Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Fred want maximum number micro changes. You give please.

Well, way back in post #173, I asked tanfan2 and never got a answer. Why don’t you direct your question to another believer in macro.

How many microevolutions eventuate in a macroevolution?

Now, back to the issue of macroevolution violating the PSR. Got anything readable yet?

There is no limit. It can be one change per generation. And it can keep going until you decide that it’s reached a point where you decide that that point is what you describe as a macroevolutionary change from the point at which you started. Many class that as speciation. And if your definition of species is an organism that cannot interbreed with it’s progenitor, then the number of changes to reach that point will vary according to the environment, according to the organism - there are countless variables. It will take as long as it takes.

But you have said that there is a limit. So what is that limit? Is there a number of generations? Is it a number of genetic changes? Is there a time limit? Does it stop just before the point where the organism cannot interbreed with the earlier species? If that is the case, what is the mechanism whereby it knows when to stop?

You can’t throw out these claims and not have an answer as to why the claims are valid. It’s simply not good enough to say ‘This doesn’t happen’ and then have no idea why. It sounds like you just made it up. Unfortunately for you, you have accepted microevolution and denied macroevolution without considering the implications of holding such a position.

And forget the psr. Your arguments have been shown to be without foundation. They have been shown to be inappropriate for the means to which you apply them. Even the arguments you have used by linking to scientific papers have been exposed by the very information within those papers. Even the conclusions to which you say your arguments lead are dismantled by those very same papers.

You have spent not an inconsiderable time looking for and posting links to information that proves you wrong.

The rusty hulk that was PSR has sunk with all hands. It hardly seems sporting to continue lobbing arguments onto anyone who has survived the self inflicted damage. Just concentrate on the microevolution question.

 

[o_mlly]

And forget the psr. Your arguments have been shown to be without foundation. They have been shown to be inappropriate

There’s that passive voice problem again, Fred.

Watch how the active voice works so much better:
You have not shown that macroevolution does not violate PSR.

Back to you, Fred.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And forget the psr. Your arguments have been shown to be without foundation. They have been shown to be inappropriate

There’s that passive voice problem again, Fred.

Watch how the active voice works so much better:
You have not shown that macroevolution does not violate PSR.

Back to you, Fred.

Is one going to have the same problem as one had with your yec beliefs? Just a simple response to the conundrum if you could.

 

[o_mlly]

Is one going to have the same problem as one had with your yec beliefs? Just a simple response to the conundrum if you could.

Fred, you have 3 choices.

1. Convert to Buddhism.
2. Present an argument that macroevolution does not violate the PSR.
3. Admit that you were wrong. (There are some good online RCIA classes just getting started down under.)

 

[rossum]

There’s that passive voice problem again, Fred.

You can’t criticise the arguments, because they are correct, so you resort to being a grammar Nazi. That won’t win you any arguments. Specifically, it won’t show that Father Ripperger is correct about the age of the earth.

 

[o_mlly]

You can’t criticise the arguments, because they are correct, so you resort to being a grammar Nazi. That won’t win you any arguments. Specifically, it won’t show that Father Ripperger is correct about the age of the earth.

What arguments? I haven’t seen one yet.

And, predictably, you lurch back to Atheist Playbook #1. Fr. Ripperger makes no claim in the article cited about the age of the earth.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Is one going to have the same problem as one had with your yec beliefs? Just a simple response to the conundrum if you could.

Fred, you have 3 choices.

1. Convert to Buddhism.
2. Present an argument that macroevolution does not violate the PSR.
3. Admit that you were wrong. (There are some good online RCIA classes just getting started down under.)

Nah. I’m not your trained monkey constantly linking to more and more examples that show your lack of understanding of evolution. Any further examples l give would be ignored just as you have ignored the ones already given. Good grief, you have even ignored the evidence from the papers to which you linked yourself so we need no more proof to show your resistance to evidence.

What we need now is for you to back up your major claim: That microevolution is somehow terminated at some point therefore preventing macroevolution. Now I know that you can’t do that because it doesn’t happen. And I’ve got a galactic amount of evidence to show that. All you will have is either some nonsense from a creationist site or something from a reputable article or paper which you think might do it but will invariably contain information that proves just the opposite.

I’m just curious to see which of the two options you choose. Unless you go with the usual one of ignoring the question and hoping it goes away.

 

[o_mlly]

Any further examples l give would be ignored …

I guarantee that your first argument showing that macroevolution does not violate the PSR will not be ignored.

Spare me your reflexive Atheist Playbook Rules and get to your task.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Any further examples l give would be ignored …

Spare me your reflexive Atheist Playbook Rules and get to your task.

Option 3 I see. What’s that saying they have in Texas? All hat and no cattle…

Fr. Ripperger makes no claim in the article cited about the age of the earth.

He specifically says that everything was created in less than a week. A week when we ended up with a literal Adam and Eve. So the time from Adam and Eve is something other than a few thousand years?

This is a first. A young earth creationist that tries to deny a young earth. You couldn’t make this up.

And not only that, what you actually believe, if true (and one assumes that you believe it to be true), is a rock solid argument against macroevolution. There simply wouldn’t have been enough time. It’s the best argument you’ve got and you’re too embarressed to use it.

 

[o_mlly]

He specifically says that everything was created in less than a week

Nah. Read the article. Move your lips if you have to.

Let’s recap. Fred’s first proposed argument that macroevolution does not violate the PSR:
“Ripperber believes in creation!”

Fred’s second proposed argument:
“You’re stupid.”

Fred’s third proposed argument:
“You don’t know how science works.”

Fred’s fourth proposed argument:
“Wait, what about something totally unrelated to PSR!”

Full circle and back to "He believes in creation!". Please cease blowing smoke and give us your argument.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

He specifically says that everything was created in less than a week

Nah. Read the article.

He said it in the video to which I linked. You literally are ignoring everything I post. And heaven forgive me but I will post the arguments against the fact that Ripperger said the psr proved that progression was impossible again. Yet again, progression is not a concept that is applicable to evolution. See below. The psr is not applicable and is shown by the following. All you posted in response was a paper on the increase in complexity and how it was associated with macroevolution.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3

'MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.

CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons.

First, as described in a misconception below, natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are “good enough” to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist.

Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don’t cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington’s disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population.

Finally, the whole idea of “progress” doesn’t make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure “progress” is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant’s perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider’s it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human’s, cognitive ability.

It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.’

 

[o_mlly]

He said it in the video to which I linked.

Smoking is dangerous to your health, Fred. I see you’re having trouble focusing. So, let me help you get started with your argument:

Macroevolution claims that all life has a common ancestor. The oldest known living being is a bug. Man evolved from that bug. This claim does not violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason because …

Just fill in the blank part. Back to you, Fred.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

He said it in the video to which I linked.

Back to you, Fred.

You are being nonsensical now. I again just posted Berkley’s explanation that the concept of progression is not applicable to evolution and therefore the psr as Ripperger was using it is therefore not applicable. That’s the second time I’ve posted it. It dismantles the very basis for his argument.

 

[o_mlly]

You are being nonsensical now. I again just posted Berkley’s explanation that the concept of progression is not applicable to evolution and therefore the psr as Ripperger was using it is therefore not applicable. That’s the second time I’ve posted it. It dismantles the very basis for his argument.

Sorry, Fred. Ripperger does not even use the word “progression” in his article. Please try again.

 

[ImQuiet]

Both have the locomotion function. (We fly faster and farther than any bird.)

What on earth.

 

[Hume]

Oh boy…

1. God transcends the PSR.

Cool. So the fallacy of special pleading is necessary to maintain your view. The discussion is no longer logical.

1. Has nothing to do with PSR.

Sure it does. There can be one cause. Two causes. Three. A billion. The PSR cannot and does not specify.

1. If to you self-evident is synonymous with “Brute Fact” then you confirm PSR.

You can’t confirm base axioms. They are accept/reject - including brute facts. This is why, for instance, flat-earthers exist. They simply refuse to acknowledge some very basic brute facts.

1. Nor would one expect the PSR to provide such clues. That revelation is in its application.

This made zero sense. The principle doesn’t provide these clues, but does? Wut???

How’s that fossil record working out for you? Not good, not good at all. Kool-Aid, anyone?

Work out pretty well. The fossil record is primarily what blows apart emotional and irrational challengers to the theory.

…

I’ve had fun, but we’ve pretty well established where your logic runs out and transitions fully to emotional ideology. As such, the important part of the discussion for me has ended.

Thanks for your views.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are being nonsensical now. I again just posted Berkley’s explanation that the concept of progression is not applicable to evolution and therefore the psr as Ripperger was using it is therefore not applicable. That’s the second time I’ve posted it. It dismantles the very basis for his argument.

Sorry, Fred. Ripperger does not even use the word “progression” in his article. Please try again.

His quote:

‘But the various essences or substances in the environment do not have sufficient order to be able to cause a mutation of a higher order’.

As explained and as indicated, there is no such thing as a higher order in evolution. Only in taxonomy. And from the paper to which you linked:

‘…because, as has often been stressed, there is no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. It is rather considered as an illusion founded on a chauvinistic expectation of human significance.’

Also from Berkley (in addition to what has been posted twice…):

‘One form of a trait may be ancestral to another more derived form, but to say that one is primitive and the other advanced implies that evolution entails progress — which is not the case’.

Ripperger doesn’t understand evolution and that’s why he makes the mistake. He thinks it’s a continuous process of advancement. The concept doesn’t apply. ‘A mutation of higer order’ makes no sense. Therefore he is wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

So the fallacy of special pleading is necessary to maintain your view. The discussion is no longer logical.

Do you believe in God? How do you define His being?

Sure it does. There can be one cause. Two causes. Three. A billion. The PSR cannot and does not specify.

The PSR does not have to specify the number of causes. One is enough to apply the principle and a billion is not too many.

You can’t confirm base axioms.

You can’t deny self-evident truths w/o being absurd. You can deny some brute facts as an alternative to admitting that one has no idea what caused an observed effect. See the difference?

This made zero sense. The principle doesn’t provide these clues, but does? Wut???

Maybe, to you it made no sense. A principle is a general rule or fundamental proposition. It does not give “clues”.

Work out pretty well. The fossil record is primarily what blows apart emotional and irrational challengers to the theory.

Only after a few Kool-Aid cocktails.

I’ve had fun, but we’ve pretty well established where your logic runs out and transitions fully to emotional ideology. As such, the important part of the discussion for me has ended.

Gee, it never started for me. Lucky you. Glad I could help you out.

 

[Hume]

Again, thanks.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we shall walk by faith and not by sight.

Pretty much sums up every religion that’s ever existed.

 

[Hume]

POST 2000!!!

lol