Jump to content


Photo

Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:21 AM

Seems to me all of the facts of evolution theory, or most of them, can be accepted as true even if macro-evolution did not happen. 

 

Let us now assume macro didn't happen. So then we have a population of say pithecines or any ape, it's just pretend. Now let's say selection pressure, acts upon a population so that in hotter conditions selection selects for the shorter haired individuals. Now does the absence of macro evolution prevent this fact from being reality? So far, no.

 

Now we can have things like genetic drift occurring, the "lucky" genes you might say, randomly some are favoured over others. Now imagine if the climate changes, you get gene flow occur, some of the more hairy apes are reintroduced from another group, now imagine  a disease crops up where it would be advantageous to favour the mutation for sickled cells, selection chooses the ones with the sickled cells. 

 

Now let us look at the types of micro changes we see. Slightly different shaped lizard toe-pads, slightly tougher, different shaped beaks in finches, lost of wings on beetles on windy islands. 

 

Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?

 

All of the descriptions of evolution I find, basically explain evolution as micro evolution. Macro is just inferred from those explanations. Sure, for macro we have things like homoplasy and homology, convergent evolution. We obviously don't accept convergent evolution, but then when we look at micro evolution, we don't find any convergent evolution anyway. All of the facts just seem to be with micro, and if we had any good reason to believe that translated to macro, we'd accept it.

 

I honestly, in all my years of reading about it and thinking it over, just can't see any real reason to accept the macro part as anything more than conjecture that only is predicated on coincidence, circumstantial evidence and basically belief it happened.


  • Gneiss girl and KenJackson like this

#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 03 July 2017 - 04:23 PM

I suspect that you didn't mean creation facts when you wrote, "I say; go with the facts...", in another thread.

#3 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 03 July 2017 - 05:24 PM

Wiz:"Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?"

Guess that's the nub of the matter.
Why should the observation that the sea slightly erodes rock mean that the sea carved out bays and headlands (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that heavy glaciers creep forward over centuries mean that they curved out the u-shaped valleys of Northern Europe (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that rivers erode slightly more on the softer side and deposit slightly more on the harder side mean that this led to meandering rivers (despite no one observing the latter)?
Belief in any of the above inferences would imply an aged earth as much as long-term evolution would.

Circumstantial evidence can be very convincing: photographs, fingerprints, the smoking gun...

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 03 July 2017 - 06:46 PM

I suspect that you didn't mean creation facts when you wrote, "I say; go with the facts...", in another thread.

 

I think Mikey just meant "Facts"...   Or do you think he should have meant to say "Darwinian Facts"?

 

 

"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature.

It is absurd to expect that many FACTS will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one

of his theories is contradicted by FACT." (Dr. P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194)

 

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a FACT of life are great con-men, and the story they

are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of FACT."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

 

 

 

1922MoodyBibInstMarch.jpg



#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 03 July 2017 - 07:27 PM

Wiz:"Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?"

Guess that's the nub of the matter.
Why should the observation that the sea slightly erodes rock mean that the sea carved out bays and headlands (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that heavy glaciers creep forward over centuries mean that they curved out the u-shaped valleys of Northern Europe (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that rivers erode slightly more on the softer side and deposit slightly more on the harder side mean that this led to meandering rivers (despite no one observing the latter)?
Belief in any of the above inferences would imply an aged earth as much as long-term evolution would.

Circumstantial evidence can be very convincing: photographs, fingerprints, the smoking gun...

 

Mikey... My olfactory glands detect a redolently pungent emanation of silagous guttersnipe with this post....  :burp:

 

I acquiesce to your perspicaciousness in dealing with the subject of syllogistic fallaciousness and beseech thee to undertake an ancillary

rejoinder showcasing your exemplary prowess concerning matters of such incongruent sophistry as this bedlamite post entails.. :kaffeetrinker:

 

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross

over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and

readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

 

 

 

 

 

relinquish the  the Mikey treatment it so richly deserves..



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 July 2017 - 01:59 AM

Spoken like a chessmaster that whooped Dawkins Nakikura, who is no more-aaahhhhhhh!! :D

 

Cheeseburger, I would say obviously you've offered up several examples there which each may differ. I assume for example you see the difference between saying that if we have a lump of rock slowly eroding it might one day erode to nothing if we add it up, and the argument that if a man accelerates from running at 3mph to 5mph then eventually he will be running at 1000mph?

 

That's why I can't just take an example which does seem possible and compare it to one which isn't.

 

Why can't a man run that fast if he can accelerate on the micro-level? Because like with the fallacy of composition, if there is some change, some physical requirement which exists BETWEEN the micro level and the macro level, then this means the simple micro level won't always translate to the macro level.

 

Obviously there is no barrier with a small rock that is eroding, we might infer it can erode to nothing, or even say that water could cut out great amounts if we argue begging-the-question by assuming the amount of time needed, was given. (which it can't have been since young dino-tissue and young dino horn can only be thousands not millions)  :)

 

But with macro evolution, you have to change the anatomical design of one kind of anatomy to another, whereas with micro evolution you don't have to. A lizard with a slightly differently shaped toe-pad or a tougher finches beak, as a part of an anatomical design overhaul, don't count as consequential because they're superficial changes which aren't showing themselves to be part of any overhaul.

 

​I can explain that more if you want but you have to think it through acutely to understand what I mean properly. Most evolutionists get confused and think I am saying that species aren't fully species when I get into this area.



#7 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:06 AM

​I can explain that more if you want but you have to think it through acutely to understand what I mean properly. Most evolutionists get confused and think I am saying that species aren't fully species when I get into this area.

Would you kindly explain which definition of species you are using and its relationship to macro and micro evolution? I wouldn't want to argue a straw man.



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:32 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Would you kindly explain which definition of species you are using and its relationship to macro and micro evolution? I wouldn't want to argue a straw man.

 

I appreciate that attitude. Thank you Sir.

 

With species I can accept the same definition as evolutionists. In that statement I wasn't referring to animal kinds, what I should have explained better is that when I say there are "anatomical categories of design" so to speak, such as the anatomy for flight or the anatomy for quadruped locomotion, to say that a species isn't "fully designed for flight" might make it seem like I am saying the species as an organism, isn't a complete organism.

 

But I'm not saying that because even according to evolution theory, every organism is a complete organism. So I used the wrong term, I meant to say "Most evolutionists get confused and think I am saying that organisms species aren't complete organisms species when I get into this area".

 

I can be a sloppy typist sometimes and not explain using the correct words, etc.. in my haste.



#9 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:19 AM

I suspect that you didn't mean creation facts when you wrote, "I say; go with the facts...", in another thread.

 
I think Mikey just meant "Facts"...   Or do you think he should have meant to say "Darwinian Facts"?
...

.
You should have noticed that it is not here but there--another thread--that I've questioned him on the subject of the facts when he wrote "go with the facts."

#10 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 04 July 2017 - 09:19 AM

Wiz:"Because like with the fallacy of composition, if there is some change, some physical requirement which exists BETWEEN the micro level and the macro level, then this means the simple micro level won't always translate to the macro level...

But with macro evolution, you have to change the anatomical design of one kind of anatomy to another, whereas with micro evolution you don't have to."

Only in arbitrarily comparing specific organisms would there be "requirements" for change that "have" to be met. Evolution, by definition, deals in directionless steps rather than decisive leaps. The panoply of life on this planet could have taken a myriad of forms dependent on the phenotypes that happened to have emerged and the selective pressures that happened to act upon them (just as the details of our lives could have had a range of possibilities).

In biology we don't observe radical anomalies so much as variants on a common theme. For instance, in vertebrates all have a brainstem on the end of a spine and two limbs at each end of the spine, each limb composed of one bone at hindlimb connected to two bones at forelimb connected to many joint bones connected to several digits.

#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 05 July 2017 - 08:53 PM

Wiz:"Because like with the fallacy of composition, if there is some change, some physical requirement which exists BETWEEN the micro level and the macro level, then this means the simple micro level won't always translate to the macro level...
But with macro evolution, you have to change the anatomical design of one kind of anatomy to another, whereas with micro evolution you don't have to."
Only in arbitrarily comparing specific organisms would there be "requirements" for change that "have" to be met. Evolution, by definition, deals in directionless steps rather than decisive leaps. The panoply of life on this planet could have taken a myriad of forms dependent on the phenotypes that happened to have emerged and the selective pressures that happened to act upon them (just as the details of our lives could have had a range of possibilities).
In biology we don't observe radical anomalies so much as variants on a common theme. For instance, in vertebrates all have a brainstem on the end of a spine and two limbs at each end of the spine, each limb composed of one bone at hindlimb connected to two bones at forelimb connected to many joint bones connected to several digits.



"Only in arbitrarily comparing specific organisms would there be "requirements" for change that "have" to be met. Evolution, by definition, deals in directionless steps rather than decisive leaps"

Is it too much to ask as a requirement to keep the creature alive?

For example

Man has 10 Vital Interdependent Interlocked Vital Organs..
If we slowly go back in time, there must have been a time when we (Or our ancestors) had 9, then 8 then 7, 6 5 4 3 2 unless you believe that multpile organs came to exist AT THE SAME INSTANT (Creation)
What keeps this mystery creature alive while its Vital organs are in thw process of evolving? Nice trick huh?

Here, why dont you help us out here... The "experts" don't seem to he able to.. Give us a Plausible or Feasable Order!

http://evolutionfair...accidentalists/

"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",

#12 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 05 July 2017 - 09:14 PM

Seems to me all of the facts of evolution theory, or most of them, can be accepted as true even if macro-evolution did not happen. 

"accepted as true".

science has developed a model of what evolution is.
it's this model that is accepted as true.
don't worry about it, it's a technicality that i think needs mentioning.
 
 

Let us now assume macro didn't happen. So then we have a population of say pithecines or any ape, it's just pretend. Now let's say selection pressure, acts upon a population so that in hotter conditions selection selects for the shorter haired individuals. Now does the absence of macro evolution prevent this fact from being reality? So far, no.


maybe they adapted differently.
the dynamics of genetics could have easily allowed a work around.
another reason this "gradual accumulation" crap has got to go.
 

Now we can have things like genetic drift occurring, the "lucky" genes you might say, randomly some are favoured over others. Now imagine if the climate changes, you get gene flow occur, some of the more hairy apes are reintroduced from another group, now imagine  a disease crops up where it would be advantageous to favour the mutation for sickled cells, selection chooses the ones with the sickled cells. 

more ramblings of the modern synthesis.
 

Now let us look at the types of micro changes we see. Slightly different shaped lizard toe-pads, slightly tougher, different shaped beaks in finches, lost of wings on beetles on windy islands. 

don't forget the novel organs that appeared within 36 years.
 

Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?

it's easy to accept what you believe and reject that which you don't.
 

All of the descriptions of evolution I find, basically explain evolution as micro evolution. Macro is just inferred from those explanations. Sure, for macro we have things like homoplasy and homology, convergent evolution. We obviously don't accept convergent evolution, but then when we look at micro evolution, we don't find any convergent evolution anyway. All of the facts just seem to be with micro, and if we had any good reason to believe that translated to macro, we'd accept it.

there doesn't appear to be a crossing of body plans, no.
additionally koonin suggests phyla arrived here radially from the same "source" (a group of cells actually)
complete, with all the signature features of that particular phyla.
this event left no history, and koonin states the current mainstream explanation is unreliable.
 

I honestly, in all my years of reading about it and thinking it over, just can't see any real reason to accept the macro part as anything more than conjecture that only is predicated on coincidence, circumstantial evidence and basically belief it happened.

2 things are for sure.
1. phyla arrived here.
2. this portion of DNA had to become read only.

#13 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 05 July 2017 - 11:48 PM

 

Seems to me all of the facts of evolution theory, or most of them, can be accepted as true even if macro-evolution did not happen. 

"accepted as true".

science has developed a model of what evolution is.
it's this model that is accepted as true.
don't worry about it, it's a technicality that i think needs mentioning.
 
 

Let us now assume macro didn't happen. So then we have a population of say pithecines or any ape, it's just pretend. Now let's say selection pressure, acts upon a population so that in hotter conditions selection selects for the shorter haired individuals. Now does the absence of macro evolution prevent this fact from being reality? So far, no.


maybe they adapted differently.
the dynamics of genetics could have easily allowed a work around.
another reason this "gradual accumulation" crap has got to go.
 

Now we can have things like genetic drift occurring, the "lucky" genes you might say, randomly some are favoured over others. Now imagine if the climate changes, you get gene flow occur, some of the more hairy apes are reintroduced from another group, now imagine  a disease crops up where it would be advantageous to favour the mutation for sickled cells, selection chooses the ones with the sickled cells. 

more ramblings of the modern synthesis.
 

Now let us look at the types of micro changes we see. Slightly different shaped lizard toe-pads, slightly tougher, different shaped beaks in finches, lost of wings on beetles on windy islands. 

don't forget the novel organs that appeared within 36 years.
 

Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?

it's easy to accept what you believe and reject that which you don't.
 

All of the descriptions of evolution I find, basically explain evolution as micro evolution. Macro is just inferred from those explanations. Sure, for macro we have things like homoplasy and homology, convergent evolution. We obviously don't accept convergent evolution, but then when we look at micro evolution, we don't find any convergent evolution anyway. All of the facts just seem to be with micro, and if we had any good reason to believe that translated to macro, we'd accept it.

there doesn't appear to be a crossing of body plans, no.
additionally koonin suggests phyla arrived here radially from the same "source" (a group of cells actually)
complete, with all the signature features of that particular phyla.
this event left no history, and koonin states the current mainstream explanation is unreliable.
 

I honestly, in all my years of reading about it and thinking it over, just can't see any real reason to accept the macro part as anything more than conjecture that only is predicated on coincidence, circumstantial evidence and basically belief it happened.

2 things are for sure.
1. phyla arrived here.
2. this portion of DNA had to become read only.

 

 

"science has developed a model of what evolution is.
it's this model that is accepted as true.
don't worry about it, it's a technicality that i think needs mentioning."

 

THIS must be the model that you are referring to.. Since it is the only model that conforms to the Scientific Method and doesn't have

to rely on incredible fairytales about long ago and far away...Hmmm... Fairy Tales... Sounds like a good name for a website!! :kaffeetrinker: 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg



#14 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 25 July 2017 - 09:18 PM

Wiz:"Because like with the fallacy of composition, if there is some change, some physical requirement which exists BETWEEN the micro level and the macro level, then this means the simple micro level won't always translate to the macro level...

But with macro evolution, you have to change the anatomical design of one kind of anatomy to another, whereas with micro evolution you don't have to."

Only in arbitrarily comparing specific organisms would there be "requirements" for change that "have" to be met. Evolution, by definition, deals in directionless steps rather than decisive leaps. The panoply of life on this planet could have taken a myriad of forms dependent on the phenotypes that happened to have emerged and the selective pressures that happened to act upon them (just as the details of our lives could have had a range of possibilities).

In biology we don't observe radical anomalies so much as variants on a common theme. For instance, in vertebrates all have a brainstem on the end of a spine and two limbs at each end of the spine, each limb composed of one bone at hindlimb connected to two bones at forelimb connected to many joint bones connected to several digits.

cheeseburger, does this lead you to suspect common descent or common design?



#15 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 July 2017 - 10:44 AM

Wiz:"Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?"

Guess that's the nub of the matter.
Why should the observation that the sea slightly erodes rock mean that the sea carved out bays and headlands (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that heavy glaciers creep forward over centuries mean that they curved out the u-shaped valleys of Northern Europe (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that rivers erode slightly more on the softer side and deposit slightly more on the harder side mean that this led to meandering rivers (despite no one observing the latter)?
Belief in any of the above inferences would imply an aged earth as much as long-term evolution would.

Circumstantial evidence can be very convincing: photographs, fingerprints, the smoking gun...

this is surely a convincing argument but there is a lot of "evolution" that can only be explained by invoking a neutral or nearly neutral theory, stasis in the record for example.

the idea that organisms gradually become better and more fit to explain how life went from the origin to todays diversity is utter nonsense.
for example:
Imagine the following scenario. You are absolutely convinced that humans are the most complex species but total genome size doesn't reflect your conviction. The C-value paradox is a real paradox for you. Knowing that much of our genome is possibly junk DNA still leaves room for plenty of genes. You take comfort in the fact that under all that junky genome, humans still have way more genes than simple nematodes and flowering plants. You were one of those people who wanted there to be 100,000 genes in the human genome.

But when the genomes of these species are published, it turns out that even this faint hope evaporates. Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.
- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

#16 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 26 July 2017 - 11:20 AM

Wiz:"Certainly it seems to me we can accept a lot of the facts had it not happened, so then why do these facts mean that macro did happen?"
Guess that's the nub of the matter.
Why should the observation that the sea slightly erodes rock mean that the sea carved out bays and headlands (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that heavy glaciers creep forward over centuries mean that they curved out the u-shaped valleys of Northern Europe (despite no one observing the latter)?
Why should the observation that rivers erode slightly more on the softer side and deposit slightly more on the harder side mean that this led to meandering rivers (despite no one observing the latter)?
Belief in any of the above inferences would imply an aged earth as much as long-term evolution would.
Circumstantial evidence can be very convincing: photographs, fingerprints, the smoking gun...


"Circumstantial evidence can be very convincing: photographs, fingerprints, the smoking gun."..

Yes, it certainly can. Especially when it comes to 3 day old murders or bank robberies..

HOWEVER

When it comes to Fairytales about "long ago and far away", Not so much...


Good name for a website.. www.evolutionfairytale.com


"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

#17 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 26 July 2017 - 02:21 PM

...
Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.
...

.
What does it mean that the number is NOT the same?

#18 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 26 July 2017 - 04:58 PM

All of the descriptions of evolution I find, basically explain evolution as micro evolution. Macro is just inferred from those explanations. ... All of the facts just seem to be with micro, and if we had any good reason to believe that translated to macro, we'd accept it.
 
I honestly, in all my years of reading about it and thinking it over, just can't see any real reason to accept the macro part as anything more than conjecture that only is predicated on coincidence, circumstantial evidence and basically belief it happened.


This is the conclusion I've come to also. But you said it better than I've managed.

Also, I argue that a fossil only proves that a corresponding organism lived, not that it evolved, because it can't rule out individual creation (a question of logic, not theology). But I'm called stupid for not understanding.

The logic seems to be:  1) Creation is stupid, 2) The animals existed, therefore 3) The animal evolved. QED



#19 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 July 2017 - 06:06 PM

...
Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.
...

.
What does it mean that the number is NOT the same?

the gist of the particular page i quoted from is genome complexity is not correlated to genome size.
IOW, the complexity that evolutionists hope to explain by "gradual accumulation" can't be explained by gradual accumulation.

#20 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 July 2017 - 06:44 AM

...
Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.
...

.
What does it mean that the number is NOT the same?

the gist of the particular page i quoted from is genome complexity is not correlated to genome size.
IOW, the complexity that evolutionists hope to explain by "gradual accumulation" can't be explained by gradual accumulation.

.
Is there any meaning to the unequal numbers?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users