The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Shermana]

microevolution and macro are one in the same

often confused by creationist without a proper education onthe subject.

speciation has been observed in labs numerous times, thats macro evolution in your language

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Microevolution is proven, macro-evolution is a THEORY based on the observed facts of Microspeciation. To say they are one and the same is either ignorance or dishonesty. The "Macro" route is filled with so many gaps and craters it seems like only a designed tread could run over it. There is evidence for the Creationist to conclude that Macro is not possible. Not even theoretically.

Maybe with room for Space Aliens who are involved to help with the jumps perhaps.

Let me repeat, Fruit Fly speciation is MICROspeciation. The MACRO speciation you are referring to does not exist. You are confused with Micro. You do not have an understanding of "my language" apparently because you call Microspeciation "Macrospeciation" so you obviously do not understand the difference or you are speaking form ignorance or you are knowingly making false claims. Why don't you explain the difference between Macro and Microspeciation and the observed evidence, Fruit Flies count as Micro. So does Bacteria.

 

[Gunfingers]

Okay, so if an entire "scientific theory" is based on something that has no evidence, where does that stand?

A theory, by definition, has evidence supporting it. Theories can be defined as a hypothesis which explains all available observations and is contradicted by none of them. Evolution explains everything we observe in biology and nothing we observe in evolution runs contrary to evolution, hence its status as a theory. Maybe you missed my other post, but I gave you a great deal of evidence that supports evolution. You need to address that before you continue saying evolution by common descent has no supporting evidence. Or don't, and I'll know you're not interested in having a real discussion. Then I can put you on ignore and get back to my homework.

Once again, there's plenty of evidence of MICROevolution, as I said, Lamarck is getting his due second look right now. But there is no indication whatsoever that a microspecies can radically change its form altogether.

Lamarckian evolution isn't taken seriously by anyone in the relevant areas of science. Birds are related to dolphins, they share a common ancestor, and I pointed out evidence of that in my other post.

Also it's not a matter of a "trivial" thing to focus on, that's like a soldier saying "Don't worry if you only get shot by a .22, at least its not a 5.62!"

I've never heard of 5.62 weapons. Are you thinking of 5.56? Maybe 7.62?

But to be serious, this is a pretty bad analogy. A better one would be to ignore the dozens of guys with Kalashnikovs and AR-15s because you expected there to be guy with a .22 and you can't find him.

 

[Shermana]

Got my 5.56 and 7.62 mixed up! Do you want some links on Epigenetics that take Lamarck seriously?

 

[doppelganger]

Translation: You have absolutely no evidence. The fool's errand is trying to convince people that you actually have evidence and then thinking of one-liner excuses when pressed for it.

Nope, translation is much simpler than that.

I. Don't. Feed. Trolls.

 

[Gunfingers]

Got my 5.56 and 7.62 mixed up! Do you want some links on Epigenetics that take Lamarck seriously?

That's how this works, mate. We are here to discuss evidence. If you've got some present it.

 

[Shermana]

Starting with the first:

A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution? - Technology Review

"
A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution?

Two new studies show that the effects of a mother's early environment can be passed on to the next generation."

 

[outhouse]

There is evidence for the Creationist to conclude that Macro is not possible. Not even theoretically.

lucky creation isnt a valid science and has no bearing on reality

 

[outhouse]

you are speaking form ignorance or you are knowingly making false claims

You do not have an understanding of "my language"

im sorry you lack education on the subject, no need to be hostile because of a poor understanding of modern science and belief in pseudoscience

 

[outhouse]

Nope, translation is much simpler than that.

I. Don't. Feed. Trolls.

I think I'll whole heartedly agree

 

[Shermana]

im sorry you lack education on the subject, no need to be hostile because of a poor understanding of modern science and belief in pseudoscience

You can go ahead and ignore that Technology Review article if you wish. You can go ahead and ignore the Sciencedaily article too.

Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics

It's not my fault if you don't keep up to date.

Lamarck revisited
New evidence for epigenetic inheritance has profound implications for the study of evolution, Jablonka and Raz say.
"Incorporating epigenetic inheritance into evolutionary theory extends the scope of evolutionary thinking and leads to notions of heredity and evolution that incorporate development," they write.
This is a vindication of sorts for 18th century naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck, whose writings on evolution predated Charles Darwin's, believed that evolution was driven in part by the inheritance of acquired traits. His classic example was the giraffe. Giraffe ancestors, Lamarck surmised, reached with their necks to munch leaves high in trees. The reaching caused their necks to become slightly longer—a trait that was passed on to descendants. Generation after generation inherited slightly longer necks, and the result is what we see in giraffes today.

 

[Straw Dog]

No, I wouldn't be surprised. How dumb do you think I am?


And now you're conflating faith with blind faith. The qualifier exists for a reason, you know....

I don't think you are dumb. You just said you wouldn't call YECs "logical thinkers" yet they need to be logical when dealing with the normal hassles of life. They just don't apply the same degree of analysis to their abstract beliefs.

Actually I was distinguishing blind faith from informed faith. It's blind when not supported by any evidence. For example, an abuse victim may have blind faith that their abuser truly loves them whenever they really just selfishly love them in a narcissistic way. An informed trust would judge those proclamations of affection on their actions and history rather than just hollow words.

 

[Gunfingers]

Lamarckian evolution was discarded for two reasons: he believe acquired traits could be passed on to children and he believed certain classifications of organisms had their own distinct unique ancestors.

Now, based on what you've been saying about micro/macro evolution I'm gathering that you want Lamarckian evolution to come back because you believe it'd disprove universal common ancestry. You're bringing up articles about how some acquired traits can be inherited, which is an interesting change from Mendelian genetics but not really contradictory to evolutionary theory.

 

[Shermana]

Lamarckian evolution was discarded for two reasons: he believe acquired traits could be passed on to children and he believed certain classifications of organisms had their own distinct unique ancestors.

Now, based on what you've been saying about micro/macro evolution I'm gathering that you want Lamarckian evolution to come back because you believe it'd disprove universal common ancestry. You're bringing up articles about how some acquired traits can be inherited, which is an interesting change from Mendelian genetics but not really contradictory to evolutionary theory.

Wait, did you read the 2 sources I quoted or not? Technology Review and Science daily.

Here's a third. Science20.

There is proof that the species can have changes. There is NO proof that the changes can be radical enough for fish to develop lungs and legs. Did the Lungfish's swim bladder develop from jumping out of the water? Why not legs too? And that's an easy one. Try proving milk came from sweat.

Lamarckian Experimentalist Paul Kammerer - Fraud Or Founder Of Epigenetics?

 

[Gunfingers]

Wait, did you read the 2 sources I quoted or not? Technology Review and Science daily.

Here's a third. Science20.

There is proof that the species can have changes. There is NO proof that the changes can be radical enough for fish to develop lungs and legs. Did the Lungfish's swim bladder develop from jumping out of the water? Why not legs too? And that's an easy one. Try proving milk came from sweat.

Lamarckian Experimentalist Paul Kammerer - Fraud Or Founder Of Epigenetics?

I refer you back to this.

A theory, by definition, has evidence supporting it. Theories can be defined as a hypothesis which explains all available observations and is contradicted by none of them. Evolution explains everything we observe in biology and nothing we observe in evolution runs contrary to evolution, hence its status as a theory. Maybe you missed my other post, but I gave you a great deal of evidence that supports evolution. You need to address that before you continue saying evolution by common descent has no supporting evidence. Or don't, and I'll know you're not interested in having a real discussion. Then I can put you on ignore and get back to my homework.

Please fix your broken concept of "proof".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

opcorn:

 

[Shermana]

I refer you back to this.

Please fix your broken concept of "proof".

I think your concept of "proof" considering the 3 sources I presented is "I only believe what I want to believe" which is exactly what Atheists accuse Theists of. I presented Technology Review and Science daily to show that epigenetics picks up where Darwin errored. Now here's a link from the other side discussing the other side, to show both sides.

What do you think of Col R2?

Darwin Was Really Wrong! | Uncommon Descent

 

[painted wolf]

Your issue isn't with Darwin it with Mendel.

Eppigentics is outside of Mendelian genetics not outside of Darwinian evolution.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Your issue isn't with Darwin it with Mendel.

Eppigentics is outside of Mendelian genetics not outside of Darwinian evolution.

wa:do

Are you sure about that? Darwinian ideas specifically exclude the idea of "Hyper-evolution" within a few generations, saying it takes thousands and thousands of generations.

I repeat an ignored point, how and what caused humans to develop hundreds of thousands of base pairs? Random mutation? Or "I don't know but I'll say it happened"?

 

[Gunfingers]

I think your concept of "proof" considering the 3 sources I presented is "I only believe what I want to believe" which is exactly what Atheists accuse Theists of. I presented Technology Review and Science daily to show that epigenetics picks up where Darwin errored. Now here's a link from the other side discussing the other side, to show both sides.

What do you think of Col R2?

Darwin Was Really Wrong! | Uncommon Descent

It's not that I don't believe the articles, instances of inherited traits being passed on are rare but such occasions where they happen are well documented. It's just that this does nothing to disprove evolution by universal common descent. Basically you're claiming you've disproved the claim that 2 + 2 = 4 by finding an article stating that 2 + 3 = 5.

Are you sure about that? Darwinian ideas specifically exclude the idea of "Hyper-evolution" within a few generations, saying it takes thousands and thousands of generations.

This is true, but irrelevant. Nothing you've said was about the timeframe of evolution, so where are you going with this?

I repeat an ignored point, how and what caused humans to develop hundreds of thousands of base pairs? Random mutation? Or "I don't know but I'll say it happened"?

That's a simple question with an extremely complicated answer. Probably not something I'm really qualified to answer, even. Painted Wolf, who posted earlier, is a biologist and she could probably help you here better than I can.

But I'll take a shot. Evolution starts with simple organisms whose genetics were also simple. Where they come from is an interesting area of study, but it predates evolution so I won't go into it right now. When those organisms reproduced they would copy their DNA creating identical copies of themselves. Transcription errors in the DNA would cause some of these offspring to be different from the previous generation. Usually these traits would have no significant effect, but some would. If the trait was deleterious the organism would not survive and the trait would die out. If the trait was beneficial the organism was more likely to survive and reproduce, which meant the trait would propagate.

Fast forward about three billion years and you get people. Those mutations, guided by selective pressure, left us with 23 chromosome pairs each containing millions of base pairs.

 

[Shermana]

Well, that's a lot of "Fast forwarding". Let Painted Wolf prove that milk comes from sweat.