The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Urederra]

But evolution is not a linear process, but rather jumps here and there. That is why some missing links cannot be found, they don´t exist.

 

[Perfection]

But evolution is not a linear process, but rather jumps here and there. That is why some missing links cannot be found, they don´t exist.

That too is an important part. Interspecifc transitions tend to leave little traces. I didn't care to add it in my previous post though because mine more completely demonstrates the fallacy of the creationist logic.

 

[classical_hero]

Okay so evolution is a slow, painstaking, incramental porsess that takes decades, centeries or even millenium right? Then why do people ask for "the missing link"? Would it not stand to recon that there is in fact millions of missing links because each subsequent generation would be slightly diffrent?

Here in lies the double talk of evolutionists. Often people just say that evolution is change, then what type of change are we talking about. The problem is that often people are confusing "micro-evolution" with "marco-evolution". Those two are not one and the same. Basically then there would still be examples of in between creatures then, but then we get this.

But evolution is not a linear process, but rather jumps here and there. That is why some missing links cannot be found, they don´t exist.

But there is absolutely no evidence for this. All that is, is a presumption because you do not see it happening now. So you say that we do not see it now because it is a stop start process. I am glad we do agree on one point, that they do not exist.

You do realise that Creationism does not deny change, but is does deny that we can from a single cell. There has not been any evidence to even show that and any evidence we do see of change is always acceptable. Evne the often used Nylon bug is acceptable in a Creation model because it is still a bacteria, but just a variety. Gain-of-function mutations: at a loss to explain molecules-to-man evolution

 

[The Last Conformist]

No jumps?

How many times do I have to mention HeLa cells?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Or the myriad dinosaur/bird organisms? Or the series of terrestrial mammals that evolved into whales? Or the hominims who gradually became humans?

 

[Samson]

Here in lies the double talk of evolutionists. Often people just say that evolution is change, then what type of change are we talking about. The problem is that often people are confusing "micro-evolution" with "marco-evolution". Those two are not one and the same. Basically then there would still be examples of in between creatures then, but then we get this.

Can you tell us what the difference is? I have not heard a rigourous definition.

But there is absolutely no evidence for this. All that is, is a presumption because you do not see it happening now. So you say that we do not see it now because it is a stop start process. I am glad we do agree on one point, that they do not exist.

You do realise that Creationism does not deny change, but is does deny that we can from a single cell. There has not been any evidence to even show that and any evidence we do see of change is always acceptable. Evne the often used Nylon bug is acceptable in a Creation model because it is still a bacteria, but just a variety. Gain-of-function mutations: at a loss to explain molecules-to-man evolution

You know that every organism comes from a single cell at one point in there lives?

The big thing about the nylon bug is that it is almost certainly new information. There is no reason for any bacteria to have the ability to digest nylon prior to our dumping it all over the world.

 

[classical_hero]

It might be new info, but it is not on the path of better info that would eventually get them on the path on transmutation, which that is not even a case of. Did you even read the article?

 

[Samson]

It might be new info, but it is not on the path of better info that would eventually get them on the path on transmutation, which that is not even a case of. Did you even read the article?

I said what I said in responce to your statement "Nylon bug is acceptable in a Creation model because it is still a bacteria, but just a variety" which seems to be saying something like "a change within kinds". The nylon bug is often used to counter the "no new information" agrument rather than the macro evolution argument.

I have not read the articale yet, ubt I am in the proccess of it. I only have the time while my code is compiling to read it, so it takes me a while.

 

[Samson]

It might be new info, but it is not on the path of better info that would eventually get them on the path on transmutation, which that is not even a case of. Did you even read the article?

I have read it now. All it says is that one specific group of gain-of-function mutations are detremental to the reproductive success of the indavidual. How does this relate to this particular example of gain-of-function mutation (the nylon bug) that is quite obviously benificial to the reproductive succsess of the indavidual (it can utilise a food source that no other organism can)?

 

[The Last Conformist]

It might be new info, but it is not on the path of better info that would eventually get them on the path on transmutation, which that is not even a case of. Did you even read the article?

Transmutation? What are you talking about?

 

[Perfection]

Transmutation? What are you talking about?

That's where you turn one atom into another, like fire into water. Creationists often resort to alchemal texts to support thier views.

Here in lies the double talk of evolutionists. Often people just say that evolution is change, then what type of change are we talking about. The problem is that often people are confusing "micro-evolution" with "marco-evolution". Those two are not one and the same. Basically then there would still be examples of in between creatures then, but then we get this.

Provide a concrete seperation between the two with examples, because I'm not exacty sure where your silly demarkation is.

Evne the often used Nylon bug is acceptable in a Creation model because it is still a bacteria, but just a variety.

Well then I propose that all of evolution is acceptable in the creation model because everything is still just cells just of different varieties.

What demarks what can happen and what can't happen in your model?

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Still a bacteri[um]" means awfully little; bacteria encompass much more variation than is found within all the animal kingdom.

(That said, I know at least one creationist who's perfectly OK with fish evolving into dinosaurs, since he takes all animals to be a single "created kind". The catch is that he refuses to accept that humans are animals. Now, while I'd be quite inclined to agree he's a vegetable, that doesn't seem to be what he's got in mind.)

 

[carlosMM]

clasical_hero, how about you start giving helpful definitions for your claims? E.g. define bacterium, and, while you're at it, both 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'.

Why do i ask? Because your creationist yadda-yadda is meaningless blubber - in essence an idiotic attempt to flame science. I have reported it as such.

 

[civ2]

Hallo-ito Carlito!
"Missed" ya!
Don't worry - I won't start another discussion - too tired (it's some 0.20 by me).

 

[ainwood]

clasical_hero, how about you start giving helpful definitions for your claims? E.g. define bacterium, and, while you're at it, both 'micro-' and 'macroevolution'.

Why do i ask? Because your creationist yadda-yadda is meaningless blubber - in essence an idiotic attempt to flame science. I have reported it as such.

Its up to you to debate the points, and us to ensure the debate is orderly; not to make judgements about whether the arguments have legitimate merit.

I don't consider his post trolling or flaming - just expressing an opinion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I suppose Bacteria could be defined as all organisms closer to Escherichia than to Homo or Methanococcus.

 

[Perfection]

Bacteria is anything you can't see with the naked eye, dangnabbit.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Pluto is a bacterium?

 

[Perfection]

Pluto is a bacterium?

It's of the Coccus variety.

 

[YNCS]

Viruses and rickettsae are bacteria?