Jump to content


Photo

Micro To Macro. Really?

micro-evolution macro-evolution

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#61 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:55 AM

Then in that case why would anyone worry about global warming?

You do realise that such sentiments is already proven wrong via the extinction rate, (as I already mentioned). If life can adapt to the extent you claim, (and as fast as you claim), then there should be very little extinctions since things can adapt to whatever is threatening them. Humans killing too many- "evolve" faster reproduction, perhaps even Iron skin (lol)...

You still don't seem to understand my view, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I thought that my wording was clear that I believe its hypothetically possible for a species to adapt and I have never stated that I believe most species or all species will succesfully adapt to continuously changing conditions. On the contrary in my last post my view agrees with you that continuous changes to the environment would kill off most life. So you seem to be arguing against your own projections on my views, instead of responding to my actual words in the last post.

It was shown that there is no fixation of traits, (by myself and jason777- Jason has posted the actual papers, so his reply is more scientific).
It was also shown that there is limitation of traits, (this is observed and I have cited examples)
It was shown that enviromental conditions are in fluctuation, (this is observed nigh daily). Such fluctuation would not allow for the selection pressures "evolution" requires. (This is also in Jason's article, since the scientists admit that the selection pressures they used were many times higher than nature would ever cause)


A) Regarding fixation, do you think its possible that the general condition of animals is already suited their current environment and therefore tends back towards the already existing norms after the artificial selection period because of no environmental change? ie no fixation to the new variation because no environmental change.

I didn't feel the flies experiment was that applicable to our discussion, correct me if I'm wrong , but the experiment seemed to show that various S@xual populations can reach the same advantage (faster development) yet through differing genetic combinations. Therefore the allelle frequency between "improved" populations differed without any fixed allelle frequency across all improved populations. This was compared to the more simple asexual organisms which even if improved in seperate populations would reflect the same allelle frequency. Which seems pretty obvious that a simpler organism would have less flexibility when showing a certain consistent variation. The more complicated organism can reach the same goal (faster development) through a larger variety of genetic combinations, and therefore shows less fixation across the 5 improved populations. Which reflects that God created more complicated organisms with a diversified ability to adapt along a variety of genetic routes, which sorta supports my argument.

B) I already dealt with the limitation of traits argument in this thread. I said macro-evolution is only logical over long periods and yet the theory of limitation comes from observations of specific examples over small periods. Specific examples may illustrate norms but you cannot develop a principle about long-term effects from a few short-term observations. I believe macro-evolution is conceivable (exception), not necessarily the norm.

C) I already agreed with your point about fluctuation, unconditionally. I am referring to the hypothetical possibility of occasional macro-evolution in a gradual one-directional changing environment and I really do not think that will occur before Jesus comes.

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 February 2012 - 01:55 AM

1. You still don't seem to understand my view, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. I thought that my wording was clear that I believe its hypothetically possible for a species to adapt and I have never stated that I believe most species or all species will succesfully adapt to continuously changing conditions. On the contrary in my last post my view agrees with you that continuous changes to the environment would kill off most life. So you seem to be arguing against your own projections on my views, instead of responding to my actual words in the last post.



2. A) Regarding fixation, do you think its possible that the general condition of animals is already suited their current environment and therefore tends back towards the already existing norms after the artificial selection period because of no environmental change? ie no fixation to the new variation because no environmental change.

3. I didn't feel the flies experiment was that applicable to our discussion, correct me if I'm wrong , but the experiment seemed to show that various S@xual populations can reach the same advantage (faster development) yet through differing genetic combinations. Therefore the allelle frequency between "improved" populations differed without any fixed allelle frequency across all improved populations. This was compared to the more simple asexual organisms which even if improved in seperate populations would reflect the same allelle frequency. Which seems pretty obvious that a simpler organism would have less flexibility when showing a certain consistent variation. The more complicated organism can reach the same goal (faster development) through a larger variety of genetic combinations, and therefore shows less fixation across the 5 improved populations. Which reflects that God created more complicated organisms with a diversified ability to adapt along a variety of genetic routes, which sorta supports my argument.

4. I already dealt with the limitation of traits argument in this thread. I said macro-evolution is only logical over long periods and yet the theory of limitation comes from observations of specific examples over small periods. Specific examples may illustrate norms but you cannot develop a principle about long-term effects from a few short-term observations. I believe macro-evolution is conceivable (exception), not necessarily the norm.

C) I already agreed with your point about fluctuation, unconditionally. I am referring to the hypothetical possibility of occasional macro-evolution in a gradual one-directional changing environment and I really do not think that will occur before Jesus comes.


1. No I am taking your views to their logical conclusion to show that they are wrong in reality. If all you were suggesting was a hypothetical world don't you think that is just a waste of time.

2. Which when added to the fact that enviromental pressures fluctuate then it has just been demonstrated that evolution cannot occur as according to the current reality that we observe right now. If such one way environmental conditions did exist before

i) why are there none here now?
ii) as we discussed such things would lead to the death of all life hence they didn't occur before. Therefore evolution has never occured.

3. It doesn't support your argument. I have never said that things do not variate and improve, I have said that you are wrong in that they improve to the point to becomeing a new kind. If the flies study did support your argument then you would see the flies slowly become something other than flies... Did they "evolve"? Or did they stay the same, but slightly improved, (which is what I have been saying for the last few pages).

Furthermore the selection imposed was higher than nature would normally cause, and was one directional... Hence this paper should be evidence for macro evolution, in fact the conditions were stacked in its favour, however it shows how it fails. Fixation is a major flaw in evolution that people tend to skip over.

4. You didn't address it. All you said was that there was no "absolute principle" in post #46. To which I replied that there needn't be a principle known for it to have effect, (as I said, did we have no gravity on Earth until Newton discovered it... In fact your claim there shows that nothing ever could be discovered, since if their effects are only first realized after discovery then there would be nothing in order to discover it in the first place. Such thinking is in fact, anti-science.

Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence to the contrary. Even if my evidence is based on a shorter timescale, this is still much better (and more scientific), than presenting no evidence at all....(save for a story about fish that can hypothetically "evolve" to fly).

5. Fluctuation defies your one-directional changing environment idea hence it is best to stop believing in it, since it defies something that you've just agreed about and with which there are near infinite examples ready to prove such a thing wrong. Or do we just believe in anything despite it defies reality? IMO thats a bit silly

#63 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:48 AM

1. No I am taking your views to their logical conclusion to show that they are wrong in reality. If all you were suggesting was a hypothetical world don't you think that is just a waste of time.

It could be a waste of time, but I just think its honest to tell evolutionists that under some unlikey conditions their theory could possibly work. By being overly stubborn about it, us creationists can insult a set of logic that has good principles behind it. Variation plus selection can lead to evolution.

2. Which when added to the fact that enviromental pressures fluctuate then it has just been demonstrated that evolution cannot occur as according to the current reality that we observe right now. If such one way environmental conditions did exist before

Yes we both have agreed that under the current fluctuating conditions macro-evolution can't occur.

3. It doesn't support your argument. I have never said that things do not variate and improve, I have said that you are wrong in that they improve to the point to becomeing a new kind. If the flies study did support your argument then you would see the flies slowly become something other than flies... Did they "evolve"? Or did they stay the same, but slightly improved, (which is what I have been saying for the last few pages).

Furthermore the selection imposed was higher than nature would normally cause, and was one directional... Hence this paper should be evidence for macro evolution, in fact the conditions were stacked in its favour, however it shows how it fails. Fixation is a major flaw in evolution that people tend to skip over

I could be wrong but that article seemed to be saying that there was no fixation across the 5 differently population groups, without denying fixation within an evolved group. They were comparing this to asexual simpler organisms which did fixate across the evolved population groups. I feel you are "fixating" on the word "fixation" here instead of seeing its usage in that particular experiment..


4. You didn't address it. All you said was that there was no "absolute principle" in post #46. To which I replied that there needn't be a principle known for it to have effect, (as I said, did we have no gravity on Earth until Newton discovered it... In fact your claim there shows that nothing ever could be discovered, since if their effects are only first realized after discovery then there would be nothing in order to discover it in the first place. Such thinking is in fact, anti-science

sorry I don't understand your point here. Proof of limitation has been only with a few examples over short periods. Nothing in the fly experiment showed limitation, neither did the finch's beak get slightly bigger and then the finch deteriated. The finch's beak got longer as needed to suit its environment, and it all worked while it needed to.


Furthermore, you haven't given any evidence to the contrary. Even if my evidence is based on a shorter timescale, this is still much better (and more scientific), than presenting no evidence at all....(save for a story about fish that can hypothetically "evolve" to fly).

Its hypothetically possible, which means by the nature of the wording that I feel there is no evidence. Isn't that what I said? If there was evidence I would be saying empirically possible, but I have said hypothetically possible.If you could prove limitation under every possible circumstance, and 100% genetic fixation back to current allelle frequencies in every possible scenario, you would disprove my position, and therefore I would have to say "hypothetically impossible". I haven't seen that absolute proof of limitation or genetic fixation to the original allelle frequencies in this thread. Without your 100% proof against evolution it does remain hypothetically possible.

5. Fluctuation defies your one-directional changing environment idea hence it is best to stop believing in it, since it defies something that you've just agreed about and with which there are near infinite examples ready to prove such a thing wrong. Or do we just believe in anything despite it defies reality? IMO thats a bit silly

We both agreed on the fluctuation. It may be silly to you, but when an evolutionist knows that variation and selection can lead to evolution in a continually changing environment and a creationist says "impossible" that is just being dishonest, because it is possible under certain hypothetical situations. So why not just say kindly, yes its possible hypothetically yet the fluctuations of earth back to norms makes it not likely observable unless earth goes through some sort of continuous deteriation which could lead to mass extinction even before variation results in macro-evolution strong enough to save a species.

#64 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 February 2012 - 06:48 AM

gilbo most evos do believe in saving the enivorment, ironic aint it. i know a agnostic that works for the state of florida with the fws and has said lets just let nature run its course on these animals . the more agressive species will either dominate or die off. isnt that what the toe says?

#65 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:52 AM

1. It could be a waste of time, but I just think its honest to tell evolutionists that under some unlikey conditions their theory could possibly work. By being overly stubborn about it, us creationists can insult a set of logic that has good principles behind it. Variation plus selection can lead to evolution.


2. Yes we both have agreed that under the current fluctuating conditions macro-evolution can't occur.


3. I could be wrong but that article seemed to be saying that there was no fixation across the 5 differently population groups, without denying fixation within an evolved group. They were comparing this to asexual simpler organisms which did fixate across the evolved population groups. I feel you are "fixating" on the word "fixation" here instead of seeing its usage in that particular experiment..



4. sorry I don't understand your point here. Proof of limitation has been only with a few examples over short periods. Nothing in the fly experiment showed limitation, neither did the finch's beak get slightly bigger and then the finch deteriated. The finch's beak got longer as needed to suit its environment, and it all worked while it needed to.



5. Its hypothetically possible, which means by the nature of the wording that I feel there is no evidence. Isn't that what I said?

6. If there was evidence I would be saying empirically possible, but I have said hypothetically possible.If you could prove limitation under every possible circumstance, and 100% genetic fixation back to current allelle frequencies in every possible scenario, you would disprove my position, and therefore I would have to say "hypothetically impossible". I haven't seen that absolute proof of limitation or genetic fixation to the original allelle frequencies in this thread.

7. Without your 100% proof against evolution it does remain hypothetically possible.


8. We both agreed on the fluctuation. It may be silly to you, but when an evolutionist knows that variation and selection can lead to evolution in a continually changing environment and a creationist says "impossible" that is just being dishonest, because it is possible under certain hypothetical situations.

9. So why not just say kindly, yes its possible hypothetically yet the fluctuations of earth back to norms makes it not likely observable unless earth goes through some sort of continuous deteriation which could lead to mass extinction even before variation results in macro-evolution strong enough to save a species.


Shakes head..... You've failed to understand anything I have said in these past pages. I am sorry I am getting frustrated, however if you read over the pages the majority of this is me repeating myself.

1. Its not as simple as variation + selection = evolution, we have been discussing the actual nuts and bolts of it all so for you to revert back to a generalised statement in order to appear more convincing is misleading.

2. Great, I'll be reverting back to this as it is a fundamental point and shows that everything else is refutted.

3. Fixation of traits is a central part to evolution, (but one that is assumed to occur regardless), if there is no fixation then there is no evolution as offspring born will have a mixture of new and old traits and thus will never get anyway. The study showed that there was no permanent fixation of a useful trait, hence (as I said twice now), improvements to environmental conditions require continuous selection. However as you agreed in point two enviromental conditions fluctuate hence there is no continuous selection to account for a steady stream of new traits. It is a wave pattern of adaption and regression to "normal", that is what we observed with the finch beaks. (notice how I'm using actual observed examples).

If things change and get back to the same, how on Earth can you claim a steady progression to something new when it keeps on regressing back to what it was before? This is the central notion I have tried to point out with the finches and one you continue to miss.

4. The fly study showed the limitation to evolution that is, a lack of fixation of traits, please read point 3.

5. And I've been trying to tell you that based on observations of reality what you claim is literally impossible. Until you have evidence that refutes the evidence that debunks your claims, (read all 4 pages of this thread for it, yes I use evidence). Then there is no hypothetical, since hypothetical situations are about those that are deemed possible, not those that are deemed impossible by empirical evidence, and which you just do not want it to be impossible.

Just claiming hypothetical, is no excuse for having no evidence. Especially when the current evidence points to the "hypothetical" situation to being impossible.

6. I don't intend to prove 100% gene fixation since it is something evolutionists need to show, (for every single change) for evolution to work at all. Most people just assume that the gene is good therefore its fixed voila. I am saying its much more complicated than that, and it is an issue that must be addressed.

7. No it doesn't for the simple fact that the selection pressures used fluctuate therefore meaning that evolution cannot occur in the time frame or in the manner that evolutionists claim.

it would need to either

i) occur really fast since the environment would change again thus causing a regression of the trait back to its original % (as seen in the finch beak example)
ii) occur despite enviromental pressures, which mean there is no proposed mechanism for evolution.

This is why point 2 is really important since it debunks the claim that evolution works on enviromental selection pressures, as fluctuation in the pressures means fluctuation in the traits we see.

Please understand this!

8. Read point 7. Also I am not being dishonest. Proposing hypothetical situations against the grain of empirical evidence is dishonest.

9. Because in life things aren't candy coated. I am telling you, according to the empirical evidence, evolution as claimed by evolutionists is impossible. It would be "hypotetically" possible if the world didn't act the way it does and follow the natural laws that it does, which would ring alarm bells for the naturalist since natural laws and their unbreakableness is their top philosophy. IF the world were to do as you said, have a continued progression of enviromental change there could be some differences occuring until the enviroment becomes too extreme for the majority of life to live, (bar archea), which would render such hypothetical musings pointless.

In other words I have debunked evolution :D Please give me my millions of $$$


EDIT: IN fact here is a limitation of all multicelluar life on Earth. Multicellular life cannot live on Earth if the temperature was above 100 degrees Celsius

This is based on the fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and that blood, (and the rest of our bodies) is made up of water. (as I said right at the start in post #2 the limitation of a trait or factor is based on the properties of the thing itself).


I challenge you to propose any imaginary mechanism that can "evolve" in (lets say) dogs to combat such temperatures. Then taking your continual environmental changes, work out one for 150 degrees Celsius, and then 200 degrees Celsius, as the environment continually gets more and more extreme.

#66 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:54 AM

It could be a waste of time, but I just think its honest to tell evolutionists that under some unlikey conditions their theory could possibly work. By being overly stubborn about it, us creationists can insult a set of logic that has good principles behind it. Variation plus selection can lead to evolution.


It would most certainly be a waste of time. Firstly, why would it be "honest" to tell evolutionists something that we definitely don't believe? And secondly, most Christians are already doing that! What does that help?

Call me stubborn if you want, but I not going to encourage something I disagree with, just to appease evolutionists.

If we are going to go down that path, then why not just tell all the athiests that it is conceptually possible that God does not exist and that everything just blew up from nothing.. you know, while we are at it...

#67 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 09:12 AM

Hmmmmmmm

#68 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:28 AM

Shakes head..... You've failed to understand anything I have said in these past pages. I am sorry I am getting frustrated, however if you read over the pages the majority of this is me repeating myself..


Shakes my head too :)

lol, well you also don't seem to be reading my posts, but I enjoy a good debate and appreciate the time you have put into this. The discussion does seem to be getting wider instead of narrowing down to one or two points of contention.

Maybe it is because you are not really reading my posts properly because we have already discussed most of the issues? You especially did not seem to understand the fly study, because you seem to be ironically focussed on the word "fixation" used in that study and are misapplying the usage of that word in the context of that particular experiment. So it does not seem beneficial to discuss this with you if you do not understand my point. There is no way that study on the flies disproves evolution, it shows 5 groups of flies evolving in DIFFERING ways so that the end result is that each group shows no standardised DNA sequencing with the other groups even though there was succesful variation. The study actually proves that there can be succesful micro-evolution and the adaptation can occur in more than one manner genetically, resulting in no fixation between the different succesful adapted groups. This study is not saying there was no fixation of new allelle frequencies from the original allelle frequency, each of the 5 groups showed changes from the original allelle frequencies, and these CHANGED allelle frequencies showed no fixation between eachother. But I already explained this.

#69 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:55 AM

If we are going to go down that path, then why not just tell all the athiests that it is conceptually possible that God does not exist and that everything just blew up from nothing.. you know, while we are at it...


LOL ok good point. I did hear that they have proven that the universe actually isn't expanding like they originally thought, which does put a stop to the big bang theory. Is this true? As for spontaneous creation of matter , I think that is something they would know in their hearts is unlikely even if they justify it mentally, just because of the statistical unlikelihood of their own theories.

#70 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:26 PM

EDIT: IN fact here is a limitation of all multicelluar life on Earth. Multicellular life cannot live on Earth if the temperature was above 100 degrees Celsius

I'm sure there would be many such limitations, no problem with this. The other planets are not habitable because of their own limitations too. Why don't we get more realistic about a projected scenario and imagine that through global warming the mean temperature of earth instead of fluctuating between the extremes of about 5 degrees to 25 degrees over time, starts gradually (through global warming) going up from the current 15 degrees to 32 degrees over a few thousand years. And then stabilises around there, future fluctuations remaining in the 30 to 35 degree range. Provided that Jesus has not come in that time, I wouldn't be surprised to see limited macro-evolution occurring to a few of the species that do survive the changes. This is all speculation because as we agreed the earth has not yet showed such large fluctuations, but my original point remains, micro-evolution occurs, variation occurs, selection occurs so under a realistic set of parameters there is that possibility of macro-evolution and so these evolutionists have some logic behind their view.

#71 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:04 PM

I'm sure there would be many such limitations, no problem with this. The other planets are not habitable because of their own limitations too. Why don't we get more realistic about a projected scenario and imagine that through global warming the mean temperature of earth instead of fluctuating between the extremes of about 5 degrees to 25 degrees over time, starts gradually (through global warming) going up from the current 15 degrees to 32 degrees over a few thousand years. And then stabilises around there, future fluctuations remaining in the 30 to 35 degree range. Provided that Jesus has not come in that time, I wouldn't be surprised to see limited macro-evolution occurring to a few of the species that do survive the changes. This is all speculation because as we agreed the earth has not yet showed such large fluctuations, but my original point remains, micro-evolution occurs, variation occurs, selection occurs so under a realistic set of parameters there is that possibility of macro-evolution and so these evolutionists have some logic behind their view.


Firstly, that scenario defies your constant change concept, since the change stops

Secondly, yes you will see adaptation, however adaptation is not evidence of evolution. If a short haired breed of dog are selected for above a long hair breed of dog, they are both dogs hence no evolution, (as per Darwin's claims, I know that nowdays evolutionists like to equivocate the meaning of what evolution is hence why I prefer to stick to its original concept with none of the new "versions"). Hence how do you KNOW that macro evolution will occur at all?

Thirdly, such a thing is proposed to lead to the total extinction of the Dinosaurs, (major climate change after a meteor hit apparently). Hence such a thing is believed to be more a cause of extinction rather than evolution.

Fourthly, even if it "sounds" logical it doesn't make it valid. It used to be logical to claim that the Earth was the centre of the universe, (since we observed the sun and stars revolving around us) yet that claim has now been debunked. It used to be logical (in Darwin's time) to claim that cells were merely blobs of jelly, however we now know that is debunked.

This is the sole reason why you need evidence, since how can you prove that your interpretation of the situation is valid. If you have evidence it would support the case more than one with no evidence. I have shown evidence of my claims, where are yours? Interpretive since (which was what science was before emprical validity), is long dead and is now only considered to be social science- like Archeology.

Real science is empirical. Sadly, interpretive science as "real science" lives on in the form of evolution.



I've already shown how evolution is impossible, via the selection pressures never being constant enough. In fact that is one of Darwin's assumptions. Darwin analogized natural selection with human domestication, yet domestication always has a purpose a goal and normally, (unless the owners change their mind on things), doesn't stray from such a goal.

The owner of the farm I worked at, preferred "female" traits, as in less stocky frame, female shaped heads, etc. Over time these traits are shared with the males as well, (whilst they are not females, they did show a large difference in characteristics when compared to another animal). However this was only applicable in the case of constant selection over many decades, (that never fluctuated!). Furthermore the selection pressure would have been many times greater than that of what would ever occur in nature, since nature cannot pen away the stock you do not wish to breed with.

Hence such selection at the farm was constant and unwavering the ideal conditions for evolution, and the total opposite of what occurs in nature, and guess what, they didn't evolve. They did change, but only within the change that was allowed by their own body plan, for example none of them "evolved" a 5th leg, or wings etc. The variations were kept to within what the animal was, (another limitation I didn't bring up before). Hence I hope you see how, (I see how), logically unrealistic claims of evolution are, when nothing was observed in ideal conditions, and the actual conditions makes it much harder for evolution to occur at all, (fluctuations in selection).

The "millions of years" excuse of evolutionists is a misnomer since millions of years of fluctuating selection would cause nothing. People generally assume constant selection, however that assumption is invalid with what occurs in the world.

#72 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:12 PM

man dont ruin the fun for them evos. reality, bites

#73 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:14 PM

man dont ruin the fun for them evos. reality, bites


I'm just waiting for my Nobel for showing how evolution is impossible based on observations of reality :P

(I'm sure it won't come since evolution is still a "fact" ;) )
  • Salsa likes this

#74 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 February 2012 - 11:32 PM

yup all them experts agree. therefore its a fact.

yet the supporters of it will agrue over it endlesy. if its the truth then why bother with the whackos that deny reality. it would be like trying to convince the david ickes of the world that theres no aliens.

its funny athiests in general believe in some wierd things that have no scientific basis as no evidence has been found. ie aliens.

#75 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:15 AM

Firstly, that scenario defies your constant change concept, since the change stops


I meant constant change in one direction that is sufficient for evolution unlike the current situation where the fluctuation returns to an equilibrium before macro-evolution can occur. In my mind I wasn't projecting eternal never-ending constant change, sorry I didn't explain that better. But the kind of situation that I described is the kind of situation that I envisage macro-evolution to start occurring and then stabilising.


Secondly, yes you will see adaptation, however adaptation is not evidence of evolution. If a short haired breed of dog are selected for above a long hair breed of dog, they are both dogs hence no evolution, (as per Darwin's claims, I know that nowdays evolutionists like to equivocate the meaning of what evolution is hence why I prefer to stick to its original concept with none of the new "versions"). Hence how do you KNOW that macro evolution will occur at all?

Exactly I did say its a possibility, not a certainty.

Thirdly, such a thing is proposed to lead to the total extinction of the Dinosaurs, (major climate change after a meteor hit apparently). Hence such a thing is believed to be more a cause of extinction rather than evolution.

Agreed, this is true. Major extinctions would occur if dramatic environmental changes occur. I just believe there is the outside possibility of a macro-evolution or two if the changes are gradual enough to allow it, a few natural survivors, and possibly one or two evolved survivors and many extictions when conditions continually change.

Fourthly, even if it "sounds" logical it doesn't make it valid. It used to be logical to claim that the Earth was the centre of the universe, (since we observed the sun and stars revolving around us) yet that claim has now been debunked. It used to be logical (in Darwin's time) to claim that cells were merely blobs of jelly, however we now know that is debunked.

Exactly, this is true. Maybe the concept of gradual macro-evolution through variation and selection will be scientifically debunked too, and when that occurs you can add macro-evolution to your list of logically sounding theories that were eventually debunked.

This is is the sole reason why you need evidence, since how can you prove that your interpretation of the situation is valid. If you have evidence it would support the case more than one with no evidence. I have shown evidence of my claims, where are yours? Interpretive since (which was what science was before emprical validity), is long dead and is now only considered to be social science- like Archeology.

Exactly, this is true. Science has to have evidence. I have evidence of variation. I have evidence of selection. I have no evidence of macro-evolution. I have been given some evidence of limitation in this thread in a few examples and the "boiling point" argument which I have no problem with. I do not believe the evidence against continued variation is sufficient to say that continuous variation is impossible under all envisaged situations.


I've already shown how evolution is impossible, via the selection pressures never being constant enough. In fact that is one of Darwin's assumptions. Darwin analogized natural selection with human domestication, yet domestication always has a purpose a goal and normally, (unless the owners change their mind on things), doesn't stray from such a goal.

True hey, I agree with this, selection pressures have not been constant enough, that is why I gave that temperature example, of selection pressures of temperature changes extending a few more degrees past the norms of the past and settling into new temperature norms of fluctuation. This would cause a more constant selection pressure than has existed over the last few thousand years. This is conceivably possible according to the way man is destroying the earth and we do not know, but could conceivably lead to macro-evolution due to the continuing selection pressures over a long period.


Hence such selection at the farm was constant and unwavering the ideal conditions for evolution, and the total opposite of what occurs in nature, and guess what, they didn't evolve. They did change, but only within the change that was allowed by their own body plan, for example none of them "evolved" a 5th leg, or wings etc. The variations were kept to within what the animal was, (another limitation I didn't bring up before). Hence I hope you see how, (I see how), logically unrealistic claims of evolution are, when nothing was observed in ideal conditions, and the actual conditions makes it much harder for evolution to occur at all, (fluctuations in selection).

True, I agree with this, macro-evolution does not occur over short periods and without selection pressures over thousands of years. You would probably find that even any micro-evolution would revert back to their original allelle frequencies if left alone due no long-term environmental changes. I am with you on this.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#76 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:22 AM

I meant constant change in one direction that is sufficient for evolution unlike the current situation where the fluctuation returns to an equilibrium before macro-evolution can occur. In my mind I wasn't projecting eternal never-ending constant change, sorry I didn't explain that better. But the kind of situation that I described is the kind of situation that I envisage macro-evolution to start occurring and then stabilising.



Exactly I did say its a possibility, not a certainty.


Agreed, this is true. Major extinctions would occur if dramatic environmental changes occur. I just believe there is the outside possibility of a macro-evolution or two if the changes are gradual enough to allow it, a few natural survivors, and possibly one or two evolved survivors and many extictions when conditions continually change.


Exactly, this is true. Maybe the concept of gradual macro-evolution through variation and selection will be scientifically debunked too, and when that occurs you can add macro-evolution to your list of logically sounding theories that were eventually debunked.


Exactly, this is true. Science has to have evidence. I have evidence of variation. I have evidence of selection. I have no evidence of macro-evolution. I have been given some evidence of limitation in this thread in a few examples and the "boiling point" argument which I have no problem with. I do not believe the evidence against continued variation is sufficient to say that continuous variation is impossible under all envisaged situations.



True hey, I agree with this, selection pressures have not been constant enough, that is why I gave that temperature example, of selection pressures of temperature changes extending a few more degrees past the norms of the past and settling into new temperature norms of fluctuation. This would cause a more constant selection pressure than has existed over the last few thousand years. This is conceivably possible according to the way man is destroying the earth and we do not know, but could conceivably lead to macro-evolution due to the continuing selection pressures over a long period.



True, I agree with this, macro-evolution does not occur over short periods and without selection pressures over thousands of years. You would probably find that even any micro-evolution would revert back to their original allelle frequencies if left alone due no long-term environmental changes. I am with you on this.

I meant constant change in one direction that is sufficient for evolution unlike the current situation where the fluctuation returns to an equilibrium before macro-evolution can occur. In my mind I wasn't projecting eternal never-ending constant change, sorry I didn't explain that better. But the kind of situation that I described is the kind of situation that I envisage macro-evolution to start occurring and then stabilising.



Exactly I did say its a possibility, not a certainty.


Agreed, this is true. Major extinctions would occur if dramatic environmental changes occur. I just believe there is the outside possibility of a macro-evolution or two if the changes are gradual enough to allow it, a few natural survivors, and possibly one or two evolved survivors and many extictions when conditions continually change.


Exactly, this is true. Maybe the concept of gradual macro-evolution through variation and selection will be scientifically debunked too, and when that occurs you can add macro-evolution to your list of logically sounding theories that were eventually debunked.


Exactly, this is true. Science has to have evidence. I have evidence of variation. I have evidence of selection. I have no evidence of macro-evolution. I have been given some evidence of limitation in this thread in a few examples and the "boiling point" argument which I have no problem with. I do not believe the evidence against continued variation is sufficient to say that continuous variation is impossible under all envisaged situations.



True hey, I agree with this, selection pressures have not been constant enough, that is why I gave that temperature example, of selection pressures of temperature changes extending a few more degrees past the norms of the past and settling into new temperature norms of fluctuation. This would cause a more constant selection pressure than has existed over the last few thousand years. This is conceivably possible according to the way man is destroying the earth and we do not know, but could conceivably lead to macro-evolution due to the continuing selection pressures over a long period.



True, I agree with this, macro-evolution does not occur over short periods and without selection pressures over thousands of years. You would probably find that even any micro-evolution would revert back to their original allelle frequencies if left alone due no long-term environmental changes. I am with you on this.


I must apologise if I flew off the handle, I'm pretty vocal about the evolution topic as, to me (as you've noticed), it is not justified scientifically nor logically.

Yes I do agree in variation, and perhaps such macro evolution could occur, (but this would be subject to the species definition for such a concept). However I do uphold that things do not change their "basic body plan" ie- a dog may get bigger or smaller or change its hair, but it will always have the basic structure of a dog.

#77 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:36 AM

......


Have you decided to ignore post #60 then?
That's fine if you did, that way I know not to waste my time in the conversation.

#78 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:52 AM

First – What did Gilbo ask for? He asked for “evidence”, not mere opinion. You only provided ‘mere opinion’, sans any evidence.

Second – What did I point out? I pointed out that “you have provided absolutely no evidence for your ‘macro-evolution’ hypothesis”, that therefore “you are proceeding on faith alone.”

Sorry I didn't answer, I was intimidated by the length of the post and the subsequent length of time it would take to answer it.

Agreed, its a theory based on variation and selection, which are observable, and projecting possibilities from those two observable phenomenon. It is possible that even more limitations will be discovered that would prove evolution impossible, but so far I'm unaware of any hard evidence restricting evolution through variation across all possiblities. So its also proceeding on faith alone to state that macro-eviolution is impossible to ever occur. Especially when God made creation variable, and selection possible.

Third – What did you come back with? Basically that the “the principle of variation” was absolute, and asserted that this absolute principle + millions of years = “macro-evolution”.

true! I did not give evidence for macro-evolution and do not believe its occurred in reality yet. I have no evidence that macro-evolution will definitely occur based on observations of micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is merely a theory that has not yet been empirically proven as impossible.

Fourth – You negate your “absolute” principle by stating that “When two parents have a unique emphasized feature we expect the child to have that quality even stronger”. But when you use the word “expect”, you devalue the “absoluteness” of your principle. The problem for you is that your analogy fails because you only “expect” the child to have the “stronger quality”. If the principle of variation is absolute, then the “stronger quality” will “ABSOLUTELY” be there “EVERYTIME”.

Fifth – You further negate your “absolute” principle by stating that “Two intelligent parents normally breed an even more intelligent kid.” Once again, your statement is self-stultifying, because of your usage of the word “normally” as opposed to “ALWAYS”; and the same for your statement “Two fast athletes normally breed a faster athlete”

Sixth – Three strikes, you’re out… Your usage of “This is not guaranteed but is observable” also negates your “absoluteness” assertion.


The principle of variation is that the child will vary from the parent. this is absolute. The principle of selection is that two of similar extremes, if they mate with eachother, will have a greater statistical chance of having the same extreme quality or even emphasizing it. Yes its not absolute, it is possible for two parents with big noses to have a child with a smaller nose, bit normally we know that its observable that the statistical chances are that the child's nose will be the same or larger than its parents. The fly study, the finch example, the dog breeding example and the cattle breeding example listed in this thread all show that selection does actually work, its a biological fact that features can be emphasized through natural or artificial selection.


Seventh – We need NO “absolute principle preventing variations from continuing gradually in one direction” for several reasons. But the most important reason is this; “You have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to support your assertion”… And as I (and Gilbo) pressed you for, it is evidence that YOU need (are required) to have, in order to support your assertion; NOT more “mere opinion” and “faith statements”.

True, but I feel that the same rule should apply both ways, evolution can't be called impossible unless its proven, and if you are admitting its possible then we are both in 100% agreement.


Ninth – What is unscientific, is your attempted assertion that macro-evolution is anything other than a hypothesis or model. And your faith statement is attempting to support it factually (macro-evolution) as anything other than hypothesis or model.

I agree its a hypothesis or model.

And lastly – We don’t allow for equivocation, purposeful misinterpretation, Trolling (etc…) at this forum. So, please take the time to read the forum rules (that you agreed to prior to being allowed to posting here) prior to posting something other than evidence, AS evidence.


No problem, I will read it.

#79 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:16 AM

I must apologise if I flew off the handle, I'm pretty vocal about the evolution topic as, to me (as you've noticed), it is not justified scientifically nor logically.

Yes I do agree in variation, and perhaps such macro evolution could occur, (but this would be subject to the species definition for such a concept). However I do uphold that things do not change their "basic body plan" ie- a dog may get bigger or smaller or change its hair, but it will always have the basic structure of a dog.


No problem, yes its irritating when all species are assumed by science to have some sort of evolutionary ancestor, and its all stated as fact in encyclopedias.

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 February 2012 - 03:45 AM

I can certainly vouch for that lol




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users