The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

Well, I think it's time with the closing of the old thread to stir the old pot again!

This sthread will be started start the new thread for the following reasons:
1. So Evolutionists get the first word
2. To enlighten the masses to the evidence for evolution including: evolutionists unaware of some of the fascinating evidence, those in the middle who need to see the light, creationists to combat the notion that evolution has no evidence and that creationism is scientific.
3. So I can set up some fair ground rules to make the thread more fun.
4. Sadistic Pleasure
5, The old thread was closed

The Rules:
1. No swamping the thread with articles. If you feel an article would be appropriate you may post it, but please only one per response. Also do not just post some random article, please use it as a means to augment your arguement, not as your arguement.
2. No yelling at someone to read a book. You want to post an exerpt from a book as part of your arguement, be my guest. However, yelling at someone to read a book is not going help.
3. We are arguing scientific credibility, therefore religious texts are not by fiat correct. If you want to argue religious philosophy go to the "Prove God Exists" thread. Please stay on topic
4. All standard forum rules apply, especially the no flaming, trolling and spamming rules. While one may consider their opposition to be incorrect let's not assert that they are not intelligent.

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Edit: Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.

As with the first thread I think I'll start off with a thought to chew on

Why is it that tthere is a branching phylogeny? If we take the structures of creatures and arrange them in order of similarity there is only one order that by and large appears. Evolution can easily explain that as the result of divergence over the years. Creationism must call it a coincidence.

I would like to point out that macro changes can occur.

A cat born with one central eye

Chickens changing their beaks

These macro changes (in these cases) did not lead to genetic advantage in a natural way, but the changes are evidence that the changes are possible.

El, both those animals died long before they could reproduce. Doesn't that show that those "macro changes", when they happen, are in fact detrimental to the survival of a species?

I would like to point out that I find the title quite clever.

Elrohir said:

El, both those animals died long before they could reproduce. Doesn't that show that those "macro changes", when they happen, are in fact detrimental to the survival of a species?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

Elohir - I know that they died. It's not proving evolution, it's proving that macro-level mutations can occur. How much has to go 'right' to keep those two alive, despite their mutations? We don't know.

punkbass2000 said:

No it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Could you elaborate a little bit on why not? Forgive me if I misunderstand, but don't life forms have to reproduce after they change in order to pass on their changed genes? But if these changes kill them, they can never pass on their genes, and their species never advances.

El_Machinae said:

Elohir - I know that they died. It's not proving evolution, it's proving that macro-level mutations can occur. How much has to go 'right' to keep those two alive, despite their mutations? We don't know.

Click to expand...

Of course huge mutations occur, I don't dispute that, and I don't know many who would. But are those changes ever, or even commonly actually helpful? Is there evidence that these animals commonly survive? You would have made a much better point if you had linked to stories of mutated animals that "advanced" (Something neither of these animals did, they were just messed up) and survived.

Why is it that tthere is a branching phylogeny?

Click to expand...

You're saying that you're putting the pieces into a row and stating that there is a pattern. No surprise there.

Is branching phylogeny related at all to region? Are mice from Austrailia more similar to monkeys from Australia than to monkeys from India?

Elrohir said:

El, both those animals died long before they could reproduce. Doesn't that show that those "macro changes", when they happen, are in fact detrimental to the survival of a species?

Click to expand...

I would say that mutations are random and that includes those "macro changes". Most of them are detrimental, so the mutants die. But because they are random, some, a few can be beneficial, and lead to new species.

I am looking for an example... I might edit this post or make another post.

Elrohir said:

Could you elaborate a little bit on why not? Forgive me if I misunderstand, but don't life forms have to reproduce after they change in order to pass on their changed genes? But if these changes kill them, they can never pass on their genes, and their species never advances.

Click to expand...

You're right. However, that two animals had macro changes and died before reproducing says nothing at all either way about whether or not macro changes can be beneficial in general. If you've studied logic, it's that just because some S is P does not mean all S is P. You've drawn a universal from a particular.

Elrohir said:

Of course huge mutations occur, I don't dispute that, and I don't know many who would. But are those changes ever, or even commonly actually helpful? Is there evidence that these animals commonly survive?

Click to expand...

They don't need to. Over the course of the history of the Earth, a change that gives even 0.0001% more survivability/reproducibilty will flourish and dominate the species. I don't think anyone's claiming that these particular mutations are beneficial. The fact that macro changes can occur is the point, which you admit.

punkbass2000 said:

You're right. However, that two animals had macro changes and died before reproducing says nothing at all either way about whether or not macro changes can be beneficial in general. If you've studied logic, it's that just because some S is P does not mean all S is P. You've drawn a universal from a particular.

Click to expand...

I have studied logic, and you make a fair point. But in the same way, just because it does not logically follow that every mutation will kill the life form, neither does it follow that any of them will necessarily survive either. There is not enough data to make either assumption. And with the only two examples put forward so far dead, the odds, at least as I see them, are significantly against maco-evolution.

Are there any really good examples of life mutating into a more specialized and advanced form of life? The larger the better; making a terrier have longer hair is great, but it's still a terrier. Preferably documented too, "This life form evolved into this in the Pre-Cambrian Era" doesn't really help much.

Elrohir said:

I have studied logic, and you make a fair point. But in the same way, just because it does not logically follow that every mutation will kill the life form, neither does it follow that any of them will necessarily survive either.

Click to expand...

True. However, no one made that point. Big mac simply stated that these changes are demonstrably possible. Your response was worded as a counter. You also positively claimed that these two examples show that macro changes are detrimental. They do not show that.

Alright, allow me to rephrase: In every example we have seen, maco evolutionary changes have been detrimental.

Now that that is out of the way, my question remains: Are there any real, good examples of "macro changes" that advanced a species and obviously also did not kill the subject?

Elrohir said:

Alright, allow me to rephrase: In every example we have seen, maco evolutionary changes have been detrimental.

Click to expand...

False, as you well are smart enough to know.

Let me rephrase it for you:
In all two examples thta have been named in this here thread so far, some macro evolutionary changes have been combined with other ones that have provben detrimental.

Elrohir said:

Alright, allow me to rephrase: In every example we have seen, maco evolutionary changes have been detrimental.

Now that that is out of the way, my question remains: Are there any real, good examples of "macro changes" that advanced a species and obviously also did not kill the subject?

Click to expand...

The study of evolution has not even been around 200 years. Thats nothing compared to how long life has been around. I cant think of any example right now but just because we havent observed any doesnt mean evolution is any less valid.

carlosMM said:

False, as you well are smart enough to know.

Let me rephrase it for you:
In all two examples thta have been named in this here thread so far, some macro evolutionary changes have been combined with other ones that have provben detrimental.

Click to expand...

So, two out of two isn't every example? I love you too Carlos, despite your terrible logic.

El_Machinae said:

You're saying that you're putting the pieces into a row and stating that there is a pattern. No surprise there.

Click to expand...

That's not all there is to it. We arrange them based on a set of criteria, and it turns out that they fit a branching phylogeny.

Elrohir said:

Alright, allow me to rephrase: In every example we have seen, maco evolutionary changes have been detrimental.

Now that that is out of the way, my question remains: Are there any real, good examples of "macro changes" that advanced a species and obviously also did not kill the subject?

Click to expand...

Here's a fun one
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Now that that is out of the way, my question remains: Are there any real, good examples of "macro changes" that advanced a species and obviously also did not kill the subject?

Click to expand...

So far I can't turn up an example in a lifeform as advanced as a cat, but on the bacterial level, yes. Take a look at this site

Particularly of note is the shift from a unicellular to a multicellular organism described. This is a very drastic change for an organism to undergo.

Perfection said:

Here's a fun one
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Click to expand...

Fair enough, that is an adaption that will help it to survive. But isn't this a fairly minor change? Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but if that's the best example of macro evolution you can provide, it just seems a little small, especially since they've known about that bacteria for more than a hundred years. (Isn't that the equivalent of a couple hundred million syears for humans; so should the change's be at least somewhat as dramatic? Going bo evolutionary theory, humans wouldn't even be recognizable a couple hundred million years ago) Also, isn't this just more of this bacteria, already known for being able to eat different things, just adapting well instead of actually mutating? It seems to me that those are two very different things.