Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[useless]

I liked the part where he denied the existence of a moth that went against his view despite the fact that said moth is observed to not only have existed, but still exists

 

[Arakhor]

I've started thread three now, so that this one can be locked.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

were are obviously not one the same page on what micro evolution and macro-evolution is.
are the differences in purebred dogs micro or macro evolution.
is antibiotic resistance an example of micro or macro evolution.

Answer me these questions.

Through micro-evolution, can a group within a species:

• change color?
• change size/shape?
• have ears/tails/other lengthened or shortened or even disappear entirely?
• become geographically so diverse that a group no longer mates with another?
• become so physically different that they can no longer copulate?

The answer to all of these things is yes.

Now, if group within a species

• No longer mates with other groups within a species
• Is physically incapable of doing so even if they happened upon one another
• Only reproduced with the sub-group

Over time, the genetic differences WILL make the sub-group incapable of producing offspring with the main group, even on the genetic level, because:

The chromosomes are slowly changing in length due to random mutations and errors.

That's when you get a genetic code which looks like this:


AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCGGCTTAG


trying to combine with code that looks like this:


AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCG


Which produces this:

AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCGGCTTAG
AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCG

And it doesn't fit. It physically cannot fit. And then you only have viable offspring once in a thousand.... or a million..... and the offspring becomes sterile.


And guess what? New species.

• Do you deny that with microevolution, this is the INEVITABLE result over time?

If so, that's wishful thinking.

 

[negZero]

@Arakhor OT threads go to 1000 posts we have 596 more posts of fun to go

 

[Brian Shanahan]

In 1956, a Clean Air Act was passed in Britain. Within about fifteen years, studies were showing that the percentage of light-coloured moths in many populations was increasing again (Berry 308). The original colour change, though attention-grabbing, had been simply a short-term fluctuation, proving nothing about large-scale evolution. As Harvard paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould has noted:

". . . biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades. . . . but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the 'paradox of the visibly irrelevant'—or, if you can see it at all, it's too fast to matter in the long run. . . . Most cases of rapid microevolution represent the transient and momentary blips and fillips that 'flesh out' the rich history of lineages of stasis. . . . Small local populations and parts of lineages make short and temporary forays of transient adaptation but almost always die out or get reintegrated into the general pool of the species"

he recounted that pepper moths were proof of evolution
even dawkins backs away
The details of any experiments done 40 years ago are bound to be vulnerable to detailed criticism,” says
Richard Dawkins, a professor at Oxford University. “But, in any case, nothing momentous hangs on these
experiments.”

A) Are you actually so intellectually bankrupt to deliberately misquote people to insinuate that they hold a view which is opposite to what they are actuall expressing. Here is the actual quote from Stephen Jay Gould:
“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend — though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”
— "The Paradox of the Visibly Irrelevant," The Lying Stones of Marrakech, New York: Harmony Books, 2000, pp. 334-335.
Please note that for this alone I am going to report you, as it clearly contravenes the first rule of the forum:
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, racist, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this forum."

B) The paper you are citing, is actually a paper proposing a way for the peppered moth to evolve natually. Again you demonstrate no understanding of what you are talking about.

C) The quote attributed to Dawkins, I can only find in creatinist websites, clearly talking about a totally different article. Again you are breaking forum rules.

 

[Arakhor]

@Arakhor OT threads go to 1000 posts we have 596 more posts of fun to go

Do we? I'm a complete prat, then.

 

[useless]

Apparently these:

Don't exist.

 

[magicfan101]

I liked the part where he denied the existence of a moth that went against his view despite the fact that said moth is observed to not only have existed, but still exists

moths are not an example of macro evolution.
here is another scientist backing away
Jonathan Wells, who conceded that Majerus listed six moths on exposed tree trunks (out of 47), but argued that this was "an insignificant proportion".[30] Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in The Scientist of May 24, 1999, claiming that "In 25 years of fieldwork, C.A. Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth on a tree trunk", and concluding that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments"

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm

 

[Seon]

By the way, here's the wiki on the doctor "backing away"

Edit: Oh, and here's the counter to Well's claim.

 

[magicfan101]

Answer me these questions.

Through micro-evolution, can a group within a species:

• change color?
• change size/shape?
• have ears/tails/other lengthened or shortened or even disappear entirely?
• become geographically so diverse that a group no longer mates with another?
• become so physically different that they can no longer copulate?

The answer to all of these things is yes.

Now, if group within a species

• No longer mates with other groups within a species
• Is physically incapable of doing so even if they happened upon one another
• Only reproduced with the sub-group

.

thank you for admitting micro-evolution is a downward sloping process. no matter how far you push a "species" there will be hard caps on the amounts of change.
every experiment done to force change and make a new "viable" species has caused tremendous harm to the organism.

please dont forget about deletions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Answer me these questions.

Through micro-evolution, can a group within a species:

• change color?
• change size/shape?
• have ears/tails/other lengthened or shortened or even disappear entirely?
• become geographically so diverse that a group no longer mates with another?
• become so physically different that they can no longer copulate?

The answer to all of these things is yes.

Now, if group within a species

• No longer mates with other groups within a species
• Is physically incapable of doing so even if they happened upon one another
• Only reproduced with the sub-group

Over time, the genetic differences WILL make the sub-group incapable of producing offspring with the main group, even on the genetic level, because:

The chromosomes are slowly changing in length due to random mutations and errors.

That's when you get a genetic code which looks like this:


AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCGGCTTAG


trying to combine with code that looks like this:


AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCG


Which produces this:

AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCGGCTTAG
AGCTTCCTTCATGGCTATTGCTTAGCG

And it doesn't fit. It physically cannot fit. And then you only have viable offspring once in a thousand.... or a million..... and the offspring becomes sterile.


And guess what? New species.

• Do you deny that with microevolution, this is the INEVITABLE result over time?

If so, that's wishful thinking.

Well, with God in control anything is possible. And I have no idea if macroevolution is possible in theory or not, but I know the world won't still be around in a million years.

 

[History_Buff]

moths are not an example of macro evolution.

Why exactly? Are they not 'macro' enough for you?

Well, with God in control anything is possible.

And that's exactly why Creationism doesn't belong in the science classroom. 'God does it' is not a scientific theory.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

thank you for admitting micro-evolution is a downward sloping process.

When did I admit that?

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

no matter how far you push a "species" there will be hard caps on the amounts of change.

That's easy! No there won't be.

• Now, you respond with evidence of the hard caps.

every experiment done to force change and make a new "viable" species has caused tremendous harm to the organism.

That's how all existing species developed, and the change was forced by environment and distance.

These organisms are just fine.

• Now, you respond with EVIDENCE to back up your claims.

please dont forget about deletions.

What about deletions?


Are you capable of demonstrating your points through words, without me having to ask for the specifics constantly?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, with God in control anything is possible. And I have no idea if macroevolution is possible in theory or not, but I know the world won't still be around in a million years.

Could you please stop posting your irrelevant religious beliefs without one shred of evidence to back it up?

This is a science discussion, not "share your dreams hour".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Could you please stop posting your irrelevant religious beliefs without one shred of evidence to back it up?

This is a science discussion, not "share your dreams hour".

Umm... If the world didn't naturally die within a million years, humans will have destroyed it. This is common knowledge.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

When did I admit that?

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

When he puts words into Steven Jay Gould's mouth (or is it Stephen, I always mix up the spelling of his name), putting words in your mouth is such a small thing to do.

 

[negZero]

Well, with God in control anything is possible. And I have no idea if macroevolution is possible in theory or not, but I know the world won't still be around in a million years.

Where is this miracle that science can't explain away you promised me

 

[sophie]

Well, with God in control anything is possible. And I have no idea if macroevolution is possible in theory or not, but I know the world won't still be around in a million years.

How do you know? Unless God talked specifically to you, and provided you with a damn good reason why all the evidence availabe to humans today directly refutes the fact that the World has existed not only for millions, but rather for billions of years, I'd really like to see it. Otherwise, please GTFO of this thread.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Umm... If the world didn't naturally die within a million years, humans will have destroyed it. This is common knowledge.

No, it's NOT common knowledge.

YOU are incapable of separating opinion from fact. You constantly show up in threads and state your opinion as if you were God almighty and you knew better than everyone else in existence, while at the same time professing NO KNOWLEDGE about how or why things happen.

Case in point, your response to my challenge about Noah's Ark. Half your answers were "I dunno" and it led to "I guess it's possible but I know it's not true because the Earth won't be around that long."

You keep doing it. It's not the same thing as having a real scientific discussion.


Domination3000, I KNOW WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE, YOU'VE TOLD THEM TO ME BEFORE, STOP POSTING THEM WHEN YOU REFUSE TO BACK THEM UP WITH EVIDENCE IN THREADS ABOUT SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE!!!!


I'm tired of hearing about it, it is OFF TOPIC.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How do you know? Unless God talked specifically to you, and provided you with a damn good reason why all the evidence availabe to humans today directly refutes the fact that the World has existed not only for millions, but rather for billions of years, I'd really like to see it. Otherwise, please GTFO of this thread.

God has spoken to me in my heart, though he's never told me the age of the Earth.

However, I'd like to see some of this "Evidence." So far I haven't seen any.