Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

tas8831 · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Humans adapt to different environments by intelligence, not by genetic adaptation.

LOL!

Only occasionally do we see adaptation by mutation such as sickle cell variants. But that only requires a single mutation.

Ah, so a new allele via a single mutation. Thanks. You seem to undercut your claims the more you blabber.

SeventhFisherofMen · Aug 2, 2021

tas8831 said:
Have you observed the Intelligent Design creation of a fully formed man from dust?
Or run the probabilities on it?
No? No experiments? Nothing?
Pfft... typical...

If there was a thumbs down, I'd click it.

tas8831 · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
Especially when you consider the number of biologists working today. Just in the U.S. there are over 100k and apparently none of them care about Kleinman's work.

Heck, even other creationists/ID proponents don't seem to care. If his work really was as demolishing to macroevolution as he thinks it is, you'd think creationist/ID organizations would be all over it.

Indeed - he could have been the new director of the Bio-Logic Institute... oh, right.....

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

tas8831 said:
It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.

A common theme among creationists/ID proponents is the faulty view that creation is the null hypothesis of evolution. Hence there is so little effort to provide positive evidence for design in lieu of negative evidence against evolution.

tas8831 · Aug 2, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
If there was a thumbs down, I'd click it.

Good for you.

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

tas8831 said:
You do not understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype, so your contrived math is irrelevant.
You don't know?
Shades of ReMine!

And what are those times and how do you know?

Keratin? We have keratin in nails, skin, hair, etc. And the amino acid sequences of keratins in different species are not identical. You suck at picking examples to 'prove your point.'
Why would that have to happen in a "single lineage"? You suck at this.
You seem to be implying that those systems differ by some major chasm. I once had a creationist insist that claws and nails were so totally different that evolution cannot even explain how one evolved from the other. You seem to be of that mindset.
How many mutations do you suppose would have been required to get an avian respiratory system from a reptilian one? And how did you come to that conclusion?

Not really.

Um...
Evidence? And do no mention your usual as that is irrelevant. Do you think an altered limb, for example, requires specific mutations to alter all of the structures in that limb? Mutations for muscles, mutations for bones, etc.? Heck, do you know how to produce an allele? How many mutations are needed to get a new allele, by your understanding?

And the same to you - as you reject that accepted explanation, you need to provide your explanation then substantiate your explanation with repeatable experimentation if you want that explanation to be scientific.

It is all well and good for creationists to attack evolution, but believe it or not, this is not a dichotomous issue. Your mere beliefs do not become true if evolution is wrong. I do wonder why people like you spend so much time attacking evolution rather than supporting your alternative. I suspect it has something to do with there being far far less evidence (and math) for what you wish to be true than what the evidence indicates.

tas, tell us how a stem cell goes on to produce more cells that tell other cells to turn on and off the production of keratin to make the correct feather type grow in the correct location on birds?

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

SeventhFisherofMen said:
If there was a thumbs down, I'd click it.

They can't make scientific arguments or present experimental evidence for their pseudoscientific beliefs about macroevolution so they say "prove God". The sad part about this is that can't even explain microevolution correctly and that's the explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
They can't make scientific arguments or present experimental evidence for their pseudoscientific beliefs about macroevolution so they say "prove God". The sad part about this is that can't even explain microevolution correctly and that's the explanation of how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail.

This from the person who claimed that human adaptations to different climates is due to intelligence and not genetics. ^_^

(Not to mention someone who still hasn't bothered to read any modern evolutionary biology textbooks and the fact the subject of drug resistance evolution is covered in said books.)

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
A common theme among creationists/ID proponents is the faulty view that creation is the null hypothesis of evolution. Hence why there is so little effort to provide positive evidence for design in lieu of negative evidence against evolution.

Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
Still no experimental evidence of macroevolution? I guess you have to fill your posts with something. I'm still in a little shock that Frank admits my math correctly explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Doesn't he have to be sent to a relearning center or something?

This from the guy who apparently gets frequent flier miles every time he mentions Kishony and Lenski. ^_^

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
This from the person who claimed that human adaptations to different climates is due to intelligence and not genetics.

So you didn't listen to your mother when she told you to put on your coat when you went outside so you wouldn't catch your death of cold.

pitabread said:
(Not to mention someone who still apparently hasn't bothered to read any modern evolutionary biology textbooks and the fact the subject of drug resistance evolution is covered in said books.)

Do you have one that explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
This from the guy who apparently gets frequent flier miles every time he mentions Kishony and Lenski.

They call that experimental evidence, you should try it.

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
They call that experimental evidence, you should try it.

You should try taking your own advice.

Let us know when you've actually tested your model. I won't hold my breath.

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
You should try taking your own advice.

Let us know when you've actually tested your model. I won't hold my breath.

The Kishony and Lenski experiments are the test. Perhaps you have an experiment that does fit this model?

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
So you didn't listen to your mother when she told you to put on your coat when you went outside so you wouldn't catch your death of cold.

Are you actually trying to deny the existence of cold-weather adaptations?

I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but based on some of things you've claimed, it's really stretching it.

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
The Kishony and Lenski experiments are the test.

Yet they seem to have omitted citing you and your model in the process. Must have been an omission on their part? I wonder why? :scratch:

Warden_of_the_Storm · Aug 2, 2021

Alan Kleinman said:
If you don't, you are basing your theory on presumption, not scientific principles. You are presuming taxonomic groups are related and therefore macroevolution exists. That is physically and mathematically illogical.

You haven't shown how they can't occur.
Meanwhile, my statement still stands: since we see new species evolving, both in extinct fossil groups and also in extant living groups, then ipso facto, macroevolution is factual.

Frank Robert · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
Are you actually trying to deny the existence of cold-weather adaptations?

I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but based on some of things you've claimed, it's really stretching it.

Aren't you aware that if it doesn't fit into Alan's K & L model it is pseudoscience?

pitabread · Aug 2, 2021

Frank Robert said:
Aren't you aware that if it doesn't fit into Alan's K & L model it is pseudoscience?

I have a feeling he'd first want us to lock a population of humans in fridge for a few million generations to see if they adapt to cold climates before he'd accept it.

Alan Kleinman · Aug 2, 2021

pitabread said:
Are you actually trying to deny the existence of cold-weather adaptations?

I mean, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but based on some of things you've claimed, it's really stretching it.

Oh no, it can happen genetically at the rate of about 1 adaptation mutation/billion replications. Do you know that Lenski did thermal stress experiments with his bacteria?

Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

Well-Known Member

You cannot fool Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads