Atheism vs. Christian

[Hoghead1]

My response to you:

As Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.[91]

”
In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:

“ Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.[92]

See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Microevolution_vs._macroevolution

You are again citing Conservapedia, a totally unreliable source. Furthermore, there is very strong reason to disagree with Mayr and Lewin.

 

[PaulA135711]

Ex-atheist shares his testimony

 

[Hoghead1]

My response to you:

As Dr. Roger Lewin commented after the 1980 University of Chicago conference entitled “Macroevolution”:

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. … At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” [Emphasis added]

Dr. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science. Vol. 210, 21 November 1980. p. 883-887.[91]

”
In 1988, the prominent Harvard University biologist Ernst Mayr wrote in his essay Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?:

“ Among all the claims made during the evolutionary synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution can be ‘reduced to,' that is, explained by, microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly, this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists. Many of them insisted that there is more or less complete discontinuity between the processes at the two levels—that what happens at the species level is entirely different from what happens at the level of the higher categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy remains undecided.
...In this respect, indeed, macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution.[92]

See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Microevolution_vs._macroevolution

Have you bothered to read in any detail about that conference? I think not. There are a few facts you neglected to mention. The atmosphere was very hostile , lots of personality clashes. Nothing really was decided. Often happens in academic circles. True, Lewin said that "the paleontologists have convinced us small changes don't accumulate." He also attributed that to Ayala. However, Ayala denies he ever made such a claim. He wrote a letter stating, "I don't know how Roger Lewin could have gotten in his notes the quotation he attributes to me. I could never have said what he attributes to me."
Again, you have allowed your views to be colored by Conservapedia and therefore not carefully checked out the facts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Gene2MemE,

Both evolutionists and creationists believe in natural selection, adaptation, microevolution and breeding.

In fact Darwin borrowed some of the ideas of creationist Edward Blythe when it came to natural selection.

I specifically asked for a "MACROEVOLUTION FORMULA".

Also please read this:

source: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/03/evolution-and-problem-of-time.html

Evolution and the problem of time

You may recall that over the years, I have repeatedly asked various evolutionary True Believers a very simple and straightforward time-based question, to which there absolutely must be an answer, and they not only have been unable to answer it, but frequently tried to deny it was either a) relevant or b) possible, thereby demonstrating that they don't understand ANYTHING about their own faux-scientific faith. But the speed of evolution, and of the underlying mutations, is absolutely central to understanding the theory, as well as determining whether it is total nonsense or not:
Mathematicians keep refining π even though they know it to more than 12 trillion digits; physicists beat themselves up because they cannot pin down the gravitational constant beyond three significant figures. Geneticists, by contrast, are having trouble deciding between one measure of how fast human DNA mutates and another that is half that rate.

The rate is key to calibrating the ‘molecular clock’ that puts DNA-based dates on events in evolutionary history. So at an intimate meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 25–27 February, a dozen speakers puzzled over why calculations of the rate at which sequence changes pop up in human DNA have been so much lower in recent years than previously. They also pondered why the rate seems to fluctuate over time. The meeting drew not only evolutionary geneticists, but also researchers with an interest in cancer and reproductive biology — fields in which mutations have a central role.

“Mutation is ultimately the source of all heritable diseases and all biological adaptations, so understanding the rate at which mutations evolve is a fundamental question,” says Molly Przeworski, a population geneticist at Columbia University in New York City who attended the Human Mutation Rate Meeting....

A slower molecular clock worked well to harmonize genetic and archaeological estimates for dates of key events in human evolution, such as migrations out of Africa and around the rest of the world. But calculations using the slow clock gave nonsensical results when extended further back in time — positing, for example, that the most recent common ancestor of apes and monkeys could have encountered dinosaurs. Reluctant to abandon the older numbers completely, many researchers have started hedging their bets in papers, presenting multiple dates for evolutionary events depending on whether mutation is assumed to be fast, slow or somewhere in between. You know you're dealing with QUALITY science when scientists start substituting variables for concrete numbers depending upon what they want the results to be. Here is the money quote: “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”

As I have repeatedly predicted, genuine genetic science is eventually going to kill evolution by natural selection deader than phlogiston or the Flat Earth theory.


Please read the information below:

Again, I read your last sentence. Again, I find the claim and tone about the epitome of lay arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Gene2memE]

Much like ShockofGod, it is apparent that our fellow forum denizen doesn't understand when his question is malformed, or why.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana, in post #296 of this thread I pose some useful questions to you.

Can you give me a page number? I only post from my phone and the mobile site doesn't give post numbers...so I don't know what post you're referring to.

 

[cannotbechanged]

I agree. He just doesn't strike me as a real person. It's all an act.


eudaimonia,

Mark

How can one type unless they are real?

I believe that is insight to your ideal of Atheism perhaps?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can one type unless they are real?

You mistake my meaning. I mean that it seemed to me that he could be misrepresenting himself and his true purpose in the thread. I could have phrased that more clearly.

I believe that is insight to your ideal of Atheism perhaps?

Oh, do tell me what my ideals are.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ex-atheist shares his testimony

What precisely are we supposed to get out of watching this video?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

I think this resource is useful to various posters in this thread:

Atheism and logical fallacies:

People think lots of strange things. The fact that people think things isn't nearly as interesting as why they do. Since you've provided no reasons why you think that anyone else should care about this site, I guess all I can say is thanks for sharing your feelings on the matter.

 

[PaulA135711]

Can you give me a page number? I only post from my phone and the mobile site doesn't give post numbers...so I don't know what post you're referring to.

Ana,

Below is a copy paste of post #296 as per your request:

re: Macroevolution formula

Ana,

A few things:

1.Have you looked up the word macroevolution if you are not familar with the term?

2. Second, please read this resource about microevolution/macroevolution in terms of what evolutionary scientists have conceded about the issue: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Microevolution_vs._macroevolution

Do you see now that leading evolutionists have indicated that microevolution is not synonymous with macroevolution and that "macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution"? If so, do you see the implications of this? If you do see the inplications of this, what are the implications?

3. Often hard sciences have preciseness, predictability and usefulness.

For example, in physics: mass times acceleration equals force which is often expressed as: F = MA

Yet, there is no "macroevolution fornula" which is widely accepted among scientists and widely used by scientists.

Please read this article for further explanation: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/03/evolution-and-problem-of-time.html?commentPage=2

The lack of quantification and usefulness as far as macroevolution is not surprising since evolutionism is not science and merely pseudoscience.

 

[PaulA135711]

 

[Eudaimonist]

What precisely are we supposed to get out of watching this video?

(It's bad form to spam a thread with videos when you don't explain what people are supposed to get out of watching them.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What precisely are we supposed to get out of watching this video?

(It's bad form to spam a thread with videos when you don't explain what people are supposed to get out of watching them.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

This entire thread has become: "Look at what I've discovered on the internetz today guys!"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ana,

Below is a copy paste of post #296 as per your request:

re: Macroevolution formula

Ana,

A few things:

1.Have you looked up the word macroevolution if you are not familar with the term?

2. Second, please read this resource about microevolution/macroevolution in terms of what evolutionary scientists have conceded about the issue: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Microevolution_vs._macroevolution

Do you see now that leading evolutionists have indicated that microevolution is not synonymous with macroevolution and that "macroevolution as a field of study is completely decoupled from microevolution"? If so, do you see the implications of this? If you do see the inplications of this, what are the implications?

3. Often hard sciences have preciseness, predictability and usefulness.

For example, in physics: mass times acceleration equals force which is often expressed as: F = MA

Yet, there is no "macroevolution fornula" which is widely accepted among scientists and widely used by scientists.

Please read this article for further explanation: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/03/evolution-and-problem-of-time.html?commentPage=2

The lack of quantification and usefulness as far as macroevolution is not surprising since evolutionism is not science and merely pseudoscience.

You sir haven't got a clue.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You sir haven't got a clue.

In terms of tone, word choice and composition, "Paul" sounds a lot like other previous posters to this site. Which turned out to be the same person.

Now, there may be a Christian archetype in play here (the Antagonistic Dunning Kruger Christian), but I have to wonder...

 

[PaulA135711]

Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson (1883-1955) was a noted Swedish geneticist and Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden.[1] He was also a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.[2] Dr. Nilsson produced a two volume work entitled Synthetische Artbildung. In the work Synthetische Artbildung Dr. Heribert-Nilsson wrote:
“ My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint. . .

It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleo-biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. - Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, pp.1185 and 1212.[3]

 

[PaulA135711]

“The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007[

 

[PaulA135711]

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985,

 

[PaulA135711]

Pierre-Paul Grassé, who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following:
“ Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case....

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Pierre-Paul Grassé - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pages 6 and 8