Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Hank77]

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.


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).

Thank you for your comments, I do appreciate them.
This is very helpful to me and will be to my grandson.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you for your comments, I do appreciate them.
This is very helpful to me and will be to my grandson.

You're welcome - although it's wise not to rely only on the word of some bloke on the internet; always try to double-check your sources - my understanding may be incomplete or mistaken - I may be better informed than the average person, but I'm not an expert in the field

 

[DogmaHunter]

Until you provide some evidence instead of parroting the usual evo rhetoric, this is a wast of time. My last response until you tell HOW it is possible.

Yep, just like Wendy Wright in the Dawkins interview....

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence"

//shows evidence

"show me the evidence, show me the evidence,..."

A waste of time, indeed.​

 

[omega2xx]

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.

They have not made any progress at all. Man has and know all the elements that make life, but it does them no good. It is as pipe dream to think man can create life. All good seeds contain a life God put in it and man cant even find that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They have not made any progress at all. Man has and know all the elements that make life, but it does them no good. It is as pipe dream to think man can create life. All good seeds contain a life God put in it and man cant even find that.

How do you know all this?
You wouldn't be making an argument from incredulity / ignorance by any chance, would you?

 

[omega2xx]

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.

If you know how natural selection works, you could provide the evidence that makes it possible.

You don't even understand what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

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?

AFTER THEIR KIND.

 

[omega2xx]

Nice argument...

Not an argument. It is a FACT you can't falsify.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

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.

That's individual adaptation, not natural selection.

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

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.


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.


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.

Your post demonstrate you don't know how real science works. You don' even understand what constitutes verifiable scientific evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you know how natural selection works, you could provide the evidence that makes it possible.

A gazelle that can run just a tiny bit faster then its peers, has a higher chance then its peers of not being eaten by the lion.

You really need evidence of such a simple idea?
Okay. Go to a group of gazelles and attach a couple weights to the limbs of one of them.
Then send lions after said group. See which gazelle will get eaten and which will manage to run away.

You don't even understand what constitutes scientific evidence.

Says the guy who doubts natural selection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

AFTER THEIR KIND.

And that is in conflict with evolution, how exactly?

PS: you should know that it isn't, because I personally have explained you no less then 4 times in the past 10 days alone how speciation is a vertical process and that each organism ever born was of the exact same species as its direct parents. I even used the example of how the roman languages all developed from the ancestral Latin, to illustrate how such gradualism works. Did you already forget about all that? Or are you deliberatly ignoring it? or do you perhaps suffer from some condition that makes you always only remember the past 150 minutes or something?

 

[omega2xx]

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."

Logic is not needed. If an A becomes a B there must be point at which it happens.

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

That's what I just said.

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

Then do it.

>>I reject creationism on religious grounds and accept the theory of evolution provisionally--like all scientific theories are accepted.[/QUOTE]<<

I accept creation on scientific grounds(after their kind) and reject evolution on scientific grounds(after their kind).

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Whether we have a closed system or not has not been proved yet. There are good scientist on both sides of that fence.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

I am only talking about the original creation. If God didn't do it, it seems unlikely that the universe started out as perfect as it is today. Even if it did you can't prove it. So how does randomness become perfectly ordered?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Whether we have a closed system or not has not been proved yet.

Except that it has.

Go out, look up.
See the ball of giant nuclear infurnus, which constantly shoots high energy photons our way? It's called the "sun" and it provides the planet 24/7 with workable energy.

It's how plants can grow and stuff.

There are good scientist on both sides of that fence.

Not really.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am only talking about the original creation. If God didn't do it, it seems unlikely that the universe started out as perfect as it is today.

False dichotomy.

The fact is that the origins of the universe are unknown.
And that goes for you as well as for the rest of us.

Even if it did you can't prove it. So how does randomness become perfectly ordered?

Disagree that the universe is "perfectly ordered". For the simple reason that I can easily imagine a universe which is better ordered - if we assume that we are the point of it all.

And "perfect" means that there is no room for further improvement.

 

[omega2xx]

How do you know all this?
You wouldn't be making an argument from incredulity / ignorance by any chance, would you?

If they had made any, it would be all over the news.

Why don't you post the progress they have made.

An argument from incredulity ignorance is saying something without providing the evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

False dichotomy.

The fact is that the origins of the universe are unknown.
And that goes for you as well as for the rest of us.

I know who the universe was formed, I just ca't prove it, and you can't disprove it. My explanation is the most logical.

Disagree that the universe is "perfectly ordered". For the simple reason that I can easily imagine a universe which is better ordered - if we assume that we are the point of it all.

Imagining is not evidence.

And "perfect" means that there is no room for further improvement.

There is not room for further improvements. There is only room for further discovring which will point more to its perfection.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your post demonstrate you don't know how real science works. You don' even understand what constitutes verifiable scientific evidence.

Now you're just being childish. I told you my credentials - what about yours?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If they had made any, it would be all over the news.

Why don't you post the progress they have made.

For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and assume that no progress whatsoever has been made and that we thus are utterly ignorant on how life began.

My question wasn't about what science claims or hypothesizes. My question was about what YOU claimed concerning the origins of life.

Because your argument seems to be "science doesn't know, therefor my religion is correct"

An argument from incredulity ignorance is saying something without providing the evidence.

No. It is saying "this here is unknown, therefor this random claim here is correct or valid"