• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,671
16,350
55
USA
✟411,315.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Like I said, the primary issue in the U.S. is U.S. Constitutional law. In cases where ID has tried to be pushed in schools, they *have* to distance themselves from religion.

It's not about objectivity; it's a legal necessity.

THIS^^^^

ID is just "constitutionally washed" creation science (itself a pseudoscience based on biblical creationism). The courts (and the scientists) saw through this cloak.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,402
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
^ and this is what we generally see in 'short necked Giraffes' examples - they are similar but key evidence shows they were most likely NOT direct ancestors-

And lastly, millions of prehistoric giraffes existed. Just as millions of people exist today. It's not the objective of the fossil record to tell you which exact skeleton is your direct parent or grandparent in a few generations but rather the fossil record depicts trends of species over millions of years. To suggest otherwise is just a misunderstanding of paleontology.
 
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
THIS^^^^

ID is just "constitutionally washed" creation science (itself a pseudoscience based on biblical creationism). The courts (and the scientists) saw through this cloak.
I've never claimed Creationism science. But we are still waiting for you "scientists" to give us an experimental example of macroevolution and describe the mathematical and physical process by which it operates. You can't because macroevolution doesn't exist. In fact, when are you scientists going to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of microevolution? Why don't you explain to us why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment? It really is a trivial probability problem.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,402
3,194
Hartford, Connecticut
✟356,686.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
. G. jumae lived from 13 million years ago, during the Miocene, until about one million years ago, during the Cenozoic.

This is also poorly written, as the Miocene is within the cenozoic. It would be better written as "G. Jumae lived from roughly 13 mya to 1 mya during the Miocene epoch of the Cenozoic era".


But regardless, it's also worth considering that giraffes may also evolve to be smaller as well, in the sense that 50 million years ago they would be tiny (and really wouldn't even be giraffes), 20 million years ago they would be medium sized, 10 million years ago they would be large, some even being slightly larger than today, then in the last million, they downsized a bit to the size they are now. There's no reason giraffes couldn't evolve to be smaller in more recent times.


Just an observation. But ultimately when we go back in time, we find short necked giraffes, which is the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Are up blind? Guy is pointing out that evidence. How does an archeologist tell whether the dig has unearthed some ancient city or just some unusual rock formation?

This comes from the mouth of someone who can't present experimental evidence of macroevolution. And are we supposed to believe that macroevolution is true because some biology professor name Ken Miller says it is true? Since when does taking a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course make you a scientist? Biologists can't even correctly describe the thermodynamics of biological evolution.

There is a difference between Creationism and ID. Creationism like abiogenesis has no scientific underpinnings. If you are going to claim something like, "chemical reactions" occur, so just the right kind of chemical reaction you can get a living replicator, give us the experiment that demonstrates this occurring because all the mathematics, chemistry, and physics says the probability of this happening is so close to 0 that it is 0. And your scientific explanation of biological evolution is done at the level of someone whose scientific training consists of a couple of dumbbell math courses and a survey of physics course. But we shouldn't forget the scientific training you get in your fossil tea-leaf reading course. That's the course where you get the training to explain evolution which happens on the molecular level (DNA) using gross anatomy.
 
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals has been tested and passed? You can't even explain why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment.

So DNA is a recipe, anyone wants slop for dinner? Do you want to show for us mathematically how new "information" arises in DNA? You can start with the Kishony experiment.


That mathematical limitation on the natural forces that might cause abiogenesis and limit biological evolution is the multiplication rule of probabilities. Abiogenesis and adaptive DNA evolution are both random processes and the joint probability of random events occurring is computed using the multiplication rule. This is clearly demonstrated in both the Kishony and Lenski experiments. This is why abiogenesis didn't and doesn't occur and why adaptive DNA microevolution is limited.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No, Guy is merely hand waving. Like you he does not understand the.concept of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single

Yes. It has been. Sadly, as your failed work demonstrates, you do not understand the nature of evidence. Nor do you understand how concepts are tested. Which is why you don't have evidence for your failed idea. Real scientists working in the field.pointed this out to you and tried to help you with that concept. You did not take advantage of those offers of assistance.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
but the point above goes beyond this- there are known limitations on nature, and specific fingerprints of intelligence in design, that transcend any particular precedent.
Throughout the ages we have believes that there limits to many things until we learned better with the accumulation of new knowledge. I am not claiming humans will figure everything out but we are only humans after all.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ken Miller provided a challenge for people who misrepresent evolution due to ignorance. You simply need to define macroevolution. Specifically, you need to tell us "what percentage of genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change." Your warmed-over creationist version "no one has ever seen it" may convince a 6 year old but you need to do better for adults.

I predict that Alan will fail to answer the challenge as he failed to respond to the Peaceful Science challenge.
 
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
No, Guy is merely hand waving. Like you he does not understand the.concept of evidence.
The Kishony and Lenski experiments are experimental evidence, but it takes more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics to understand it.
Real scientists take more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics. It is you who fail to understand the thermodynamics and trivial mathematics of DNA evolution. It is worse than simple-mindedness to claim that DNA is "on the order of a recipe".
 
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I've had one communication with Ken Miller, the author of "The Flagellum Unspun". I asked him a question, "What was the purpose of helicase and gyrase before DNA existed?". His answer was "That's a good question". If you think that this biology professor who has taken a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics can explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of macroevolution (which doesn't exist), tell him to explain it here. He won't. In fact, he can't and won't explain the thermodynamics and mathematics of microevolution that actually exists. If you understand the thermodynamics of microevolution, you can predict and explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive step in the Kishony experiment and you can correctly explain the mathematics of the Lenski experiment. The difficult part of this is explaining this subject to people that take a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course of physics and think they have mastered the subject of thermodynamics. You have lost contact with reality.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
52
Midwest
✟26,447.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[57]
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You claim many things. Yet when the experts offer you reasonable challenges that will verify your claims all you are able to do is hemorrhage insults, and go on ad nauseam about thermodynamics and Kishony and Lenski. You can convince a 6 year old but you have yet to convince knowledgeable adults. When it come to macroevolution you have thus far been incapable of defining the very thing you say does not exist.

The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Kenneth R. Miller

You can shut all of us up by taking the Peaceful Science and Miller challenges. I already predicted you won't and so fare you have not disappointed us.
 
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Guy, welcome to the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
52
Midwest
✟26,447.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

I have visited the gravesite of the Wright brothers near where some of my family grew up- it struck me that my own father-in-law is old enough, that he may well have passed the inventor of powered flight walking down the street in his home town..

After such a miniscule period of time in human history, far less geological history, we have gone from a few feet of the ground, to space probes leaving the solar system, and orbiting telescopes powerful enough to examine other solar systems for suitability of habitation. What could be achieved in another 100 years, 1000, 100,000?

I'd say the observation fits the math, we are probably alone - belief in ET seems to rely on a fairly narrow assumption; where it is rare enough that not a single race would ever colonize the galaxy, yet still plentiful enough in other galaxies to render humanity gratifyingly 'insignificant'

As a hypothetical, if it could be proven that we are in fact alone- would this shake your atheist beliefs? Or could you write this off as yet one more staggering 'coincidence'?
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,389
1,169
KW
✟145,443.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Miller Challange: Define macroevolution. Specifically, you need to tell us "what percentage of genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change."
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
52
Midwest
✟26,447.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

It was from your first link:


which clearly points out "the animal was closely related to the common ancestor of sivatherium and samotherium, but it evolved in another direction."

Of course there are other Giraffe-like animals, of course we see similarity in design- what is much more difficult to identify is a record of gradual development occurring as Darwin predicted.

What we generally see are sudden appearances in the record, followed by large periods of virtual stasis- and often decline in size/ sophistication as with the Giraffa Jumae, which was about a meter taller than it's modern decedents and predates your non-ancestor by 4 millions years!
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Alan Kleinman

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
796
127
73
Coarsegold
✟23,304.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Nothing will shut up mathematically incompetent dogmatists. But if you want an explanation of macroevolution, it is the misguided belief that there is some mechanism for large genetic transformation. There is no experimental evidence for this, there is only experimental evidence of microevolution where DNA microevolutionary adaptation to a single selection pressure requires about 1/(mutation rate) replications for each adaptive evolutionary step on that evolutionary trajectory. The number of replications for each adaptive step for more than a single simultaneous selection pressure goes up exponentially if improvement in fitness requires more than 2 (adaptive) mutations on an evolutionary trajectory. This is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. And you better learn to live with your nausea because the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments give well-measured evidence of this. If biologists took more than a couple of courses in dumbbell math (and breath a big sigh of relief when they barely pass those courses and say "I hope I never see that again) and a survey course in physics where they certainly don't master the laws of thermodynamic, these biologists and you might understand these mathematical and physical facts of life. And of course, this is why biologists can't explain the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail. They are too busy living in this fantasy world of macroevolution. No wonder biology is referred to as a soft science, really, soft pseudo-science is a better description of what biologists have made of their field of study.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
52
Midwest
✟26,447.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

So if we dig through history and see sudden appearances, similarities- some gaps, jumps, redundant features and even some dead ends, but a general trend towards greater sophistication over time- what does this pattern tell you about how these different forms came into existence?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.