Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
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
Click to expand...
Again, you’re done.

God violates the PSR and saying it’s allowed to is literally freshman-level, intro to logic “Special Pleading”.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.
 
Freddy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, we knew you had writing difficulties. Now it appears you are reading challenged as well. Please read what you posted again. Fortunately, your conclusion is correct: Nobody claims that.
 
Hume said:
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.
Click to expand...
Following the Atheist Playbook, I see.
o_mlly said:
Rule number ? : When they ask for evidence of macroevolution just keep giving them more microevolution stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Hume said:
Again, you’re done.

God violates the PSR and saying it’s allowed to is literally freshman-level, intro to logic “Special Pleading”.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.
Click to expand...
Spare me your high school debating tactics.

You tried that trick before. Do you believe in God? If so, how do you define Him?
 
rossum said:
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.
Click to expand...
And at what generation did the plant evolve into an animal?
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
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.
Click to expand...
What exactly was this environmental change that came along, and was so beneficial to just 1 mouse ?
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Hume:
Again, you’re done.

God violates the PSR and saying it’s allowed to is literally freshman-level, intro to logic “Special Pleading”.

Your argument is demonstrably invalid.
Click to expand...
Spare me your high school debating tactics.

You tried that trick before. Do you believe in God? If so, how do you define Him?
Click to expand...
The trick here is just the rules of rhetoric. Evolutionists supposedly violate it but creationists certainly violate it.

I don’t believe in any gods.
 
The environment changed, reducing the fitness of all mice.

A mutation occured through one of the many pathways they can, and the genetically different offspring of this mouse were more suited to the environment.

Let’s say an ice age appeared. The random mutation was an extra hair layer, extra blubber layer. Whatever makes a creature a little more efficient at retaining heat.
 
Plants and animals, for the most part, divided early in the history of life.

Two identical littoral protist-like-critters had offspring. One had offspring with better flagella, so they swam better. Went further out in the water and with more changes became more like fish.
The other had offspring with larger chloroplasts. They stayed closer to the water surface and with more changes became more like algae.
 
Last edited:
“Microevolution” becomes “macroevolution” in sexually reproducing species when the accumulation of new or different traits becomes great enough that the chromosomes in their gametes are no longer sufficiently congruent to align and create a viable cell.

The difference between micro and macro is thus arbitrary. This is why the distinction is not noted by most genuine evolutionary scientists.
 
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is there an icon for a facepalm?
This is the result of waaay too much Aquinas and not even remotely enough time spent learning what the scientifc model actually says.
 
Hume said:
The environment changed, reducing the fitness of all mice.
Click to expand...
So, it was a tailor made environment change that worked in perfect harmony with that 1 mouse’s lucky random mutation gene.
Hume said:
Let’s say an ice age appeared. The random mutation was an extra hair layer, extra blubber layer. Whatever makes a creature a little more efficient at retaining heat.
Click to expand...
The ice age is going to kill its ecosystem , so there’s nothing for it to eat… so it dies too.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
So, it was a tailor made environment change that worked in perfect harmony with that 1 mouse’s lucky random mutation gene.
Click to expand...
Bingo. You got it.
The ice age is going to kill its ecosystem so there’s nothing for it to eat… so it dies too.
Click to expand...
Further toward the poles, you’re right. Everything died.

But a few thousand miles away from the pole, it was cold enough that a lot of stuff died, but these mice persisted alongside a few of the more hearty plant species - albeit in a struggling fashion.

This is evolutionary pressure. None at all generates no change. Way too much results in extinction. Between those two poles you have pressure for more gradual or more rapid change.
 
Hume said:
Two identical littoral protist-like-critters had offspring. One had offspring with better flagella, so they swam better. Went further out in the water and with more changes became more like fish.
The other had offspring with larger chloroplasts. They stayed closer to the water surface and with more changes became more like algae.
Click to expand...
Second place award. Not quite as good as PattyIt’s whale of a story. But both fit the definition. Fairy tale: children’s story about magical and imaginary beings and lands.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Hume:
Two identical littoral protist-like-critters had offspring. One had offspring with better flagella, so they swam better. Went further out in the water and with more changes became more like fish.
The other had offspring with larger chloroplasts. They stayed closer to the water surface and with more changes became more like algae.
Click to expand...
Second place award. Not quite as good as PattyIt’s whale of a story. But both fit the definition. Fairy tale: children’s story about magical and imaginary beings and lands.
Click to expand...
Denialism to add to your special pleading.

I doubt you’d even get 2nd place in Intro to Logic 😬
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top