Evolution and Creationism

[Freddy]

POST 2000!!!

lol

I think 20% of them were people continually asking o-mlly if she was yec. Took about 400 posts to find that out. I’ll start a book on how many it’ll take to get a response to the maximum number of microevolutionary changes we’re ‘allowed’. Send me a pm and give me post number. Loser makes a $5 donation to the forum.

 

[o_mlly]

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:

Here’s Ripperger’s full sentence:

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 because, in that particular case, the things in the environment do not contain sufficient existence to be able to beget that existence in another thing.

The evolutionist claim that changes in the environment can cause new species violates PSR, iff a new species is defined as possessing functions not present in its predecessors. Only microevolution is possible from changes in environment.

‘…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.’

Is the Galium azuayicum species on the same order as the species African bush elephant? No. Ripperger does not argue a higher order within a group of living beings that evidence the same functions. He does argue that the macroevolution claim that plants evolved into animals does violate the PSR.

‘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’.

More intraspecies errors in understanding PSR violations.

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.

Au contraire. He understands evolution better than our fearless interlocutor, aka, Fred. Therefore, he’s right.

 

[o_mlly]

Loser …

A pause while the two exchange their mutual admiration posts. Can’t help but notice this Freudian slip though.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Again, you’re welcome.

Want to play a little Bible bingo, eh?
Jeremiah 5:21 sums up all atheists pretty much.

Pay attention to this,
you foolish and senseless people,
Who have eyes and do not see,
who have ears and do not hear.

Looks like Fred has had his Kool-Aid nightcap and gone to repose himself. So I think I’ll go off-line do some photosynthesis.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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:

Here’s Ripperger’s full sentence:

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 because, in that particular case, the things in the environment do not contain sufficient existence to be able to beget that existence in another thing.

The highlighted portion yet again is not correct. There is no such thing as ‘a higher order’ so the sentence makes no sense. Even if you suggest that he simply means ‘a new species’ as opposed to ‘a mutation of a higher order’ it still makes no sense because the environment only causes small incremental changes - your microevolution (and not even genetic changes are necessarily caused by the environment. Quite often they are errors in copying).

So it wouldn’t be a change in species but a minor change which almost all of the time is detrimental but which on rare ocassions is beneficial in some small way. And that environmental cause would be chemical or possibly radioactive. There is no requirement for ‘sufficient order’ in a gamma ray or a chemical compound to enable it to make that change. What on earth does he think within the environment makes these genetic errors?

I seriously think that he thinks that the environment works directly on an organism so that cold weather causes thicker fur or soot on trees causes moths to change their colouring. It appears he has absolutely no idea. So yet again he is wrong.

I mean seriously. How many times in how many ways does it need to be shown that this guy has no idea what he’s talking about?

And the fact that copying errors or exposure to various chemicals or possibly radioactivity causes these mutations in the genetic code leading to small changes to the organisms - your microevolutionary steps, I’ll take this opportunity to ask again: When do these changes stop? When do the chemicals or radioactivity cease to have an effect? When does the copying procedure become 100% perfect?

 

[Hume]

Wow it’s almost like religion is self-insulating and self-reinforcing. Weird.

 

[Techno2000]

The evolutionist claim that changes in the environment can cause new species violates PSR, iff a new species is defined as possessing functions not present in its predecessors. Only microevolution is possible from changes in environment.

Right, and how does evolution know what a future environment is going to be like, it could revert back to what it once was . Plus, every little aspect of an ecosystem would have to change also to support life.

 

[buffalo]

You missed another really important St Paul statement. Do you know what it is?

 

[Freddy]

The evolutionist claim that changes in the environment can cause new species violates PSR, iff a new species is defined as possessing functions not present in its predecessors. Only microevolution is possible from changes in environment.

Well, well. Tecno has a use after all. He just quoted that comment from you which I’d missed.

You do believe exactly what I thought Ripperger might. That changes in the environment cause new species to emerge - and that that fact violates the psr.

Nobody claims that. The changes are caused by chemicals or radioactivity or copying errors. Evolution is defined by changes in the genes - or allele to be more specific. Not caused by changes in the environment. So a drought or an ice age or greater rainfall or more food does not cause any evolutionary change whatsoever. It simply means that any organism lucky enough to have experienced a genetic change which confers an advantage in the new environment will allow it to survive better than those organisms that didn’t get lucky. So your comment becomes nonsensical.

Congratulations. You’ve posted yet another comment that you think backs your position but which only serves two entirely different purposes. One, it confirms that your knowledge of evolution is sadly lacking. And two, it completely destroys your psr argument. Again.

 

[rossum]

You missed another really important St Paul statement.

You missed to opportunity to tell us how old you think the earth is.

Since a reluctance to answer questions is a characteristic of YECs, then a failure to answer might lead us to draw conclusions.

 

[Techno2000]

It simply means that any organism lucky enough to have experienced a genetic change which confers an advantage in the new environment will allow it to survive better than those organisms that didn’t get lucky. So your comment becomes nonsensical.

Oh, so the 10 million different plants and animals species we have today just happen by coincidence.

 

[Techno2000]

It simply means that any organism lucky enough to have experienced a genetic change which confers an advantage in the new environment will allow it to survive better than those organisms that didn’t get lucky.

The whole ecosystem is going to have to get a “lucky genetic change” , because an environmental change isn’t only going to affect one organism.

 

[Hume]

The mutations were coincidental. The process that takes advantage of it (or kills you because of it) is systematic.

 

[Hume]

Quite right.

 

[Techno2000]

The mutations were coincidental. The process that takes advantage of it (or kills you because of it) is systematic.

So, it was just luck that 10 million species of plants and animals just happen to have the perfect random mutations at same time when 10 million environmental changes came along …what are the odd of that ?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

The mutations were coincidental. The process that takes advantage of it (or kills you because of it) is systematic.

So, it was just luck that 10 million species of plants and animals just happen to have the perfect random mutations at same time when 10 million environmental changes came along …what are the odd of that ?

Just has to happen in one.
In a population of millions of mice with a reproduction cycle of more months it gets pretty feasible pretty quickly.

The 1 mouse with the advantageous adaptation has twice as many kids as other mice (as an example). These mice outcompete other mice, causing those with the adaption to reproduce more, those without it reproduce less.

It doesn’t take long before the mouse without the novel trait becomes hard to find. Maybe they disappear entirely.

Not difficult to imagine. It seems to be what the fossil record shows us.

 

[rossum]

The 1 mouse with the advantageous adaptation has twice as many kids as other mice

It doesn’t have to be as much of an advantage as that. Even a 1% reproductive advantage gets very large very quickly:

The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16

That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall. They are rare initially, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.

This is a very simple model and easy to set up on a spreadsheet, but it is enough to show the advantage natural selection gives a beneficial mutation and how it spreads through a population over the generations.

 

[Hume]

Thanks for some numbers.

 

[o_mlly]

… Even if you suggest that he simply means ‘a new species’ as opposed to ‘a mutation of a higher order’ it still makes no sense because the environment only causes small incremental changes …

So it wouldn’t be a change in species but a minor change …

And the fact that copying errors or exposure to various chemicals or possibly radioactivity causes these mutations in the genetic code leading to small changes to the organisms …

Progress, perhaps.

Recall that the section of the article you chose to criticize came after Ripperger explained that macroevolution of one species into another species violates the PSR:

Since one species does not have the existence of the essence in itself to be able to confer it to another species, it cannot be the cause of another species/essence.

He then moves on in the section you initially criticized to address the macroevolutionist’s claim that the environment also can cause macroevolution.

Now, at last, you agree with the Ripperger that only microevolution can occur intraspecies or environmentally:

This variation within a species is sometimes called microevolution. Hence, we see that microevolution is possible, while macroevolution is not.

Welcome aboard.

 

[EndTimes]

Quite true. And unless I’m mistaken,
a general definition of species which you accept is that the ‘new’ species cannot reproduce with the ‘old’ species.

generally is an operative…

Maybe … Maybe not … for, there’s never been a loss wrt taxonic classification disagreement
More to the real point
Genus, Species, SubSpecies - means naught with regard to this question:

Did the BIOTA emerge from chemicals?

_