Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 457 (707828)
10-01-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
10-01-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Back on topic
Ah and here we have another pedantic little disquisition on the niceties of precise language. Which would matter if what evolutionists were doing was anything of the sort they claim to be doing, but in fact they are fantasizing and calling it theory, theorizing and calling it fact and so on. Anyone who can look at that chart Coyote put up and hallucinate genetic descent over millions of years from one to another of those cute little drawings, has no right to bother about the specific meanings of words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 12:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 12:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 1:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 457 (707838)
10-01-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by frako
10-01-2013 10:12 AM


Re: Back on topic
I know you don't care about anything I've said and probably haven't even read most of it, and certainly you haven't given any of it a moment's thought, so you require me to answer you with more of the same:
1. "Observed instances of new species forming."
Yes, what evolutionists call "speciation" and new "species" do in fact occur, but they are misnamed. As I've repeatedly said it is artificial to call them new species, it's really a form of question-begging. What the ToE claims is that you can get some COMPLETELY new creature from an old, and really the term "speciation" should be reserved for that event, which of course has never occurred in observation but only in theory. All those cases of the formation of new "species" you have listed for lizards, mice, seagulls etc., are nothing but new varieties or breeds of their original Species that have for whatever reason developed an inability to breed with their former population, and they should be named accordingly instead of calling them "species" so as to confuse the ignorant. In other words this is just another case of normal variation, i.e. "microevolution" being co-opted by the ToE. This is a typical case of word magic, that is, the reification of a concept by the mere manipulation of words.
2. "Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising"
From your descriptions I have to ask whether these supposed instances of "observed" mutations have actually been observed; most of them sound like the usual case of discovering a novel sequence already in existence and CALLING it a mutation, because, as I've said, that's what the ToE requires, therefore that's what it MUST be. But actually observed, not in some of the cases you describe at least.
Look, nobody denies that mutations occur, or even that what they do could be called the formation of a new "gene," or to be more precise an allele for a gene, because after all we're talking about a sequence of chemicals along the DNA strand and mutations alter that sequence, as does normal sexual recombination from generation to generation. But as Coyote affirmed, most such mutations ARE deleterious, many others do nothing that anyone can determine for sure, and very very very few can be said to have any beneficial function. Now you are giving a supposed list of beneficial mutations here. I have to suspect more word magic myself. The question is whether these new "genes" ARE of any real use to the creature. Like that man you mentioned whose X chromosome had acquired a whole bunch of new "genes." How can that be of any benefit? Such claims as this list of yours are NOT convincing, sorry.
3. Then -- *sigh* -- you give us a list of "Observed instances of beneficial mutations" ALL of which apparently describe nothing but the usual variation within the given genome and not anything novel at all. In other words, the usual "microevolution." ADAPTATION is NORMAL VARIATION, it is NOT the result of mutation.
4. "Observed instances of large morphological changes."
But there is nothing on this list that suggests anything more than the usual "microevolution," or adaptation by natural selection through the normal variability of the genome of each creature.
5. "Observed evolution of novel organs and features." Well, let's combine this with 6. "...a multicellular organism", and 7. "endosymbiosis" because all these are equally mystifying claims. You can assert anything, and scientific articles are always claiming something to support the ToE, which usually turns out to be the usual case of microevolution, the expression of a pre-existing genetic function being erroneously called a mutation, or a deleterious mutation that they convince themselves is useful etc. If there is anything at all to the titles that claim more, there is no way to tell it from a mere assertion, which of course has no value except as a tool of mystification in the service of your bias.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:12 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2013 1:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 127 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 4:31 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 457 (707840)
10-01-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
10-01-2013 1:02 PM


Re: Back on topic
Huh? Your chart is supposed to demonstrate what? The relatedness of various varieties of birds? But I have no reason to doubt that most birds ARE related to each other by descent. They're all BIRDS, after all, it's not a claim for descent from a reptile is it? IN OTHER WORDS, this is just MICROEVOLUTION charted, and that is not a subject of controversy for a creationist. [Assuming, of course, that genetic descent IS reflected in that chart, which of course IS open to question since knowledge of such descent would be very very hard to come by, and this fact is in fact discussed by Darwin himself, do I have to dig up the quote for you?]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 1:02 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 1:32 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 457 (707843)
10-01-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coyote
10-01-2013 1:14 PM


Re: Back on topic
The deleterious mutations are generally flushed out of the population, while the beneficial ones are generally retained. That makes quite a difference.
If it were real it might, but this is sheer theorizing, this is NOT something you know, merely something you assume.
And it is not "very very very few." It is enough to provide genetic diversity and, aided by natural selection, speciation.
Mutations are not needed to provide genetic diversity, that is built into the genome of each species from creation. You are merely assuming mutation where there is no justification for it; it is an artifact of the ToE plus ToE bias in the interpretation of data, reading mutation where normal variation is the case among other errors.
And again, natural selection, along with all the other ways you get a reproductively isolated population of any creature, such as geographic isolation and so on, produces varieties or breeds or "species" in the misnamed case by bringing about the reduction of genetic diversity. If mutations keep adding diversity you cannot get breeds or species etc., because their development depends on eliminating genetic material that competes with the formation of the traits of the breed. Natural selection reduces the genetic diversity in order to form the new variety, and a reduction in genetic diversity is the opposite of what the ToE requires to support the idea of evolution beyond the species.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2013 1:14 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 1:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 457 (707845)
10-01-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Tangle
10-01-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Back on topic
True, I didn't look closely at it, so apparently it IS just another fantasy chart based on sheer imagination. So much for that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 1:32 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 1:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 106 by Tangle, posted 10-01-2013 2:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 101 of 457 (707848)
10-01-2013 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
10-01-2013 1:44 PM


Re: Back on topic
That just proves it's a fantasy chart, CS. Unfortunately that's what scientists are doing when they conjure with the ToE. They believe the theory about fossils, and they spend enormous amounts of time organizing them according to some ToE-derived principle. Of course if the ToE itself is a fantasy, which it is, oh poor scientists, they are engaged on a fool's errand. Perhaps the genetic data collected has some validity, of course, but even that must be open to question because the ToE bias has made itself felt there too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 2:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 457 (707849)
10-01-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
10-01-2013 1:45 PM


Re: Back on topic
Yes, I'm merely stating the alternate theory which pre-existed the ToE. Everything I've been saying here, however, goes to support it over the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 1:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 1:56 PM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by jar, posted 10-01-2013 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 457 (707859)
10-01-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
10-01-2013 1:56 PM


Re: Back on topic
What YOU don't understand is that the ToE hasn't been "tested," it has merely been subjected to thousands of credulous ponderings that confirm it from sheer imagination. You are quite right that saying something is not support, which is what YOU guys do. What I've been doing on the other hand is pointing to confirmed FACTS in support of my POV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 1:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 10-02-2013 11:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 110 of 457 (707861)
10-01-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
10-01-2013 2:07 PM


Re: Back on topic
Gosh the ToE is a "successful" theory, gosh, that must come as news to an awful lot of people.
The only reason it works, you credulous people, is because it CANNOT be tested. The unwitnessed PAST CANNOT BE TESTED, it is purely, always, and completely a matter of speculation. Speculation can be "confirmed" endlessly by people who believe it, they can cram all manner of data into it because there is no way to prove them wrong. There is NO objective way to prove any of it, that's why it is so successful. Poor deluded people.
Look, I've given FACTS in support of my position that you can't get "evolution" without reducing genetic diversity, it's something breeders and conservationists have to deal with IN REALITY all the time, and guess what, reducing genetic diversity means that eventually as creatures are engaged in evolving you run out of the stuff that fuels evolution. End of evolution. This is all about REAL FACTS, not imaginary charts and speculations that cannot be tested.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 2:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 3:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 135 by jar, posted 10-01-2013 5:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 457 (707862)
10-01-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
10-01-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
There is very good reason to call the ToE "just a theory." All that has ever happened is the piling on of more and more credulity that "confirms" the original theory. There is no objective evidence for it. What evidence there is supports creationism just as well or better. You guys are caught in an amazing delusion and it's so convincing to you there's no way you'll even consider an argument against it. All you have to do is make up a NEW speculation to answer anything anyone says against the ToE. It's really an amazing exercise in self delusion. I really often wonder if it will ever be recognized or we'll have to wait until the Lord returns before any of the Toe Faithful will have the ability to see what's really been going on here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2013 12:37 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 457 (707863)
10-01-2013 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Coyote
10-01-2013 12:37 PM


Re: Back on topic
Are any of you guys aware that the concept of "willful ignorance" comes from the Bible and refers to those who deny biblical truth? * That unfortunately applies also to those who are entangled in the lies of the ToE. You are accusing creationists of what you yourselves are guilty of.
*2 Peter 3:5-7, and in fact what is said here is that people are willfully ignorant specifically that God judged the world by Flood and will come again to judge it by fire. Interesting that THAT is what is said to be what is specifically denied, since it is so VERY specifically denied at EvC.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2013 12:37 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 457 (707865)
10-01-2013 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Theodoric
10-01-2013 3:14 PM


Re: Back on topic
I don't CARE about the official scientific meaning of the word because the ToE makes a complete mockery of science in every possible way including by insisting on such definitional niceties. Blech, disgusting. All the ToE is and ever was is a theory in the most basic meaning of that word, i.e., an idea that HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED, because it CAN'T be proved. Now object to the word "proved" as you always do. You don't care about truth, all you care about is pedantic distinctions.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 457 (707866)
10-01-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Diomedes
10-01-2013 2:22 PM


Re: Back on topic
What a creationist sees upon looking at that chart, which is another piece of ToE fiction, is a collection of skulls, most no doubt human, some most likely ape and not human at all in the remotest sense, all of them our contemporaries at least within the last 6000 years. Sheesh you guys are credulous people. All it takes is a drawing of a bunch of skulls to "prove" the ToE to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Diomedes, posted 10-01-2013 2:22 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Diomedes, posted 10-01-2013 3:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 457 (707869)
10-01-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Theodoric
10-01-2013 3:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
The Bible is way older than the ToE and is a source of hundreds or thousands of quotations everybody uses. JAR has used this one many times here, and I'm sure he got it from the Bible, and just loves to turn it against creationists.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 3:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 457 (707873)
10-01-2013 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
10-01-2013 3:22 PM


Re: Back on topic
No, you have never found transitional fossils according to the huge numbers and varieties that Darwin recognized would be required to prove the theory, in the bazillions. You've found a few fossils that share features of different species and you call those transitions. Just part of the way you all delude yourselves.
However your argument relies on an assumption - a big assumption that you have no evidence for. The assumption that diversity cannot recover.
No, this is not my assumption. I do believe that mutations cannot bring about such recovery, but recovery is possible by many means. The point I have made over and over is that increasing genetic diversity can only defeat the purpose of developing varieties or breeds, or new "species." If the ToE depends on this, as it does, as "speciation" is considered the stepping-off point to further speciation, it is defeated by the very processes it claims as its engine of change, because either evolution, that is, further variation, will have to cease because of lack of genetic diversity, or it will have to cease because of increased genetic diversity, which only destroys the established new phenotype, by whatever means (the usual means is the reintroduction of genes from a previously inaccessible mother population or another daughter population, or hybridization etc.)
We know that diversity can and does increase at the level of the genome.
See above.
We have every reason to believe that the same applies at the level of the phenotype - especially given the timescales involved.
Producing a new phenotype is a very simple matter of reproductively isolating a small portion of a population and letting it inbreed for some number of generations. You don't need massive timescales, all you need is GENETIC REDUCTION.
We also know by your own admission that your theory is not compatible with an old Earth and old life - and we know that the Earth and life on it have been around for a very long period of time.
What you think you "know" is just a matter of what you BELIEVE, as you cannot KNOW anything about the unwitnessed past, ALL you can do is speculate. That's why the ToE is, always was and will remain a "theory" in the sense it was a theory in Darwin's day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024