Why " evolution vs creationism"

[leroy]

That is incorrect. Tell me, what reasonable test would show you to be wrong.



So amazingly wrong. If you are trying to make an "odds argument" the odds against a magical creator would be greater than anything natural.

I am answering according to the definition of evidence that "Aint Necessarily" provided

From your comments it is obvious that you are not following the conversation that
Aint Necessarily and I are having.

Then you would need to show that. Please remember, don't use old failed arguments.

The argument is currently being discussed in peer reviewed articles. Currently it is just a viable hypothesis.

Just to be clear my argument is that evolution is caused mainly by non random genetic changes and natural selection rather that random genetic changes and natural selection.

Nope, try again. So nonsensical there is no point.

Yes there is a point.
I am rejecting the idea that small evolutionary changes necessarily add up and produce big changes.

If that where true then lamarkism should be accepted as an explanation for the diversity of life because small evolutionary changes are being caused by mechanisms that resemble what Lamark said.

So you have 2 alternatives
1 accept lamarkinian as a mechanism being responsible for evolution at a big scale

2 accept that small changes don't necessarily imply big changes, microevolution does not necessarily imply macro evolution

You were being asked why scientists do not believe you.

Scientists are on my side, it is widely accepted that evolution by random changes + natural selection is a controversial idea. New non random mechanism are constantly being discovered to be responsable for evolutionary changes.

There no point. NGE appears to be mostly handwaving and trying to claim that natural selection is their method. There is a reason that real scientists do not pay any attention to it.

There are peer reviewed articles on NGE, and on many other non random mechanisms that are said to be responsible for evolutionary changes.

I am going to repeat this, since it is very important:

What reasonable test could show your ideas to be wrong?

My idea is that, evolution is being caused mainly by non random genetic changes could be proven wrong if one can show that random genetic changes can account for the diversity of life . A posible test (not viable with our current technology) would be showing a step by step path that would explain the origin of something complex like an eye , each step has to be achivable in 1 generation, simple, statistically likely, selectively positive and towards the correct direction.

You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

 

[leroy]

Random mutations are not the only way genetic material can cause variations. Yes they play a part but this view is very limited understanding of genetics. Lamarck tried to explain change without any understanding of genetics. He was incorrect and what is amazing is how perceptive Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace were to see through this to discover the real mechanism It is fascinating that they discovered the mechanism for evolution independently during the same time period.

When you say god is charge how do you know it is god and not a goddess or some other god than the one in the bible. Again this line of thinking makes no sense when we try to explain the fossil record. You would have to explain how this god or goddess is intervening all of the time to change the genetic code. As for intelligence we have a much more rich understanding of how pliable the genetics in brain development is with small changes in the genetics causing what appears to be large changes in the expression of brains and intelligence. We also see how natural process without the need for a goddess or god being involved can cause convergent evolutionary changes of two different brain patterns to create the same outcomes. There is not just one way which makes the natural processes of the genetics so amazing.

So do you afirm that evolution is caused mainly by random genetic changes +natural selection or would you suggest than non random changes played a more important role ?

The issue is not natural selection, the issue is random vs non random ,

Which played a more important role?

 

[We Never Know]

So do you afirm that evolution is caused mainly by random genetic changes +natural selection or would you suggest than non random changes played a more important role ?

The issue is not natural selection, the issue is random vs non random ,

Which played a more important role?

Why does it have to be a "vs" battle. Could both not be in the mix?

 

[leroy]

Why does it have to be a "vs" battle. Could both not be in the mix?

Sure but one if them has to be dominant right?.

You can in theory say that both are equally relevant, so which one is it.
1 random more relevant
2 non random more relevant
3 both are Moreless equally relevant

 

[We Never Know]

Sure but one if them has to be dominant right?.

You can in theory say that both are equally relevant, so which one is it.
1 random more relevant
2 non random more relevant
3 both are Moreless equally relevant

Life had to be created or started. Without that, evolution wouldn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am answering according to the definition of evidence that "Aint Necessarily" provided

I don't think so. It looks like you were responding to me and the definition that I posted and you agreed to. My response was some to you responding to me. Ain't 's post must be quite a ways back

From your comments it is obvious that you are not following the conversation that
Aint Necessarily and I are having.



The argument is currently being discussed in peer reviewed articles. Currently it is just a viable hypothesis.

It looks to be dead in the water.

Just to be clear my argument is that evolution is caused mainly by non random genetic changes and natural selection rather that random genetic changes and natural selection.

Fine. Provide some reliable evidence please.

Yes there is a point.
I am rejecting the idea that small evolutionary changes necessarily add up and produce big changes.

If that where true then lamarkism should be accepted as an explanation for the diversity of life because small evolutionary changes are being caused by mechanisms that resemble what Lamark said.

Your rejection is unsupported. It is equivalent to saying you can walk to the end of the block,But not to the other side of town. And let's leave Lamark out of it.

So you have 2 alternatives
1 accept lamarkinian as a mechanism being responsible for evolution at a big scale

2 accept that small changes don't necessarily imply big changes, microevolution does not necessarily imply macro evolution

False dichotomy. Try again.

Scientists are on my side, it is widely accepted that evolution by random changes + natural selection is a controversial idea. New non random mechanism are constantly being discovered to be responsable for evolutionary changes.

Nope. Try again.

There are peer reviewed articles on NGE, and on many other non random mechanisms that are said to be responsible for evolutionary changes.

A handful at best. And as I pointed out they shoot themselves in the foot by strawmanning theargument.

My idea is that, evolution is being caused mainly by non random genetic changes could be proven wrong if one can show that random genetic changes can account for the diversity of life . A posible test (not viable with our current technology) would be showing a step by step path that would explain the origin of something complex like an eye , each step has to be achivable in 1 generation, simple[, statistically likely, selectively positive and towards the correct direction.

You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

Before I give you an answer you need to be honest. You just claimed your beliefs were unscientific. Admit that and I will answer you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life had to be created or started. Without that, evolution wouldn't exist.

That is rather obvious.

Do you have a point.

 

[We Never Know]

That is rather obvious.

Do you have a point.

You just made my point. Why are you following me to different threads?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just made my point. Why are you following me to different threads?

Don't be paranoid. If anything you followed me. I was already on this thread.

 

[Bear Wild]

So do you afirm that evolution is caused mainly by random genetic changes +natural selection or would you suggest than non random changes played a more important role ?

The issue is not natural selection, the issue is random vs non random ,

Which played a more important role?

The genetic code is not just point mutations it is much more complex than that. There is no internal or external force that is guiding the genetic code although it is influence by the environment. Thus there are random changes sometimes complex and some directed by the environment ultimately controlled by natural selection which is the driving force selecting the changes that create the species. There is no spirit, god or goddess guiding the genetic code and no ultimate direction. Despite this the evolutionary forces have created amazing and beautiful diversity. No intelligent design but rather a powerful creative force.

 

[Bear Wild]

Life had to be created or started. Without that, evolution wouldn't exist.

Yes natural forces started life without the need of a mythical god or goddess. These natural forces influenced the genetic material and is amazing development giving us the diversity of life on that we see including humans.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I believe it should be named Creator vs magic.

"Nature vs Literature"

Did all life come from that one, or did life branch out from numerous organisms.

Does it matter? Asexual reproduction would've come before sexual reproduction anyway. You only have one amoeba? Give it a few minutes and you'll have two.

 

[Misunderstood]

"Nature vs Literature"


Does it matter? Asexual reproduction would've come before sexual reproduction anyway. You only have one amoeba? Give it a few minutes and you'll have two.

I think it does. Did plant life develop from an amoeba?

 

[Bear Wild]

I think it does. Did plant life develop from an amoeba?

Do you have any understanding of evolution or for that matter taxonomic classification? Your question does not make biologic or evolutionary sense. Why would to suggest something that shows a lack of understanding?

 

[Misunderstood]

OK, I accept your questioning of my understanding. I do not understand many things.

But have you read what has been said up to that post to understand what is being said? Also, it would be nice to be enlightened in what I do not understand, instead of just questioning my understanding.

 

[ecco]

creationism is more likely to be true than “naturalism”

...is evidence for creationism

Sure I believe that God is in charge of the whole business, but I am not proposing direct supernatural intervention.

Is my view clear?

Nobody is invoking a God,

Uh, so who/what is doing the creationing?

 

[leroy]

Thus there are random changes sometimes complex and some directed by the environment .

And my suggestion is that “controlled mutations” (as you described them) play a mayor role in creating the complexity and diversity of life, while random mutations play a minor role.

Do you have a different view?

Would you say that my view is at least plausible and worthy of consideration?

 

[leroy]

Fine. Provide some reliable evidence please.

That is easy

Your rejection is unsupported. It is equivalent to saying you can walk to the end of the block,But not to the other side of town. And let's leave Lamark out of it.

Ok then by your logic small changes (micro evolution) necessarily implies big changes (macro evolution) since we observe micro evolution caused by natural genetic engineering (NGE) and other “non random changes” by your logic it follows that NGE is responsible for “worm-to-man evolution macro evolution.”

You have 3 alternatives

1 grant that I already provided evidence for macro evolution cased by NGE

2 reject the idea micro evolution necessarily implies macro evolution

3 be a troll and avoid a direct answer or refutation.

leroy said
You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection, what test would prove your idea wrong.?

Before I give you an answer you need to be honest. You just claimed your beliefs were unscientific. Admit that and I will answer you.

Don’t worry; nobody in this forum is expecting a direct answer from you anyway.

 

[Audie]

Don’t worry; nobody in this forum is expecting a direct answer from you anyway.

Oh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is easy

If it is so easy why do you constantly fail to do so?

Ok then by your logic small changes (micro evolution) necessarily implies big changes (macro evolution) since we observe micro evolution caused by natural genetic engineering (NGE) and other “non random changes” by your logic it follows that NGE is responsible for “worm-to-man evolution macro evolution.”

You have 3 alternatives

1 grant that I already provided evidence for macro evolution cased by NGE

2 reject the idea micro evolution necessarily implies macro evolution

3 be a troll and avoid a direct answer or refutation.

Oops, try again. NGE is merely another meaningless creationist buzz term. And please, to be able to say "by your logic" you would first need to be able to reason logically first.

Don’t worry; nobody in this forum is expecting a direct answer from you anyway.

Whoa! A personal attack and a lie. Once again, work on those logic skills a bit. Right now you cannot even ask proper questions more than half of the time.[/quote]