps rather telling that the discussion is repeatedly side-tracked from the original discussion, and demands for evidence to back up claims are often studiously ignored.

Still small, on what (scientific) basis do you believe tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species, and when did they live on Earth?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 397: Fri Oct 04, 2019 9:47 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:
Therefore, an important question you need to answer (if continuing to use the phrase ‘a priori’ is to have any value to the discussion) is: “What are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?”

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in responding but I have been ‘off the grid’ for a while. (And it may be some time before I get back on again after this session, so please, I ask for your patience.)
Secondly, let me clarify that my use of ‘a priori’ is in accordance to the definition as supplied by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, being -
a pri·o·ri  (ä′ prē-ôr′ē, ā′ prī-ôr′ī)
adj.
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2.a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2.b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
(American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)
” (Emphasis added)
Therefore, it is not so much scientific axioms which I am disputing but rather assumptions, or premises “[d]erived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience”, or “not supported by factual study” such as evolution via mutations, duplication and natural selection going beyond the Family level of taxonomy. This belief by evolutionary scientist is based solely upon extrapolation and assumption. This has never been proven via the scientific method.
Don’t get me wrong, we ALL have a priori according to the bias of our chosen worldview. My continual mentioning of the a priori is just to remind others that our views are not necessarily based on the proven fact which some believe them to be. If they were proven facts then we’d have nothing to discuss on this forum. Unfortunately, some are convinced that their particular a priori is ‘proven fact’ and have never been challenged to question it. Science is not an error-free enterprise, so arguments need to be carefully evaluated.

_______________________________________________________________

Quote:
OK, back to your response above. . . . .

We could perhaps go back and forth over who’s extrapolating more, but for the purpose of debate, we could agree on that figure if you like. After all, scientists know that plants and animals only fossilize under special conditions: usually in sedimentary rock, and almost never if the species lacks hard features like bone, shell, or teeth. They also know that a lot of fossils are lost to tectonic activity, and many more still are just impossible for us to access (depth, extreme environments). Therefore, the relatively miniscule number of fossilised species discovered would be expected to constitute only a small fraction of the total number of species that ever existed. Remember that this includes microbes, algae, zooplankton, fungii, etc. Not just the ‘animals’. Claiming that we should see 861.3m species of fossil is simply absurd. (Emphasis added)

That figure (861.3 million) is not absurd, it is deduced by your quoted assumption that 99% of all species which have ever existed having gone extinct. Therefore, the remaining known 8.7 million species must represent 1%. It’s simple mathematics. Regardless of the actual number, how do you know that the supposed ‘99%’ ever existed? You have already stated the rarity of the fossilisation process and many may also have been lost. How do you know that they ever existed in the first place? Granted, there have been mass extinction episodes but on what do ‘you’ base this ‘99%’ figure?

Quote:
Quote:
. . . . I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches.

<bolding mine>

OK, so please explain the logical steps you have used to reach this belief, and also demonstrate that this is not reached using a priori assumptions.


Firstly, let me say again, we all have a priori on which we base our worldview. I believe that the original tetrapod ancestor was created at the same time as the original Tiktaalik ancestor. Each original ancestor or kind then, was created each with a complete set of genetic information to allow for adaptation to various environmental niches (speciation). Each new population of adaptation (species), either through epigenetics or loss of existing genetic information and, to a minor degree, mutations continued to adapt via natural selection. This adaptation appears to be limited to within the taxonomic level of Family as shown via experimentation and the fossil record which often sees the abrupt appearance of life forms without evolutionary precursors, then stasis.
That would be the reasoning for my belief that tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species. This along with the finding of tetrapod tracks some 18 million years before the the oldest fossils of Tiktaalik (link) according to the evolutionists’ interpretation of the geological column. As we still have tetrapods today, they must have been present also when Tiktaalik was present, thus being concurrent.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 398: Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:05 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:
So we can perhaps infer that in 6,700,000 generations, we’d expect to see approximately 100x the number of genetic changes. One part of the study’s recent conclusion that you avoided mentioning was that there was evidence of some separated populations being ‘on their way to speciation’ - in other words, becoming a new species, not E.coli.

Firstly, let’s remember that E.coli is a species of bacteria of which there are already many variations or species of bacteria falling into two main groupings -
Gram Positve -
* Streptococcus
* Staphylococcus
* Clostridium botulinum
Gram Negative -
* Gonorrhea
* Escherichia coli (E. coli)
* Pseudomonas aeruginosa
* Acinetobacter baumannii
* Cholera
These species can also develop sub-species, for example, the superbug MRSA is a staphylococcus species, remembering that they are all still bacteria. This variation or speciation can come about via epigenetics and/or mutations.
Let’s have a look at the possibility of random, unguided mutations being the able to bring about the necessary changes required for this speciation. In a research study, Gauger and Axe took two proteins (Kbl and BioF) from E.coli that look extremely similar but have distinct functions. Bacteria are genetic workhorses for evolutionary research, precisely because they are capable of rapid adaptation - as long as it takes only one or two mutations. Three coordinated mutations are a stretch even for bacteria, if all of the intermediates are neutral (have no beneficial effect for the organism). But for one of these two enzymes to evolve the other’s function, it would take at least seven and probably many more mutations. The waiting time for seven coordinated neutral mutations, so as not to be eliminated by natural selection, to arise in a bacterial population is on the order of 1027 years. To put that in some sort of perspective, remember that the universe is only about 1010 years old. It can’t have happened.

Quote:
Quote:
The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time.

The source for that argument is a creationist website. I’ll leave it up to the general reader to decide whether a truly unbiased, evidence-based approach is being used or not.

And I shall leave it up to the general reader to decide whether or not your comment is based upon your philosophical bias against research which may oppose your view on this subject. This attempt to discredit the linked article is similar to an ad hominem whereby trying to discredit the source due to an inability to discredit the actual findings of the paper.

Quote:
The ‘Common Designer’ argument fails the test of Occam’s Razor, as genetic evolution can be more fully explained by observable, testable independent experiment, whereas ‘God did it’ has to introduce the extra step of a deity’s involvement.

The main problem with your argument here, is that your explanation has absolutely no starting point to compare with the ‘God did it’ step you claim I introduce. Your argument fails, scientifically, to even start the race. If you wish to have a fair comparison, let us both start from the point with life somehow existing. I believe the standard evolutionary process is that this life started (by an unknown process) as a single cell, being the very start of the single ‘tree of life’, which somehow multiplied. Over time, from the copying mistakes and duplications, natural selection gradually ‘weeded out’ the organisms with the copying mistakes in DNA which was previously required to function for survival and reproduction but no longer did so. These organisms, therefore, had no advantage over other organisms whose ‘copying mistakes and duplications’ provided functions which allowed them to better survive the existing or new environment. Now these ‘copying mistakes and duplications’ which caused changes in the organisms did not occur by providing complete advantageous function in a single step. These new functions occur by changing one nucleotide at a time but without causing loss of functionality for survival. These changes or copying mistakes gradually accumulate in an unguided process but, by chance, at the right point in the right section of DNA, again without causing loss of functionality, being neutral in effect so as to avoid being deleted by natural selection. This continues until somehow a new combination of nucleotides provide a new function. Now, for the general reader, this new function is not something like a complete eye or wing. No, it is merely a new protein which facilitates a new function within the cell’s mechanisms. To produce something like an eye would require millions upon millions of these small single changes occurring in the right unguided sequence , in the same section out of millions of DNA sections and without causing loss of functionality. This accumulation until complete must go unnoticed by natural selection (being near neutral) so as to be passed onto one generation after another to enable the next unguided copying mistake to add to the sequence. Also this accumulation must be reproduced several times throughout a population so as to avoid the great possibility of being lost because of some other loss of vital functionality caused by a multitude of deleterious mutations. How long does it take for one function to arrive by one neutral or near neutral copying mistake at a time, at one generation at a time? The rate of one mutation of the correct type, in the right sequence, at the right time (what is known as a beneficial mutation ) is 1 in 1000 neutral or deleterious mutations that could remove the sequence bearing organisms by natural selection. This process continues on until we arrive at the millions of various surviving species we see today (plus many more lost along the way).

Now, starting from the point with life somehow existing, again starting from an unknown process, I believe this starting point involved multiple ‘trees of life’ as opposed to a single tree. An ‘orchard of life’ as some may refer to it. This is supported by the abrupt appearance and then stasis of complete life forms found with in the geological column. (I believe the geological column to be a record of layers formed during a catastrophic flood event with fossils found as a record of rapid burial within particular niches. But that’s another story for another time.). Each original life form or baramin then reproduced allowing for limited variation from existing genetic information. This variation or speciation allowed for the adaptation to environmental niches of the time. This variation appears, by all scientific experimentation, to be limited to within a range similar to the taxonomic level of Family.

Quote:
Either God drew up the ‘plans’ and just ‘set off’ the natural processes that we now call genetics, OR he’s personally involved in every single genetic change that’s ever happened and ever will. In the former case, we can just as easily describe the process without God.


Actually both but neither is truly correct. God drew up the ‘plans’, with a full set of genetic information for each particular baramin knowing, in advance, the result of each genetic variation. Such things which may be considered ‘poor design’ are sometimes the result of God withdrawing from some aspects of authority over His creation due to His allowance of man’s freewill and subsequent results. (Again, another story for another time and sub-forum.)

Quote:
Another point to ponder for the general reader: we’re forty pages into this debate, and really no further forward. It’s perhaps rather telling that the discussion is repeatedly side-tracked from the original discussion, and demands for evidence to back up claims are often studiously ignored.

Well I agree yet I can’t help it if some others cannot/do not read my posts or try to distract by running off on side-track issues but I have on a number of occasions outlined my understanding of ‘Kinds and Adaptation’ via speciation from the original baramin or ‘created kind’ through epigenetics and specialisation for various environmental niches starting, I believe, from page 2

Quote:
Still small, on what (scientific) basis do you believe tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species, and when did they live on Earth?


I believe I addressed this point in my previous post but on a ‘(scientific) basis’ from your perspective (evolutionary), the finding of tetrapod tracks in levels below that where Tiktaalik fossils were found. This should indicate, from your perspective, that tetrapods existed before Tiktaalik and as tetrapods still exits, they also must have existed during the time of Tiktaalik. Thus being concurrent species. As a general guide, tetrapods were and are terrestrial and Tiktaalik appears to be aquatic or semi-aquatic much like ‘guppies’ and ‘mudskippers’ of today. As to the question, ‘when did they live on Earth?’, both definitely before the flood which buried them with tetrapods also continuing to exist today in various forms. As for Tiktaalik, being a specific species, other species within the Family may also and probably do exist today.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 399: Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:37 am
Reply

Like this post (2): brunumb, Difflugia
There are a lot of points from the previous two posts by Still small that warrant a response, but I’d prefer to direct some of my post to the wider audience, so haven’t included the usual ‘Replying to’ header. Also, got a blank post the first time, so I will post in two parts:

1. The use of ‘a priori’
I don’t have an issue with anyone using this phrase in its sense of definition (1) as quoted above, i.e. ‘deductive’. I do, however, take offence at people using it in the sense of ‘without reference to facts’ unless they can clearly show how this is is a true statement. Science does rest upon assumptions, yes - but when practiced properly, any assumptions made are stated openly for other scientists to test and question repeatedly, and are discarded or changed when proved false.

Quote:
...such as evolution via mutations, duplication and natural selection going beyond the Family level of taxonomy. This belief by evolutionary scientist is based solely upon extrapolation and assumption. This has never been proven via the scientific method.

Here’s a good example of why I get upset reading rubbish like the quote above. It took me all of about fifteen seconds to type ‘evidence for macroevolution’ into Google to find an extremely well-written paper that explains the scientific case for ‘common descent’:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

To the general reader, I urge you to consider whether anyone blithely stating that there’s ‘no evidence’ for something has really made the effort to look for said evidence.

Quote:
we ALL have a priori according to the bias of our chosen worldview

Sadly, this is an all too common false equivalence thrown up like a smokescreen by creationists. Again, “science adjusts its views based on what’s observed”. It’s that ‘observed’ bit that tells us that science isn’t in the business of deciding what’s true beforehand, without examination. The fundamental essence of science is experimentation.

2) The fossil record
I think you may have misunderstood my italicised ‘should’, but not to worry. I’m more interested in this statement:

Quote:
Granted, there have been mass extinction episodes but on what do ‘you’ base this ‘99%’ figure?

<underlining mine>

Are you accepting that mass extinctions have happened in the past? If so, can you state how many you think there were, and approximately when they occurred? The reason for asking is that I understood you to be a Young-Earth Creationist, so I’m having trouble conceiving of how the evidence of mass extinctions can be incorporated into that worldview. And if it can, please show how this is not an a priori claim.

3) Tiktaalik and mutations
Quote:
Each new population of adaptation (species), either through epigenetics or loss of existing genetic information and, to a minor degree, mutations continued to adapt via natural selection. This adaptation appears to be limited to within the taxonomic level of Family as shown via experimentation and the fossil record which often sees the abrupt appearance of life forms without evolutionary precursors, then stasis.

I can do no better in reply than once again directing the general reader to the FAQ section of http://www.talkorigins.org/. Particularly relevant to this debate, I’d recommend ‘Macroevolution’, ‘Are Mutations Harmful’, and ‘The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation plus Selection’. There are many more articles, all of which reference multiple published studies and are periodically updated, but I accept that not everyone wishes to spend a long time reading them. My point, again made for the general reader, is this: when blanket statements claiming that evidence is limited or non-existent for a particular theory can be so easily shown to be false, then it only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic concerned.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 400: Tue Oct 08, 2019 1:36 am
Reply

Like this post (2): brunumb, Difflugia
Moving onto the second of the two preceding posts:

4) Bacteria and ‘coordinated mutations
Quote:
Let’s have a look at the possibility of random, unguided mutations being the able to bring about the necessary changes required for this speciation.

This leads into a fairly well-known (and definitely wrong) argument about statistical improbability. I invite the general reader who might be persuaded by this argument to consider the opposing view, again from an article at the talkorigins FAQ website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

In particular, scroll down to section 1.2.3 ‘Statistical impossibility of proteins?’.

5) The ‘ad hominem’ argument
From the same article immediately linked to above, I once again invite the general reader to scroll down to the end, where you’ll find section 6.4 ‘A postscript on creationist standards of scientific scholarship’. It’s three paragraphs long, and sets out the author’s experience of debating with a Dr. Gish (a creationist), and his reasons why he believes creationist arguments are widely rejected by the scientific community. I reject creationism for exactly the same reasons.

6) The Common Designer argument
Quote:
your explanation has absolutely no starting point to compare with the ‘God did it’ step you claim I introduce.

I think (but please correct me if I’m wrong), that this ‘starting point’ alludes to the extant ‘open problem’ of abiogenesis. In that case, that is a separate issue, as the theory of evolution does not and never has attempted to explain how life first arose. Your argument is therefore a straw man.

The paragraph continues with a reasonable simple description of evolution, although obviously I’d encourage the interested reader to seek a better understanding elsewhere. The interesting thing (to me) is found in the subsequent paragraph, outlining a creationist view, where we on two separate occasions see the phrase ‘another story for another time’. First of all, the word ‘story’ is revealing in itself, but it also shows the paucity of evidence to support the theory suggested. To be crystal-clear, what’s the evidence for claiming this:?
Quote:
Such things which may be considered ‘poor design’ are sometimes the result of God withdrawing from some aspects of authority over His creation

Are you proceeding from a known, or an assumed cause, when you say such things, Still small?

In spite of a few diversions from the main point, I feel there might be a glimmer of progress here. After all, you have apparently accepted that some mutations occur due to natural selection, as well as the fact that mass extinction events have occurred. But given that I’ve provided some comprehensive resources outlining evolutionary theory, could you let us know what are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?

Oh, and in response to your ‘going off-grid’ for a while, no problem at all. No need to apologise. Enjoy the time off.

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

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 37, 38, 39, 40, 41  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version