Jump to content


Photo

Rule #6 - Why It's Important And What You Should Know About It


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 Dataforge

Dataforge

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 February 2014 - 06:04 PM

Wrong.

 

You've simplified the issue to mere exchange or variance of bases. The occurence of new functions and their fixation is much more complicated.

 

Isn't a function a result of the arrangement of bases?

 

1- Are such variances when multiplied indicative of large-scale change?

 

As per the common definition of evolution, it is merely measured as a change in the allele percentage of a population. An example of this is a population of people having 5% red hair and over a decade having 9% red hair.

 

I wasn't referring to simple change in the proportions of population that have a particular hair colour, or any feature really. I'm referring to new genetic sequences that occur through the mechanisms of microevolution.

 

Another example can be the occurrence of citrate consuming ability of bacteria outside of the normal citrate consuming conditions for that bacteria... Would the ability to consume citrate unhindered lead to large-scale structural change? Nope... (Ironic since this example is used as evidence of evolution).

 

By structural change you mean a change in morphology, instead of a change in molecular function I assume? I would have thought that a change in morphology would also be governed by genetic sequences, and would be subject to selection. Do you believe they're not governed by genetic sequences or subject to natural selection?

 

2- The second issue is the requirement for each change to be beneficial. As has been mentioned by others previously, whilst changes happen and are beneficial under certain specific conditions the overall fitness of the organism is impeded.

 

I understand this is your position. We are discussing this on the other thread so there's no need to repeat ourselves here.

 

3- Observed limitation of change

 

What are the observed limitations of change?

 

4- The fourth issue is oscillating change. Studies done with Darwin's finches mentions that the beak % for the population changed when a drought affected the population. However when the drought passed the population went back to the original % meaning no net change was observed. These results fit with the Creationist account in that God created organisms with an inbuilt capacity to adapt to a changing environment.

 

Again, I'm not referring to the proportion of the population with an already existing feature. I'm talking about new genetic sequences. Regardless, if the environment doesn't return to its ancestor's environment then wouldn't the changes not revert?

 

5- Environment as the driver of evolutionary change. Considering the ever-changing nature of the environment there could not be constant change to allow for the fixation of a trait.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you please give an example.

 

That is what this thread is for, no new thread is needed.

 

I disagree. These are all very complicated topics. If a new person comes to browse this forum for these topics it would easiest for them if they can find threads dedicated to these specific topics, rather than browsing through tangental topics on the off chance they'll be discussed there. Would you like me to create a new thread for each of these topics?



#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 February 2014 - 06:11 PM

Dataforge, I don't think Gilbo will respond in this thread. You had your response. Please review this thread for the guideline I set. If you violate the purpose of this thread further, it's a week off. Thank you.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 February 2014 - 11:20 PM

Would you like me to create a new thread for each of these topics?

 

Go ahead :)



#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:34 AM

Hi Adam,
Perhaps rule 6 should be explained here as this is where this conversation will inevitably lead to.
And btw...
Shouldn't this rule be applied both ways?
Should the creationist view of a subject that is not to be discussed be allowed to be presented here if, by rule it cannot be given the chance to be refuted?

Let's discuss this here...

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:48 AM

I think we're intentionally lenient with people regarding this subject. Sometimes you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt. They may have foolishly accepted the generalization that if they prove any variety to a creationist that the debate is won. While it's probably not unheard of, I think a lot of evolutionist propaganda props up the straw creationist, that doesn't accept micro-evolution/variations in their literature as the problem that keep us from seeing the mechanism for large scale changes.

Nonaffiliated, what do you want to discuss that you think is not allowed? You may be confused. You can talk about micro-evolution in its proper context. If you ramble on about how molecules-to-man evolution is proven with the demonstration of variations within kinds of animals... we're all too busy to entertain such shallow discussion.

Let me ask you this; How long would you hang out at a forum that used the argument about humans evolving from monkeys and the fact that monkeys still existed as proof against evolution?

...that's what I thought.

I wouldn't want to hang out there either. ;)

#26 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:45 PM

I think we're intentionally lenient with people regarding this subject. Sometimes you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt. They may have foolishly accepted the generalization that if they prove any variety to a creationist that the debate is won. While it's probably not unheard of, I think a lot of evolutionist propaganda props up the straw creationist, that doesn't accept micro-evolution/variations in their literature as the problem that keep us from seeing the mechanism for large scale changes.

Nonaffiliated, what do you want to discuss that you think is not allowed? You may be confused. You can talk about micro-evolution in its proper context. If you ramble on about how molecules-to-man evolution is proven with the demonstration of variations within kinds of animals... we're all too busy to entertain such shallow discussion.

Let me ask you this; How long would you hang out at a forum that used the argument about humans evolving from monkeys and the fact that monkeys still existed as proof against evolution?

...that's what I thought.

I wouldn't want to hang out there either. wink.png

 

Completely on board with Vegan here:

As for as arguing about board moderation... don't worry about that. This is your home and I am guest here. I always wipe my feet before entering the house.          

 

So let me know if this is appropriate here.

 

The question came up on the teeth discussion concerning the panda.

It is currently classified as a carnivore, you would consider it in the bear kind.

We both agree it has adapted from a common bear ancestor or original kind through various micro evolution variations.

So now we have a completely vegetarian bear, whose teeth have adapted to such a diet, yet it seems to have moved out of its classification of carnivore, (since its teeth are now designed to not eat meat),which is our man made classification.

Do you see where this is going? Micro evolution leading to an animal that starts to blur the lines between the classification of the bear kind.

Is this worthy of discussion here?



#27 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 February 2014 - 03:08 PM

The question came up on the teeth discussion concerning the panda.
It is currently classified as a carnivore, you would consider it in the bear kind.
We both agree it has adapted from a common bear ancestor or original kind through various micro evolution variations.
So now we have a completely vegetarian bear, whose teeth have adapted to such a diet, yet it seems to have moved out of its classification of carnivore, (since its teeth are now designed to not eat meat),which is our man made classification.
Do you see where this is going? Micro evolution leading to an animal that starts to blur the lines between the classification of the bear kind.
Is this worthy of discussion here?

 
NA, I'm a bit puzzled by your question. First of all, to clarify a few things, pandas are not purely vegetarian. They also consume rodents and other small animals. Also, nowhere did I say that panda teeth are "now designed" to not eat meat. If I may quote myself:
 

Other bears are similar to the panda, although the molars are more elongated.

 
How do you get from that statement that the lines in the bear kind have been blurred. Or are you just trained to impose "evolution" on everything?



#28 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:33 PM

Did not know that they occasionally eat rodents.

Thanks for that correction. (although upon further research only about 1% of their diet).

 

"Designed not to eat meat"

Yes, perhaps that was poorly worded as most mammals could eat meat if they really wanted to.

 

But I don't believe I ever claimed that you said that, just a comment I made on my own.

Perhaps I worded that poorly as well if you got the impression that I quoted you there.

 

However, I did get the impression from you and from my own humble research, that the teeth are designed to crush and pulverize vegetation.

 

So, no matter what side you're on, there has been a great deal of modification, so much so that we have a carnivore that rarely eats meat.

 

I happen to think that that is pushing the boundries of it classification.



#29 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:34 PM

My apologies NA, I've realised I have confused you with someone else. I retract my statement, it can be deleted if you prefer.

Gilbo, please let me know what this is in reference to and I will make amends if necessary.



#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:37 PM

Gilbo, please let me know what this is in reference to and I will make amends if necessary.

 

If you don't know then perhaps its for the best, I made the mistake and have recently deleted the post.



#31 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 February 2014 - 07:00 PM

Did not know that they occasionally eat rodents.
Thanks for that correction. (although upon further research only about 1% of their diet).
 
"Designed not to eat meat"
Yes, perhaps that was poorly worded as most mammals could eat meat if they really wanted to.
 
But I don't believe I ever claimed that you said that, just a comment I made on my own.
Perhaps I worded that poorly as well if you got the impression that I quoted you there.
 
However, I did get the impression from you and from my own humble research, that the teeth are designed to crush and pulverize vegetation.
 
So, no matter what side you're on, there has been a great deal of modification, so much so that we have a carnivore that rarely eats meat.
 
I happen to think that that is pushing the boundries of it classification.

 
See my post in the Teeth and Diet thread. I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion about bear teeth.



#32 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:06 PM

If you don't know then perhaps its for the best, I made the mistake and have recently deleted the post.

No worries, we've all been there. smile.png



#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:24 AM

Macro-evolution: change in Allele Frequency measured over a longer period.
 
Simple.


Please show us the the record of ongoing empirical measurement over a long period of time.

So you're engaging in the very thing that is warned against in the rules but moderation had allowed a topic dedicated to the subject for demonstration purposes...

The thread is already set up for you, Thistle...

http://evolutionfair...pic=5815&page=1

You should post there but I would give you some advice to read the thread prior to discussing. But I'd like to discuss your micro/macro conflation for new members to see the obtuse intellectual pretzel you're committing to. :)

Our friend Thistle is playing the "Duh, I can't see any difference between breeding long-haired and short-haired dogs and amebas turning into people..." game.

Should we take him to school?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#34 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:53 AM

Our friend Thistle is playing the "Duh, I can't see any difference between breeding long-haired and short-haired dogs and amebas turning into people..." game.

Should we take him to school?

 

Sorry, Adam. He was already booted before you posted this, or I would have left him around for you guys to play with some more.

The third strike was enough for his stay. Maybe someone else will want to play. biggrin.png



#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 August 2014 - 09:26 AM

 
Sorry, Adam. He was already booted before you posted this, or I would have left him around for you guys to play with some more.
The third strike was enough for his stay. Maybe someone else will want to play. biggrin.png


Haha! Oh, well. Maybe somebody persuaded by Thistle's narrow concepts will carry the torch for him... :D

#36 EQuestions

EQuestions

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • North America

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:54 PM

He'll be back. He'll just sign up under a new name and start all over again. I'm not so sure he isn't Will or maybe texasdave. Regardless, he'll be back. He enjoys the fight too much not to.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users