Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Hank77]

I'm assuming the programme was about cichlid fish, which are interesting examples of relatively rapid speciation. Here's an article that describes how their diverse speciation is driven by alterations in genes for vision, affected by the interaction between the varying turbidity of the water, the skin colouration, and mate selection: Ecological Speciation in Cichlids.

Thanks, this is an interesting article, I did learn new info. from it.
However, this isn't the fish or the environmental changes I remember. This fish literally changes the shape and size of it's mouth, tail and fins then changes back again. I'm thinking that it had something to do with the population of a predator fish? The tail and fins change so they can swim faster and the mouth changes for food consumption? But then they change back. This all happens over just a few years. Plastic change??

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks, this is an interesting article, I did learn new info. from it.
However, this isn't the fish or the environmental changes I remember. This fish literally changes the shape and size of it's mouth, tail and fins then changes back again. I'm thinking that it had something to do with the population of a predator fish? The tail and fins change so they can swim faster and the mouth changes for food consumption? But then they change back. This all happens over just a few years. Plastic change??

I'm not familiar with what you describe, so, without some reference or specific details, I couldn't say.

 

[omega2xx]

Haven't heard that one for a while.

This is a bit OT, but since you seem to think that the world is bound by two-value propositional logic, I have a theological question for you. Back on the old Beliefnet there was a running creationist argument that unless God's will is also bound by two-valued logic His existence is impossible. do you subscribe to that belief?

In do not know what a two-value propositional logic is.

Here is my logic system. When something can't be proved/disproved, we must use logic.

What is more logical, an omnipotent God created matter, energy and life or those elements are eternal, have always existed.

It seems illogical to me that order can come from randomness. All processes man has proved point to order---water will always boil at the same temperature under the same conditions for example.

Lifeless elements can't be the source of life.

To say all life originated from a common source not only can't be proved, it is absurd to think complex systems like man organs, can come from life that does not have these complex systems. That defies the laws of genetics.

Let me give you 3 back bones of evolution that can't be supported scientifically.

Natural selection: Even if true, it might result in the species continuing to exist, but it will not result in a change of species. In fact the rabbit with the stronger legs might not show up in its offspring. There is not a gene for stronger legs in rabbits. They get stronger legs the same way we do---exercise.

Mutations: Mutations can only alter a characteristic in the gene pool of its parents. They do not add information. For example the mutation that caused the kid to become an albino, alters its skin, but does not change the species. You can't provide an example where a mutation resulted in a change of species.

Time and small changes result in evolution: Time will not change the laws of genetics. The offspring can't obtain a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. If the parents don't have the gene for bones, they can't have a kid with bones. That is basic genetics, and can't be falsified.

I did not become a Christian until I was 45. Even in high school I rejected all life we have now, plant and animal, originated from a common source.

It seems to me that if some scientist says something, you evolutionist believe it, even they never give the evidence to support it.

To say a dog-like land animal is the great grand mommy of whales is so absurd, i don't know how intelligent people are willing to accept such an idea.

After their kind is proven thousands of times ever day and it can't be falsified. It is so obviously true that some say it supports evolution. After their kind says the species will not change. That refutes evolution.

Think about what you have been told. Do just accept it by faith like I do. I don't reject evolution on religious grounds, I reject it on scientific grounds.

Have a very + day.

 

[omega2xx]

Meh. As a graduate scientist with a career in research (i.e. gathering scientific evidence), I know what constitutes evidence to the scientific community.

What are your credentials to pontificate on my knowledge of scientific evidence?

You have been taught by evolutionists, who were taught by evolutionists who were taught by evolutionists and they NEVER PRESENTED any verifiable scientific evidence that supports evolution.

First of all I did not pontificate. I made a very simple statement---talk is cheap, present some evidence.

Now I will pontificate---If you are so knowledgeable in what constitutes scientific evidence, present the evidence for natural selection. Be sure to include the "HOW" that makes it possible. I will put on my prophecy hat and predict you will only parrot the usual evo talking point, which is not evidence.

Prove me wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

Good - so, if you have the knowledge you claim, you should have no trouble seeing where you've gone wrong. Your posts suggest you don't.

Talk is cheap. Prove me wrong, then present the evidence for anything the TOE preaches. Your post are all rhetoric and not evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

This is pretty impressive.

Thank you, but the obvious truth is usually impressive.

 

[omega2xx]

Wrong - there's an entire branch of science devoted to studying how life can emerge from the non-living.

That may be but it will not succeed.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That may be but it will not succeed.

How do you know that? As it seems that science is making great strides in understanding how life could have emerged from non-life. See, e.g., the work of Dr. Jack Szostak and his presentation of the work of others.

 

[Hank77]

I'm not familiar with what you describe, so, without some reference or specific details, I couldn't say.

My questions are not in reference to any specific fish or any specific animal. I just used that example to try to explain the questions that I am asking such as can plastic changes become genetic changes overtime?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have been taught by evolutionists, who were taught by evolutionists who were taught by evolutionists and they NEVER PRESENTED any verifiable scientific evidence that supports evolution.

First of all I did not pontificate. I made a very simple statement---talk is cheap, present some evidence.

Now I will pontificate---If you are so knowledgeable in what constitutes scientific evidence, present the evidence for natural selection. Be sure to include the "HOW" that makes it possible. I will put on my prophecy hat and predict you will only parrot the usual evo talking point, which is not evidence.

Prove me wrong.

Lol - if the evidence presented in these forums already isn't enough, you'll never be satisfied. But there's a world of evidence out there, much of it online, if you were really interested; but you're not - and your claims to knowledge of evolution are obviously false.

If you understood how natural selection works, you'd see that evolution is inevitable - differential selection of heritable traits in a population inevitably changes the balance of those traits in the population over many generations - it's an algorithmic process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Talk is cheap. Prove me wrong, then present the evidence for anything the TOE preaches. Your post are all rhetoric and not evidence.

The evidence has been presented and ignored or rejected repeatedly in these forums, and still the mantra is 'show me the evidence'; so how about you show how the ToE is false?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That may be but it will not succeed.

Nice argument...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My questions are not in reference to any specific fish or any specific animal. I just used that example to try to explain the questions that I am asking such as can plastic changes become genetic changes overtime?

It's not clear to me exactly what you mean by 'plastic changes' - if you mean phenotypic plasticity that enables greater adaptation by individuals, e.g. stronger bones and/or muscles due to greater physical loads, thicker skin due to greater abrasion, etc., then there's a sense in which adaptation precedes evolution.

Individuals with greater phenotypic plasticity are likely to adapt to changes in the environment more successfully, so when environments are in flux, there is a selective advantage to phenotypic plasticity.

However, when an environment changes then stabilises - for example, when a new predator appears on the scene - there will be a selection pressure in favour of particular traits; phenotypic plasticity may be a selective advantage initially but over time the constant pressure will select for individuals that express those traits more strongly, so there is likely to be genetic fixation of those traits.

That's my take on it - there are some members here who have a deeper knowledge of these things, who may be able to correct me if I've gone astray.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It seems illogical to me that order can come from randomness.

That's because you don't understand how natural processes work - random activity always occurs in constrained contexts. Ordered crystals form from the random movement and interaction of atoms or molecules in fluids; the random action of the wind or waves forms regular patterns of dunes or sand ripples; random shaking causes a random collection of rocks, stones, pebbles, gravel, and sand to become ordered by size; tornadoes arise from the random movements of air and water molecules. Lipid molecules randomly distributed in water will self-organise into membranes and vesicles (proto-cells).

Order even arises out of chaos in the mathematics of non-linear dynamics, with strange attractors, fractals, etc.

To say all life originated from a common source not only can't be proved, it is absurd to think complex systems like man organs, can come from life that does not have these complex systems. That defies the laws of genetics.

Lol - what 'laws of genetics' ? Evolutionary simulations are used every day in industrial design to produce designs more effective or efficient than human designers can achieve.

Let me give you 3 back bones of evolution that can't be supported scientifically.

Natural selection: Even if true, it might result in the species continuing to exist, but it will not result in a change of species. In fact the rabbit with the stronger legs might not show up in its offspring. There is not a gene for stronger legs in rabbits. They get stronger legs the same way we do---exercise.

That's individual adaptation, not natural selection.

You can't argue against natural selection if you don't know what it is.

Mutations: Mutations can only alter a characteristic in the gene pool of its parents. They do not add information. For example the mutation that caused the kid to become an albino, alters its skin, but does not change the species. You can't provide an example where a mutation resulted in a change of species.

Obviously only heritable genetic changes will be inherited. No single mutation will result in a change of species (with the arguable exception of this crayfish). Speciation involves a change in the genetics of a whole population.

You can't argue against the influence of mutations on speciation if you don't understand how it works.

Time and small changes result in evolution: Time will not change the laws of genetics. The offspring can't obtain a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. If the parents don't have the gene for bones, they can't have a kid with bones. That is basic genetics, and can't be falsified.

Lol - what 'laws of genetics'? Traits vary across the members of a population; some will have stronger bones and some weaker bones than others. If those with stronger bones are more successful than the others; i.e. have more viable offspring, and the trait for stronger bones is inherited, the offspring of individuals with stronger bones will make up a higher proportion of subsequent generations.

You can't argue against the mechanism of evolution if you don't understand how it works.

I don't reject evolution on religious grounds, I reject it on scientific grounds.

You can't reject evolution on scientific grounds if you don't understand the scientific grounds for evolution.

Your posts demonstrate that you have no idea how evolution works.

 

[Speedwell]

In do not know what a two-value propositional logic is.

Standard classical logic, as invented by Aristotle. The reason I brought it up is that you insist that if one population of a species evolves into another species, there must be a "point" at which that happens, at which the parent belongs to one species and the offspring belongs to another. This is false in several ways, but it implies that you accept one of the axioms of classical logic, the "law of the excluded middle."

Here is my logic system. When something can't be proved/disproved, we must use logic.

That's backwards. Logic is used to prove or disprove.

What is more logical, an omnipotent God created matter, energy and life or those elements are eternal, have always existed.

Here you are using a colloquial meaning of "logical" roughly equivalent to "common sense." You have also created a false dichotomy.

It seems illogical to me that order can come from randomness.

Yet it can be shown to so, demonstrated with the mathematics of stochastic processes and imitated in industrial manufacturing processes based on random variation and selection.

Think about what you have been told. Do just accept it by faith like I do. I don't reject evolution on religious grounds, I reject it on scientific grounds.

I reject creationism on religious grounds and accept the theory of evolution provisionally--like all scientific theories are accepted.

 

[Hank77]

However, when an environment changes then stabilises - for example, when a new predator appears on the scene - there will be a selection pressure in favour of particular traits; phenotypic plasticity may be a selective advantage initially but over time the constant pressure will select for individuals that express those traits more strongly, so there is likely to be genetic fixation of those traits.

Thanks. This does answer one of my questions. That a phenotypic [thanks for the scientific term] plasticity could cause, overtime, a change in genetics.

I should have thought of the marine and land iguana of the Galapagos Islands and the hybrid.
There is a hidden iguana on the Galápagos and nobody noticed

 

[Jjmcubbin]

In do not know what a two-value propositional logic is.

Here is my logic system. When something can't be proved/disproved, we must use logic.

What is more logical, an omnipotent God created matter, energy and life or those elements are eternal, have always existed.

It seems illogical to me that order can come from randomness. All processes man has proved point to order---water will always boil at the same temperature under the same conditions for example.

Lifeless elements can't be the source of life.

To say all life originated from a common source not only can't be proved, it is absurd to think complex systems like man organs, can come from life that does not have these complex systems. That defies the laws of genetics.

Let me give you 3 back bones of evolution that can't be supported scientifically.

Natural selection: Even if true, it might result in the species continuing to exist, but it will not result in a change of species. In fact the rabbit with the stronger legs might not show up in its offspring. There is not a gene for stronger legs in rabbits. They get stronger legs the same way we do---exercise.

Mutations: Mutations can only alter a characteristic in the gene pool of its parents. They do not add information. For example the mutation that caused the kid to become an albino, alters its skin, but does not change the species. You can't provide an example where a mutation resulted in a change of species.

Time and small changes result in evolution: Time will not change the laws of genetics. The offspring can't obtain a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents. If the parents don't have the gene for bones, they can't have a kid with bones. That is basic genetics, and can't be falsified.

I did not become a Christian until I was 45. Even in high school I rejected all life we have now, plant and animal, originated from a common source.

It seems to me that if some scientist says something, you evolutionist believe it, even they never give the evidence to support it.

To say a dog-like land animal is the great grand mommy of whales is so absurd, i don't know how intelligent people are willing to accept such an idea.

After their kind is proven thousands of times ever day and it can't be falsified. It is so obviously true that some say it supports evolution. After their kind says the species will not change. That refutes evolution.

Think about what you have been told. Do just accept it by faith like I do. I don't reject evolution on religious grounds, I reject it on scientific grounds.

Have a very + day.

Wow that is a long post. The oonly thing I'll respond to is the bold part and that is:
Study basic thermodynamics. The part about S to be exact. S means entropy.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

It seems illogical to me that order can come from randomness. All processes man has proved point to order---water will always boil at the same temperature under the same conditions for example.
.

As Speedwell says, it's easy to show that order can come from randomness. E.g. the whole field of genetic algorithms.

BTW: Not all processes point to order. E.g. radioactive decay. So, the second sentence of the quoted material above is also wrong.

BTW: Water boiling is a chaotic process. The only reason why it appears that water always boils at 100C in the same conditions is because if we have a sizeable amount of water the number of water molecules means that the noise due to chaos is averaged out, and the result looks predictable. But, in the same conditions there will be a tiny difference between the temperature that water boils at each time you try, due to the underlying chaos.

 

[Hank77]

As Speedwell says, it's easy to show that order can come from randomness. E.g. the whole field of genetic algorithms.

As I said in another post, I know nothing about evolution but need to learn the basics. I'm using this forum to help with that.
I googled 'genetic algorithms' and found this very, very basic tutorial. If you should have time would you please read it and comment on the accuracy. It's a short read.
Genetic Algorithm Tutorial

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks. This does answer one of my questions. That a phenotypic [thanks for the scientific term] plasticity could cause, overtime, a change in genetics.

It's not that phenotypic plasticity causes genetic changes, but it enables more individuals to prosper during a period of intense selection pressure, and so maintain population size and diversity while the necessary traits are selected and fixed. IOW, the individual adaptability gives time for specialisation to arise.

I should have thought of the marine and land iguana of the Galapagos Islands and the hybrid.
There is a hidden iguana on the Galápagos and nobody noticed

Hybridisation is something different - if advantageous traits are inherited from both parents, it can be beneficial, although that isn't always the case (which parental traits are acquired by an individual are random).