|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You haven't shown anything. You're just blowing hot air. There is no problem with genetics. Just another case where evo assumptions are tacked on and assumed but have no practical bearing whatever on the work of genetics. I've already put astronomy in the Con list. Why don't you pay attention? And 98% of physics is perfectly fine.
The YEC "basics" as you call them, have no bearing on what I am discussing here. If you want to make a case for it go ahead, but I am going to continue to ignore your totally irrelevant interrogations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There is no problem with genetics. nevermind that the percentage of dna shared directly correlates to placement on the "macro" evolutionary tree. in other words, if we didn't have the t-o-e, but had genetics, we would have quickly come up with the t-o-e independently of darwin. so if there's no problem with genetics, then there's a problem with yec.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "evolutionary" tree has no bearing whatever on practical science. It's all theoretical navel gazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
faith writes: ...Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived are all perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable science... arachnophilia writes: ...the question was, can you still do this without "macro" evolutionary relationships? faith writes: No. thank for the straighforward answer. we can check the vast majority of paleontology off the list now, as a science that daily depends on the theory of evolution. i'll stop bothering you now. Edited by arachnophilia, : quote-box formatting, for clarity of who said what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The "evolutionary" tree has no bearing whatever on practical science. It's all theoretical navel gazing. no no, you misunderstand. take away the evolutionary tree, and draw one based on genetics alone, and the percentages of shared dna. guess what you get? "macro" revolutionary relationships, and the evolutionary tree of life. further, it should be obvious that there's something of an associative property here. if one species is related to another species by a certain percentage, and related to a third by less, and the third is related to the second strongly, but less to the first, you've just linked the first and third through the second.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually, how do you get from the YEC position of all the critters in the world fitting on a football field, to the variety and number we see today in only 4000 years without Hyper-Macro-evolution?
It is pretty obvious that neither Faith or any other YECista is going to answer any of the questions raised in this thread. So for the benefit of the lurkers, perhaps it would be worthwhile to simply do it for them. The YEC position, unless some YECista shows up to correct me, seems to be that there was some flood about 4000 years ago that wiped out all the critters on earth 'cept a few on the big boat. The size seems to be an area about like a football field. It may have multiple decks so they may have two, even three football fields worth of critters. This presents two problems that I can see which will mean we need to throw out everything we know about genetics. First, to get from that small population to what we see today, we would need hypermacorevolution at rates that are really inconceivable. We have at that momnet 4000 years ago only the critters that would fit on the few football fields. Second in many cases we have no more than two of a kind, and except in one instance, never more than seven of a kind. The second thing that will falsify our current understanding of genetics is that a bottleneck should show up among ALL species at about 4000 years ago. This should leave a single common ancestor between all of the critters in the world about 4000 years ago. It should point us to the original Kind directly. But we don't see either of those things, no hypermacroevolution and no band of common ancestors at 4000 years ago in all current critters. That means that our current genetic model has been falsified, or that there was not such an event 4000 years ago. Only one of those two can be correct. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's stupid. You can do all that
Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
----delete-----
Edited by Coragyps, : duplicate post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
That's stupid. You can do all that
Reconstructing them, studying their anatomy and physiology and figuring out how they would have lived without reference to anything macroevolutionary at all. ok, lets talk specifics, then, shall we? suppose we have a group of animals that is extinct. all of their immediate relatives anywhere near what a creationist would call a "kind" are dead. every last one of them. say, for instance, the dinosaurs. now, you might call "tyrannosaurs" a kind. you might call "theropods" a kind. you might even call all "dinosauria" a kind. but i hesitate to think that you would call all archosaurs a kind. unless you've grouped crocodiles and birds together in one kind, which i would find incredibly hard to believe. if you have done so, i apologize -- but i also fail to see the difference between this and the theory of evolution. do you agree that birds and crocodiles are separate kinds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
*******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX*******
This is way off topic jar. This belongs on a thread about the ark. It does not belong here. *******OFF TOPIC TO THE MAX******* Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we would need hypermacorevolution at rates that are really inconceivable. sounds like an argument from incredulity if i ever heard one! lol. (see the other thread)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bull shit Faith.
Or are you saying that the alleged Flood is not part of the YEC position, even though YOU have used it numerous times in this very thread? Let's go back to Message 57. Is some creation event part of the YEC position or not? If so, when did it happen? Is the so called Fall part of the YEC position? If so when did it happen. Is the Flood part of the YEC position? If so when did it happen? This is getting just TOO funny. So the Flood is OT Faith? Then how come you said
Faith writes: Which to a YEC means nothing other than that birds were not hanging about with the dinosaurs at the time of the Flood and got caught in a different wave. in Message 209? Edited by jar, : add a quote from DerFaith Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
ok, lets talk specifics, then, shall we? suppose we have a group of animals that is extinct. all of their immediate relatives anywhere near what a creationist would call a "kind" are dead. every last one of them. say, for instance, the dinosaurs. now, you might call "tyrannosaurs" a kind. you might call "theropods" a kind. you might even call all "dinosauria" a kind. but i hesitate to think that you would call all archosaurs a kind. unless you've grouped crocodiles and birds together in one kind, which i would find incredibly hard to believe. if you have done so, i apologize -- but i also fail to see the difference between this and the theory of evolution. do you agree that birds and crocodiles are separate kinds? I have a LOT of trouble following you Arach. What is your point? It is POSSIBLE ALL REPTILES are a Kind. Or it is POSSIBLE there are a number of reptile Kinds. It is CERTAIN that crocodiles descended from either the one reptile kind or one of the reptile kinds. Birds have nothing to do with reptiles. That's an artificial notion based on nothing but one reptilian feathered fossil and the fact that there are no birds in the layer inhabited by the big reptiles. Which to a YEC means nothing other than that birds were not hanging about with the dinosaurs at the time of the Flood and got caught in a different wave. But I do believe that it is possible that a reptile Kind contained the genetic potential of wings and flight. It may not really be possible, I don't know, but that's how rich I think the original genetic potential of each Kind was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
They don't *know* what temperatures were in the past except by evo theory and their formulas are based on that.
Ah, but they do know the temperatures through vitrinite reflectance and through the phases that are present in fluid inclusions in crystals in the rocks. Those are methods based on experiment. Sorry 'bout that, Faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024