Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

I didn’t say it failed, I said it was incorrect.

You can say my definition was not comprehensive as it left out a part but you can’t say it was incorrect because it was correct. Why do you think it was incorrect?

Where did you get that idea? Natural selection only has to do with survival. Beneficial or neutral changes can be passed on, detrimental will die out.

So explain to us how the speech hardware is beneficial or neutral without the speech which is externally acquired. Also explain how the undeveloped hardware is detrimental if both the developed and the undeveloped hardware means someone can not speak.

If you are predisposed to that position perhaps. But it is only a relative sequence (you have to have the “hardware” first) rather than a specific timetable.

Relative sequence?! Cool myth.
Evolution (Biological means) results in the ability to use a language and so the only remaining thing is the usage of a language which is achieved by through social means. It is like the biological means knew exactly what would happen. Good Darwin!

Anecdotal? And a personal anecdote at that? Seriously? Okay then, where is the paper you wrote about the experience? Or any of the “million other” experiences? The request was for references , not more assertions.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1966.11435448

https://www.iises.net/international-journal-of-teaching-education/publication-detail-213?download=2

 

[whatistrue]

not comprehensive as it left out a part but you can’t say it was incorrect

A distinction without a difference. It stated speech and ignored sign, so it was incorrect.

So explain to us how the speech hardware is beneficial or neutral without the speech which is externally acquired

I didn’t state that it was beneficial before language developed. It could have been beneficial in some other way and also enabled producing the speech sounds we use today. One of those pesky multipurpose things that seem to keep showing up. Or it could have been entirely neutral but still enabled speech.

Also explain how the undeveloped hardware is detrimental if both the developed and the undeveloped hardware means someone can not speak.

Why would I explain this since I disagree with the premise?

Relative sequence?! Cool myth.

It is a myth that some things happen before other things? Interesting idea.

It is like the biological means knew exactly what would happen.

Or like we took advantage of a set of physical and neurological structures that could have developed and been preserved for other purposes. Note that I am not saying that this is the only way it could have happened, but that it is a possibility.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00437956.1966.11435448

https://www.iises.net/international-journal-of-teaching-education/publication-detail-213?download=2

It will take me a while to dig through these (and the publications they came from), but an admittedly quick scan didn’t reveal anything about how languages originated. So unless you are claiming that all languages sprang into being fully formed and were infused into the various human populations (whether before or after the story of Babel), how do you account for it?

 

[Noose001]

A distinction without a difference. It stated speech and ignored sign, so it was incorrect.

You can not say incorrect but you can say it was not exhaustive. Even if included words and signs in my definition it would still be not exhaustive. so what?

I didn’t state that it was beneficial before language developed. It could have been beneficial in some other way and also enabled producing the speech sounds we use today. One of those pesky multipurpose things that seem to keep showing up. Or it could have been entirely neutral but still enabled speech.

No evidence.
But how coordinated is this system, more like planning for future. There is no randomness in what you are proposing here.

Why would I explain this since I disagree with the premise?

It is still your premise. Now that you claim there was a series of beneficial or neutral mutations which were being selected over others within the same population, you should at least have an explanation as how the others within the same population did not benefit (detrimental) or are you saying that the same series of mutations happened to all members of the population?

It is a myth that some things happen before other things? Interesting idea

It is a myth that randomness is not really randomness and can plan and lay foundation for the next step.

Or like we took advantage of a set of physical and neurological structures that could have developed and been preserved for other purposes. Note that I am not saying that this is the only way it could have happened, but that it is a possibility.

No evidence

 

[Stephen459]

Read this book: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Miller, Kenneth R.: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books

Also, if you want to learn more about evolution, simply read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

 

[whatistrue]

No evidence.

Plenty of evidence to those who look at it.

But how coordinated is this system, more like planning for future. There is no randomness in what you are proposing here.

I don’t know how else to say it; A structure can come into existence and be spread and preserved thorough the generations of a species and then be used for a different purpose later. No coordination or planning for the future. I never said anything about randomness, please stop putting words in my mouth.

It is still your premise. Now that you claim there was a series of beneficial or neutral mutations which were being selected over others within the same population, you should at least have an explanation as how the others within the same population did not benefit (detrimental) or are you saying that the same series of mutations happened to all members of the population?

You still don’t appear to understand how evolution works. We are not talking about a sudden species-wide change, but a change in one or a few members that either confers an advantage or is at least neutral and is spread through the species by inheritance over many generations. Not a mutation that happens to everybody.

It is a myth that randomness is not really randomness

Again, stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that (sound more like something you would say in fact).

No evidence

No understanding is more likely.

I have better things to do with my time than go around and around with someone who doesn’t even listen to what I say before replying. Muting thread now.

 

[Techno2000]

ineffective evolution

Right, how many millions of so-called unfit offspring evolution had to go through to get point where we are now.

 

[Techno2000]

o_mlly:

Freddy:

My position is that the evolutionary process has led to the current biosphere by changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations resulting in speciation. The conclusion of which is that all life has evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Now, was that so hard?

My position is that the macroevolutionary process has not led to the current biosphere of biological populations over successive generations resulting in diversity of life forms. The conclusion of which is that all life cannot have evolved over a period of billions of years from a common ancestor.

Macroevolution is the best speculation that science can offer today. However, the speculation does not meet science’s requirements as an hypothesis evidenced in part by the failure to precisely define the very event it purports to explain.

Back to you.

Yet again you refuse to give your alternative. It’s all negative. It’s the standard MO - simply saying ‘This is wrong’. This is all you said:

…the macroevolutionary process has not led…
…life cannot have evolved over a period of billions of years…
…does not meet science’s requirements…
…the failure to precisely define the very event…

Absolutely nothing whatsoever about what you think the alternative is. Nothing at all. In any post. Even when you say you will give your answer if I answer your question as to my views, you completely ignore your own promise.

You have nothing to offer except negativity. You propose nothing. You offer nothing. You apparently have nothing to give. I think that’s been plain to see in all comments up to your last post and has indeed been confirmed by that last post.

At least Buffalo and now Gigantals have the courage of their convictions. At least they tell us exactly what they believe to be true.

From you? Nothing.

If he said God created everything you would say that’s foolishness,but then you would prove the Bible is right.

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Noose001]

Come prepared next time.
And randomness/accidents is exactly what Evolution proposes.

 

[Noose001]

Right, how many millions of so-called unfit offspring evolution had to go through to get point where we are now.

Trial and error- requires enough time.

 

[o_mlly]

Trial and error- requires enough time.

Science, assuming a regularity to nature, seeks to discover the mathematics by which she causes the phenomena we observe.

The macro boys seem to have only one formula to share so far:

macro = micro + 3.8 billion years

With the proviso that if more time is needed then they’ll find it by turning over another rock, develop another age-dating test method, or we’ll let you know.

 

[buffalo]

Do you understand what that means? He is actually paid to produce conclusions that the earth is 6,000 years old. That’s his job.

And if he can prove it? and you cannot disprove it? What then.

Evo researches have to stay within the bounds of the evo paradigm or their funding disappears.

 

[Noose001]

Science, assuming a regularity to nature, seeks to discover the mathematics by which she causes the phenomena we observe.

The macro boys seem to have only one formula to share so far:

macro = micro + 3.8 billion years

With the proviso that if more time is needed then they’ll find it by turning over another rock, develop another age-dating test method, or we’ll let you know.

They find their motivation in “God must not exist”

 

[buffalo]

Now you wouldn’t have got that from a creationist site by any chance?

Is it your position that creation scientists findings do not have to be answered? Is it your position that the only valid challenges have to come from within the Darwin lobby?

What is the difference who the source is if it is true?

 

[buffalo]

The macro boys seem to have only one formula to share so far:

macro = micro + 3.8 billion years

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more​

Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

…As other scientists have found with other enzymes, it turned out not to be a snap. The technical details are reported in a paper just published in BIO-Complexity . [2] Here we’ll keep it simple.
Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
Now, if I were a Darwinist a result like this would bother me. I’m sure some of my fellow Darwinists would try to dismiss it as irrelevant… but that would bother me all the more.
The excuse for shrugging it off would, I expect, be that the transition we examined isn’t actually one that anyone thinks occurred in the history of life. That’s true, but it badly misses the point. As Ann and I made clear in the paper, our aim wasn’t to replicate a historical transition, but rather to identify what ought to be a relatively easy transition and find out how hard or easy it really is. We put it this way in the paper [2]:

Whether or not a particular conversion ever occurred as a paralogous innovation (or the direction in which it occurred if it did) is not the point of interest here. Rather, the point is to identify the kind of functional innovation that ought to be among the most feasible […] and then to assess how feasible this innovation is.
So, if I had a Darwinist alter ego, here’s the problem he’d be facing right now. To dismiss our study as irrelevant, he’d have to say (in effect) that he sees no inconsistency between these two assessments of the power of Darwin’s mechanism:
But that’s not an easy thing to say with a straight face, is it?
Having always believed the bottom picture to be correct, my alter ego would be very reluctant to reject it. And yet he wouldn’t be able to deny the obvious. There is in fact a jaw-dropping, ludicrous, even grotesque inconsistency between the top picture and the bottom picture. They can’t possibly both be true. But that realization, of course, forces an uncomfortable decision.
And here I must confess to feeling more than a little sympathy for my alter ego. I think it’s because of what we have in common.
He loves science.
So do I.
He loves stories.
So do I.
He sees a role for stories in framing scientific ideas.
So do I.
And he has said to himself, “The progress of science has invalidated my alter ego’s favorite story.”
So have I.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Right, how many millions of so-called unfit offspring evolution had to go through to get point where we are now.

Trial and error- requires enough time.

Right, and evolution has perfect timing also,because when you look around all of sudden everything now is perfectly fit for their environment.

 

[Gigantals]

So for some reason, it didn’t post the numbers right in my previous comment. To support your case for the sheer amount of time needed for evolution to work:

(The numerical impossibility of evolution)

To actually assemble a working (coding) piece of DNA through randomness, even removing the challenges it would face during assembly, is ridiculous even for one gene. You simply don’t have the time. An average gene of 1000 base pairs has 4^1000 possibilities, around 10^602 possibilities, which vastly outnumbers the number of atoms in the universe at 10^80. If every atom in the universe represented a single experiment every millisecond for the largest estimate of its age (15 billion years), you would have only achieved 10^100 combinations. And this is just 1000 functional base pairs. We have considerably more than 1000 base pairs making up functional genes in our genome. This far exceeds the Universal Probability Bound. This also means that for a single cell to somehow assemble (through abiogenesis or spontaneous generation), would have a probability far, far lower than what is statistically feasible (around 10^-50, though thermodynamics has a lower value of 10^-10²³).

(Response to apparent artificial cell membrane formation)

Those membranes you’re talking about were basically lipid bubbles. There’s a billion Worlds of difference between them and an actual cell membrane.

(Countering the claim of formation in brackish water)

Did I not mention that the presence of other organic molecules would have destroyed the early cells and proteins? Alcohol and water can pass through cell membranes and interfere with primitive proteins before they become anything too big (and enough alcohol actually shreds the cell membrane into little bubbles). Sugars would not have been able to pass into the cell because they’re too big and there’s no transport proteins in the cell (since they had yet to be coded first), and thanks to the lack of a cytoskeleton providing structural support, if the cell ripped open, it would not close easily. Anything in that water would’ve entered it. Sugars and alcohols would interfere in amino acid synthesis. So the brackish water would’ve actually made things worse than pure water.

Ever since the fall, we no longer live in a perfect World. And even in a perfect World, the numbers are too damning against the possibility of evolution.

Hope it helps

 

[buffalo]

Protein folding odds are also nearly impossible.

 

[Gigantals]

True. Unfortunately, they weren’t mentioned in the book I read.

 

[buffalo]

True. Unfortunately, they weren’t mentioned in the book I read.

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds​

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

 

[rossum]

To actually assemble a working (coding) piece of DNA through randomness, even removing the challenges it would face during assembly, is ridiculous even for one gene.

And that is where your source makes an all-too-common creationist error. Evolution does not assemble genes at random. It assembles them by random mutation and natural selection. A calculation that does not include the effect of natural selection is of no use in modelling evolution because it omits a major part of the process.

Including natural selection makes the calculation more complex and has a major effect on the time taken. I have calculated the time for a 100 amino acid (300 base pairs). Ignoring natural selection it takes 6.35e130 years. When I included the effects of natural selection in the calculation, the time taken dropped to 2.01e6 years, just over two million years. See The Evolution of Boojumase for details.

Putting out spurious calculations like this is one of the reasons that scientists find creationist websites worthless.