Beneficial Mutations

[Hans Blaster]

This could explain what appears to be an arrogant tone behind this quote.

Hadn't seen that before. It's from 1988. Within 10 years computational cosmologists had clearly demonstrated how to do that (make a clumpy universe from a smooth one) and Alfven was dead. He may have just missed the demonstration that his unfounded claim was wrong.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Wow! He must be right about EVERYTHING!

Say - are you familiar with the fallacy of appeal to (false) authority?

A few years ago, your hero claimed nobody he had ever talked to could explain macroevolution to him. Nick Matzke volunteered to do so, but only if the meeting was recorded. Tour declined.
Wonder why...

Sure I am. Evolutionists use it all the time. "He may be a Noble Prize winner but he's not a biologist, so he's too dumb to understand evolution" kind of argument.

By the way, I have no issue with what is now called micro evolution. It is observable. I do disagree with the conclusions evolutionists come to. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. Micro evolution used to be called adaptation. I much prefer the original term. Too many people conflate micro and macro evolution. They are not the same and it is not possible to prove macro evolution from what is observed in adaptation.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sure I am. Evolutionists use it all the time. "He may be a Noble Prize winner but he's not a biologist, so he's too dumb to understand evolution" kind of argument.

By the way, I have no issue with what is now called micro evolution. It is observable. I do disagree with the conclusions evolutionists come to. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. Micro evolution used to be called adaptation. I much prefer the original term. Too many people conflate micro and macro evolution. They are not the same and it is not possible to prove macro evolution from what is observed in adaptation.

He may not be too dumb to understand evolution but to understand at the level he's arguing he needs expert knowledge.

Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum total of many micro-evolutionary steps.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...
​

OB​

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure I am. Evolutionists use it all the time. "He may be a Noble Prize winner but he's not a biologist, so he's too dumb to understand evolution" kind of argument.

By the way, I have no issue with what is now called micro evolution. It is observable. I do disagree with the conclusions evolutionists come to. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. Micro evolution used to be called adaptation. I much prefer the original term. Too many people conflate micro and macro evolution. They are not the same and it is not possible to prove macro evolution from what is observed in adaptation.

I love the whole "micro and macro evolution are different" argument. No support needed, just throw it out there and assume it must be true. After all, we all walk to the local shops ( micro evolution) in a few minutes but nobody walks from Beijing to Paris (macro evolution) - it's too far, so can't be done.....

 

[Speedwell]

Sure I am. Evolutionists use it all the time. "He may be a Noble Prize winner but he's not a biologist, so he's too dumb to understand evolution" kind of argument.

By the way, I have no issue with what is now called micro evolution. It is observable.

So is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution begins with speciation, and speciation is observable.

do disagree with the conclusions evolutionists come to. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. Micro evolution used to be called adaptation. I much prefer the original term. Too many people conflate micro and macro evolution. They are not the same and it is not possible to prove macro evolution from what is observed in adaptation.

Why not? They proceed by the exact same process of variation and selection.

 

[pitabread]

By the way, I have no issue with what is now called micro evolution. It is observable. I do disagree with the conclusions evolutionists come to. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. Micro evolution used to be called adaptation. I much prefer the original term. Too many people conflate micro and macro evolution. They are not the same and it is not possible to prove macro evolution from what is observed in adaptation.

What do you think is the difference?

Also, I just created a dedicated thread on the subject. If you want you can always post your response there: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

 

[durangodawood]

He may not be too dumb to understand evolution but to understand at the level he's arguing he needs expert knowledge.

Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum total of many micro-evolutionary steps.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...
​

OB​

People have difficulty with time spans far beyond the grasp of first person intuitions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This could explain what appears to be an arrogant tone behind this quote.
...

[Sorry, I missed this post]

To be fair, he's not saying it's impossible, just that he never thought it possible; I could imagine a continuation along the lines of, "... but I could be convinced by...".

Having said that, you may well be right! It's hard to tell without more context.

 

[Job 33:6]

So is macro-evolution. Macro-evolution begins with speciation, and speciation is observable.Why not? They proceed by the exact same process of variation and selection.

A simple reality that Creationists will never be able to admit to.

 

[driewerf]

Nope. I'm not a Biologist but I can read, observe and come to a conclusion. I disbelieved evolution before I was a Christian.

"I'm not a Biologist" but you think that you know better than biologists.

 

[pitabread]

I have not read of any mutations that are constructive.

Are you familiar with gain-of-function mutations?