NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation

.....[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

Oop. Wrong person, soz Edge.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

[I moved this response so as to "reply" to Ahmad, & not edge]Ahmad,Regarding IC:I’m claiming victory, as I said I would in the last post if you yet again failed to produce positive evidence to back up your claim.I have asked & asked & asked for this positive evidence that IC cannot evolve. You have provided nothing of the kind. Your argument seems to be that I have to show otherwise, or you’re right. I don’t, & you’re not. It’s your claim, I’m not making one. If you can’t provide positive evidence to back that claim up, then you have an argument from incredulity, like I said all along.http://EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation -->EvC Forum: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About CreationThis was the first mention of IC in this thread, & YOU claim it refutes evolution.

quote:

---

We have observed the irreducible complexity in numerous organelles of living organisms (eg - bacterial flagellum, ATP synthase molecule, proteins etc)which refutes evolution

---

All subsequent discussion has been about asking you to back up that claim that IC can’t evolve, & that IC does, in fact, refute evolution. If you can’t show that IC can’t evolve, you don’t have an argument.Read & reread this next paragraph until you understand it:You have no positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve. Therefore, the irreducible complexity argument is moot. A non-sequitur. Without positive evidence, you cannot make a positive assertion.OK so far?I have never claimed that IC systems evolved. There is only one person making a positive assertion regarding IC, & that’s you. If you think I’m making it up, take a look back through the posts & see if you can find me making an explicit claim that IC definately evolved (in context). Given that this is the case, that you are making a claim & I'm not, back up your claim. Oh, you can’t? Well, I'm sorry, Ahmad, you therefore have no argument.You made a claim, & I didn't. I have NOTHING I have to back up. You do.Regarding the Cambrian explosion:What part of the ToE is specifically contradicted by the Cambrian explosion. If you are going to claim a limit, I expect you to show that limit actually exists.[Added by edit] What is your assertion regarding the Cambrian explosion? Are you saying that God created life at the phyla level with "multipurpose" genomes that could then evolve into the many sub-taxa, orders, classes, families that we see today, with the genetic complexity built in? If not, what?I'll try to get to the rest asap.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

Ahmad,You asked that;

quote:

---

Huh? So you're telling me (correct me if I am wrong) that a change from one species to another does not require a great advantageous change in the genetic information?

---

& now ask;

quote:

---

How does this gametic incompatibility give rise to new species? How does genetic isolation explain the existence of more than 2 million species worldwide and with what evidence? How does this account for an evolutionary process?

---

Under the biological species concept, a species is (for sexually reproducing species) ..groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." (Mayr 1942). Note that there is no requirement for "great advantageous change in the genetic information".Taking your points one by one.

quote:

---

How does this gametic incompatibility give rise to new species?

---

If two populations can’t exchange genetic material because the sperm can’t fertilise the egg, they are separate species by definition.

quote:

---

How does genetic isolation explain the existence of more than 2 million species worldwide and with what evidence?

---

Strange question. Genetic isolation of previously un-isolated populations produces new species. Repeat ad nauseum until you get to 2 million. You’re asking the wrong question.

quote:

---

How does this account for an evolutionary process?

---

It creates small populations that can evolve without genetic interaction with each other, & allows for diversity.It occurs to me that you fundamentally misunderstand evolution & the role of speciation. Obviously, you originally thought that two species must have positive adaptive differences in order for it to be considered that speciation took place. This is fundamentally incorrect. ALL that has to take place is genetic isolation of two populations for speciation to occur. Those two populations are then free to accumulate mutations without contamination by the other population. Over a period of time, the mutant alleles get fixed/eliminated resulting in visibly different organisms, especially if different environmental factors are in action. At the same time, the other population is doing exactly the same, exacerbating the process. If you factor in multiple speciation events & morphological change, then the further up the tree you go the more different the daughter species can become.The effect of this process is the nested hierarchy that is actually observed in real life.I should like a response to message 140, please. The questions in it predate your last large post, & will affect how I reply. Don’t misunderstand, your questions are valid & I should like to tackle them in due course. It’s just that the original points of contention have spiralled out of control into colossal diversions. The last biggy made 20 pages when I pasted it into Word! I was thinking maybe you would like to divide the post into individual subjects & start new threads (including this one), leaving the original contentions (IC, & Ce evolution is falsified) here.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-26-2002]