Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Plausible?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:33 AM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

Attached File  evo p-take.jpg   57.47KB   5 downloads


  • Blitzking and KenJackson like this

#2 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 July 2016 - 03:13 PM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

attachicon.gifevo p-take.jpg

 

Exactly! AND you are already letting them have the assumption that the "Earliest" creatures were somehow magically able to evolve themselves from MUD!  It takes 100 times the faith to believe in the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man than it does in the book of Genesis..

 

So, just to make it clear, we have the following models..

 

(1) Slow plodding incremental Darwinian Evolution...

(2) Punctuated Equilibrium and Hopeful Monsters...

(3) 500 MYO "Living Fossils"

 

So therefore "Evolution" is

 

(1) Slow

(2) Fast

(3) Static

 

See how easy it is when one writes up a Science Fiction novel About The Past?

You get to make it up as you go along! After all.... Who is Going to PROVE YOU WRONG!!



#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 July 2016 - 07:05 PM

Mud-to-Magistrate Evolution sounds and looks plausible, until you start thinking about it. 

 

I take the guess you are arguing that, when Amoeba-to-Artist took almost half a billion years to happen, why did there not happen much half a billion year before that? I think that's valid. But I guess the excuse will be that "something happened" between the phases, that was "a real game changer".

 

They can keep you guessing all the time whether that is really the case and whether that is really causal in the matter. Until they're confronted with the next problem, and then they start over again. They don't insist on certainty, or so they say, but they get pretty pissed, when you challenge their narrative and world view. Lot's of people's belief in Evolution depends on accepting a number of premises or what premises they would be excluding a priori. 



#4 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 25 July 2016 - 07:06 AM

You expect me to believe that you flew to a different continent in 12 hours, when I haven't moved more than 20 miles in that time? Hogwash!
  • GodlessGamer likes this

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2016 - 10:19 AM

 

 

Popoi: You expect me to believe that you flew to a different continent in 12 hours, when I haven't moved more than 20 miles in that time? 

 

The difference being that with your example there are two stories. Planes can fly and they can stand still, which is a proven fact. What are the proven facts of life from the fossils? Answer: that they reproduce according to kind. If you don't believe me, see my "list of unchanged organisms" thread.

 

Ergo, your plane is not analogous because plane-flight is proven, evolution isn't, so it still remains implausible to believe that in 400 million years jellyfish would remain jellyfish and have no evolutionary, "need" to change, yet all of those other creatures that are in stable environments, needed to change to the level of an immensely bizarre story.

 

Like Blitzking said, evo has any ability the evolutionists creates for it.

 

It's a contradiction. If all of those cambrian forms haven't changed then why would all of that macro-evolution happen in those other areas to just an extreme degree of overkill without a trace?

 

Doesn't matter what you say, it's rationally incredulous. Deep down I think you must know it is.



#6 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 July 2016 - 07:41 AM

Is this another topic where no real substance is posted?

 

Ergo, your plane is not analogous because plane-flight is proven, evolution isn't, so it still remains implausible to believe that in 400 million years jellyfish would remain jellyfish and have no evolutionary, "need" to change, yet all of those other creatures that are in stable environments, needed to change to the level of an immensely bizarre story.

What stable environments?



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 July 2016 - 09:07 AM

Is this another one-liner from Fjuri? :P



#8 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 July 2016 - 11:04 AM

Is this another one-liner from Fjuri? :P

That's as much text as your original post..

So far my replies here in this topic contained 2 ;)



#9 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 November 2016 - 11:16 AM

"What are the proven facts of life from the fossils? Answer: that they reproduce according to kind."

 

Erm no. It's that descendants (children etc) are typically slightly different from ancestors (parents etc). 

 

Even in a single generation of say humans not all children vary from each other, and also vary in their similarity to their parents. Some resemble parents closely, others are slightly more different. 

 

So given a longer period of time and many more generations, some lineages (e.g. family lines) might become radically altered over time, while other lineages don't vary so much.

 

Going back to the early days of life before say pre 480 mya, that during that 'earlier; time the complexity within cell is predicted to have changed remarkably from the earliest 'proto-cells'(in essence just some replicating material and a bag to contain that) into highly complex structures, e.g. with increasing differentiation (compartmentalisation) into structural subareas (organelles for example), increasingly complex chains of chemical processing structures (protein cycles etc), increasingly complex external signalling and detection (external binding proteins), increasingly complex internal transport systems (e.g. to move broken down ingested things within the cell) etc .... it's simply madness to suggest 'nothing' happened for the first few million years after cells first formed. 



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 November 2016 - 12:09 PM

 

 

NNJamerson: Erm no. It's that descendants (children etc) are typically slightly different from ancestors (parents etc).

 

Sorry, but children changing slightly from their parents, if that is a change accumulating, could be seen in King Tut. That change is actually the variety provided by the heterozygosity in the already existing gene pool.

 

The amount of variability from already-existing information is 10504

 

"with humans, the mothers and fathers halves each have 25,000 genes. ...humans have an average heterozygosity of 6.7%.This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 1,675 heterozygous loci overall...so there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original kinds could each give rise to very different varieties." - Dr Sarfati pg 44, The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

 

But to assume that those small changes you talk about, are leading somewhere, I am afraid is a non-sequitur, they are simply the expression of genes, for one allele could be dormant or recessive and another can be dominant, in regards to that locus, or you can get a combination. So this is proven genetics.

 

Conclusion: this proven variability in genetics can be shown to be the natural shuffling of loci, meaning we don't need any kind of evolutionary explanation for the variability you are talking about, as the explanation is a shuffling of existing information.

 

So much for your argument that because of superficial changes with each generation, this somehow means evolution. The small changes with each different generation comes because each father and mother is unique when combined together, as no other people on earth are that mother and father. Also, the shuffling of alleles, be they recessive, dominant, or merged, are also random, meaning the changes in the children are logically guaranteed, and it has nothing to do with any evolution because this variability is always guaranteed even without any evolution.

 

:acigar:

 

 

 

.NNJ: .. it's simply madness to suggest 'nothing' happened for the first few million years after cells first formed. 

 

It's simply madness to believe that NNJamerson didn't play games as a child, for all of those thousands of years of his childhood.


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#11 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 November 2016 - 11:18 PM

is evolution plausible?
it depends on how you define evolution.
if you take evolution to mean a ground up approach (molecules to man) no, evolution is not plausible.
there are too many "reactions" that will need to happen and the starting and/or ending products will not be what is needed (a wrong or misfolded proteine for example)

if you define evolution to mean a change in DNA from a mother cell then yes, evolution happens every day.

if you define evolution as some kind of gradual, accumulating, and optimizing process then no.
  • Gneiss girl likes this

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 November 2016 - 06:19 AM

"What if", you are quite right, it does depend upon the definition. I would define evolution as macro-evolution because that is it's most general meaning. If the scientific community changed their definition to changes to DNA and changes in allele frequencies in gene pools, as long as they don't include molecules-to-man then I could accept that definition. But they don't define it that way, and the semantics used by atheists and evolutionists online, leads them to abusing the term so that they can indulge in equivocation.

 

The most famous example of this bait-and-switch tactic, is Richard Dawkins, on camera, asking scientists for the people watching, "is evolution a fact?" To which the scientists will say "oh yes, absolutely." But whether Dawkins does it wittingly or unwittingly, the fact is the "fact" the scientists are referring to, is highly likely to be a change in the frequency of genes in any given population, natural selection, and basically micro-evolution.

 

The picture in the opening message shows how unreasonable macro-evolution is to believe given that in 500 million alleged years, jellyfish became jellyfish and snails became snails but we are asked also to believe that a fish became an amphibian and amphibian became a reptile, reptiles became mammals, mammals changed their minds got into the sea and became whales, some became dugong-progenitors, but a relative of dugongs changed their mind and went back to land to have a relative with elephants, which changed their mind and evolved back into the sea eventually became dugongs. Meanwhile a dinosaur became a sparrow which became tweety pie. Oh the last part about tweetie pie is wrong, but if we include tweetie pie will it really make this story I am telling you, any less absurd in it's obvious fiction?

 

If the alternative is that the Lord God made all life, as evidenced by the innumerable teaming creative things that exist, is that really absurd? Granted it can be hard to imagine a person that can't fully be defined but then had you never seen a squid before or an octopus, would you not believe it an absurd fiction from a monster movie? God is only unbelievable because we can't fathom who He is fully, because of our finite minds, but evolution is just plain absurd.



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:38 AM

From a different topic:

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed. 

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

 

I'd like to add now:

Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this.

Creationists typically explain the diversity of "sub-kinds" by some form of "micro evolution". Every "kind" of animal was on the arc, and after the arc, they split up into different "sub-kinds". The genetic diversity of these "sub-kinds" can usually be explained by this. There is one exception (I know of) though, namely, the Cheetah. The Cheetah are so genetically similar they exhibit only a small fraction of the genetic variability when compared to other feline species. They're often referred to as clones of each other, which is a slight exaggeration, but not by much.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

 

Fjuri: The genetic diversity of these "sub-kinds" can usually be explained by this. There is one exception (I know of) though, namely, the Cheetah. The Cheetah are so genetically similar they exhibit only a small fraction of the genetic variability when compared to other feline species

 

"The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two."

 

(Of course, you have to remember that BEFORE the flood there was time for some variability. I am no baraminologist but there may be the possibility that the three kinds of cat taken aboard the ark may have also came from one or two original kinds at creation, further back than the flood, but it seems unlikely. If we see genetics as a means to get a job done and similarity not necessarily having anything to do with genetics, it is possible some organisms with similar genes were never related to other organisms. Like chimps and humans, chimps are somewhat close genetically but that doesn't mean they were ever anything more than apes.)



#15 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:42 PM

"What if", you are quite right, it does depend upon the definition. I would define evolution as macro-evolution because that is it's most general meaning.

yes, that seems to be a logical choice.
speciation is basically the same animal with more fur.
or the same tulip with broader thicker leaves.
but i've also read about reptiles "growing" an extra organ within a few generations.
this has to be the result of epigenetics/ regulatory networks.
 

the scientific community changed their definition to changes to DNA and changes in allele frequencies in gene pools, as long as they don't include molecules-to-man then I could accept that definition. But they don't define it that way, and the semantics used by atheists and evolutionists online, leads them to abusing the term so that they can indulge in equivocation.

there are valid reasons to discount statistical analysis.
and the molecules to man doesn't have a plausible solution.
 

The most famous example of this bait-and-switch tactic, is Richard Dawkins, on camera, asking scientists for the people watching, "is evolution a fact?" To which the scientists will say "oh yes, absolutely." But whether Dawkins does it wittingly or unwittingly, the fact is the "fact" the scientists are referring to, is highly likely to be a change in the frequency of genes in any given population, natural selection, and basically micro-evolution.

the molecules to man scenario may very well be a fact.
problem is, science has been unable to demonstrate it as such.
at least one scientist has the courage to call this field of research a failure.
 

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]The picture in the opening message shows how unreasonable macro-evolution is to believe given that in 500 million alleged years, jellyfish became jellyfish and snails became snails but we are asked also to believe that a fish became an amphibian and amphibian became a reptile, reptiles became mammals, mammals changed their minds got into the sea and became whales, some became dugong-progenitors, but a relative of dugongs changed their mind and went back to land to have a relative with elephants, which changed their mind and evolved back into the sea eventually became dugongs. Meanwhile a dinosaur became a sparrow which became tweety pie. Oh the last part about tweetie pie is wrong, but if we include tweetie pie will it really make this story I am telling you, any less absurd in it's obvious fiction?

if we take koonin at face value then we must assume animal phyla arrived here simultaneously and ready made.
this can probably be proved by an analysis of type 1 transposons.
all animal phyla will probably have essentially the same type 1 transposons.

#16 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 20 May 2017 - 10:33 AM

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

attachicon.gifevo p-take.jpg

 

You don't "have to believe" anything, Mike.  But, the fossil record leads us to hypothesize that your graphic is correct.  I don't find that very puzzling.  More often than not, things don't change or progress in a linear / constant manner.  For thousands of years (up until about 1900), the fastest humans could travel was about 50 km/hr on horseback.  In the last 100+ years, humans have reached a maximum speed of about 40,000 km/hr on the Apollo spacecraft due to some major jumps in technology that, in turn, led to more innovations.  I can certainly see evolution working in a similar fashion....e.g., an early long plateau until some major evolutionary breakthrough (e.g., eyes, skeletal structure, etc.) provided the impetus for follow on evolutionary jumps.  Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but I don't find this non-linear aspect of evolution at all implausible.



#17 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:58 PM

I can certainly see evolution working in a similar fashion....e.g., an early long plateau until some major evolutionary breakthrough (e.g., eyes, skeletal structure, etc.) provided the impetus for follow on evolutionary jumps.  Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but I don't find this non-linear aspect of evolution at all implausible.

koonin says animal phyla arrived here ready made with no discernible intermediates.
he also doesn't assign a timeline, even after being questioned by one of the reviewers.

comments?

#18 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:06 PM

From a different topic:

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed. 

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

 

I'd like to add now:

Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this.

Creationists typically explain the diversity of "sub-kinds" by some form of "micro evolution". Every "kind" of animal was on the arc, and after the arc, they split up into different "sub-kinds". The genetic diversity of these "sub-kinds" can usually be explained by this. There is one exception (I know of) though, namely, the Cheetah. The Cheetah are so genetically similar they exhibit only a small fraction of the genetic variability when compared to other feline species. They're often referred to as clones of each other, which is a slight exaggeration, but not by much.

 

"Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this."

 

That may be so, But, Creationists.. DONT FORCE PEOPLE BY LAW TO TEACH GENESIS IN BIOLOGY CLASS..  Do you see the difference?

 

Lets agree to KEEP Religious Beliefs OUT OF THE SCIENCE CLASSES..  and place them in Philosophy or Religious Studies..

 

Now..  since you CANNOT provide evidence to support AbioDarwinism that conforms to the Scientific method, Will you agree that YOUR religion

of Godless Metaphysical Naturalism should be removed from the "Science" curriculum as well?  Lets see how consistent you are with this... :checklist:



#19 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:20 PM

 

So let me get this straight, so I am clear in my thinking. I have to believe that this is what happened?

 

attachicon.gifevo p-take.jpg

 

You don't "have to believe" anything, Mike.  But, the fossil record leads us to hypothesize that your graphic is correct.  I don't find that very puzzling.  More often than not, things don't change or progress in a linear / constant manner.  For thousands of years (up until about 1900), the fastest humans could travel was about 50 km/hr on horseback.  In the last 100+ years, humans have reached a maximum speed of about 40,000 km/hr on the Apollo spacecraft due to some major jumps in technology that, in turn, led to more innovations.  I can certainly see evolution working in a similar fashion....e.g., an early long plateau until some major evolutionary breakthrough (e.g., eyes, skeletal structure, etc.) provided the impetus for follow on evolutionary jumps.  Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but I don't find this non-linear aspect of evolution at all implausible.

 

 

"I can certainly see evolution working in a similar fashion"

 

So are we to believe that  YOU think it is possible to equate Technology, that was developed by Intelligence Agents, utilizing the Scientific Method (Science) Of observation, experimentation, repeatability, falsifiability, testing, etc...  ( Apollo spacecraft )

 

WITH

 

Mindless, Chaotic, Undirected, Random, Accidental "Change" ??  :think:

 

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of

an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible

deity - omnipotent chance."     T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",



#20 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 21 May 2017 - 03:21 PM

 

From a different topic:

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed. 

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

 

I'd like to add now:

Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this.

Creationists typically explain the diversity of "sub-kinds" by some form of "micro evolution". Every "kind" of animal was on the arc, and after the arc, they split up into different "sub-kinds". The genetic diversity of these "sub-kinds" can usually be explained by this. There is one exception (I know of) though, namely, the Cheetah. The Cheetah are so genetically similar they exhibit only a small fraction of the genetic variability when compared to other feline species. They're often referred to as clones of each other, which is a slight exaggeration, but not by much.

 

"Creationists who believe in the Biblical flood story have a very similar problem, and by my knowledge lack a solution in explaining this."

 

That may be so, But, Creationists.. DONT FORCE PEOPLE BY LAW TO TEACH GENESIS IN BIOLOGY CLASS..  Do you see the difference?

Where are the goalposts, you moved them so far I'm not going to bother respond to your comment other then this.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users