Jump to content


Photo

Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 28 July 2017 - 07:16 AM

Is there any meaning to the unequal numbers?

did you read the webpage i linked to?

#22 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 - 09:18 AM

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

.
When I first arrived here to post several years ago it was over the subject of that part of our subject theory which I thought to be named "random genetic mutation", that being designated an essential change-mechanism of the theory, as it may be defined at the moment. The only knowledge I brought to the discussion was and is referent analysis. During this time--2014 to now--I have ample confirmation that I was correct in the belief that the so-called "macro" mechanism is problematic.

I don't follow the vicissitudes of theoretical, biological evolution, but I never encountered someone who believes present-day life resulted from some first-life without a distinct macro-mechanism.

Do you believe that "mike the wiz" is reporting from his research that the macro-mechanism is NOT explicit in the theory?

-------------------Added------------
 

Is there any meaning to the unequal numbers?

did you read the webpage i linked to?

.
There's no way on God's Green Earth that I would expect my question to be answered at the page for which you didn't provide a link--a link being something to click, the "HT" of "HTTP" being "hyper-text".

I asked "what if" the question to determine what "what if" thought.

Let's review:
.

...
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.
...

.
When I first read the last sentence, I did this comparison: "all have about the same number" VS "all have the same number".

I am asking whether "what if" acknowledges a monumental difference between the two.

#23 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 28 July 2017 - 01:55 PM

Is there any meaning to the unequal numbers?

if you read the webpage i linked to in my post, then you would have known there is no explanation for the unequal numbers.

#24 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 28 July 2017 - 02:12 PM

When I first read the last sentence, I did this comparison: "all have about the same number" VS "all have the same number".

I am asking whether "what if" acknowledges a monumental difference between the two.

yes, i can see why you would call it monumental seeing as it completely destroys the gradually increasing complexity bit.
that's what that webpage is about, if you would only read it.

#25 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 07 August 2017 - 09:15 AM

The title of this thread: Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro?
.

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.
....

.
A fact is not a falsehood. A fact is by definition true. Who would make one's acceptance of any and all the facts of our subject theory contigent upon anything related to that thing we all seem to agree is not susceptible to being called fact, does not rise the level of that revered goal, a fact?---that thing being called "macro-evolution?"

The level of many of the discussions here are NOT intellectually sound. With respect to the title of this thread: Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro? anyone with a most basic level of intellectual conscience wouldn't dare deny facts--they being "stupid things", as said by Ronald Reagan. Therefore--fulfilling the pathetic need to continue--the answer to the thread's question compels a "yes". Double-duh.
.
--------------
.
From The G*y Science, BOOK I, #2, by Friedrich W. Nietzsche. (Possible translator, Walter Kaufmann, 1974.)
.

2. The intellectual conscience

I keep having the same experience and keep resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lack an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "great majority." But what is goodheartedness, refinement, or genius to me, when the person who has these virtues tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments and when he does not account the desire for certainty as his inmost craving and deepest distress--as that which separates the higher human beings from the lower.

Among some pious people I have found a hatred of reason and was well disposed to them for that; for this at least betrayed their bad intellectual conscience. But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors [Discordant concord of things: Horace, Epistles, I.12.19.] and of this whole marvelous uncertainty and rich ambiguity of existence without questioning, without trembling with the craving and the rapture of such questioning, without at least hating the person who questions, perhaps even finding him faintly amusing--that is what I feel to be contemptible, and this is the feeling for which I look first in everybody. Some folly keeps persuading me that every human being has this feeling, simply because he is human. This is my sense of injustice.



#26 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 August 2017 - 08:25 PM

The title of this thread: Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro?.

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. ....

.A fact is not a falsehood. A fact is by definition true. Who would make one's acceptance of any and all the facts of our subject theory contigent upon anything related to that thing we all seem to agree is not susceptible to being called fact, does not rise the level of that revered goal, a fact?---that thing being called "macro-evolution?"The level of many of the discussions here are NOT intellectually sound. With respect to the title of this thread: Can You Accept Evolution's Facts Without Accepting Macro? anyone with a most basic level of intellectual conscience wouldn't dare deny facts--they being "stupid things", as said by Ronald Reagan. Therefore--fulfilling the pathetic need to continue--the answer to the thread's question compels a "yes". Double-duh..--------------.From The G*y Science, BOOK I, #2, by Friedrich W. Nietzsche. (Possible translator, Walter Kaufmann, 1974.).

2. The intellectual conscienceI keep having the same experience and keep resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lack an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "great majority." But what is goodheartedness, refinement, or genius to me, when the person who has these virtues tolerates slack feelings in his faith and judgments and when he does not account the desire for certainty as his inmost craving and deepest distress--as that which separates the higher human beings from the lower.Among some pious people I have found a hatred of reason and was well disposed to them for that; for this at least betrayed their bad intellectual conscience. But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors [Discordant concord of things: Horace, Epistles, I.12.19.] and of this whole marvelous uncertainty and rich ambiguity of existence without questioning, without trembling with the craving and the rapture of such questioning, without at least hating the person who questions, perhaps even finding him faintly amusing--that is what I feel to be contemptible, and this is the feeling for which I look first in everybody. Some folly keeps persuading me that every human being has this feeling, simply because he is human. This is my sense of injustice.



"A fact is not a falsehood. A fact is by definition true.

Correct.. And it is a FACT that the word "Evolution" has been manipulated to mean different things...

FOR EXAMPLE

Finches Beaks, Moth Colors, Bacterial Resistance, and Dogs Ears are routinely given as "examples" of Microbes to Microbiologists Evolution simply because the slick marketing word "Micro" is placed in front of it in order to dupe 15 year old high school biology students FACT

HOWEVER

Those are only examples of VARIATION, ADAPTATION OR SPECIATION and therefore our kids are getting lied to FACT




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users