• 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.

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
Good, you learned something. So tell everyone the mathematical reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational step in that video.
 
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
If you really don't understand how observation and field work can be experiments, then there is really no hope for you to understand the nature of science, particularly as related to a science like evolution.
So you have observed macroevolution?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So you have observed macroevolution?
He may not have, but others have. I do believe that I already posted links on observing macroevolution. Perhaps you do not understand what macroevolution is.
 
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,646
16,342
55
USA
✟410,968.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Good, you learned something. So tell everyone the mathematical reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutational step in that video.

As I said, I'm not doing math performance for you.

Your paper tells me nothing I needed to know to estimate the probability of 1 billion events with 1 in 1 billion probability happening that I didn't already know. That's what really surprises me about the publication of that paper, I would think a journal titled "Statistics in Medicine" would have dismissed it as trivial.

I don't do trivial science.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
There are journals that will publish almost anything as long as they are paid. Funny, they all seem to be open access journals. Hmm, isn't Statistics in Medicine open access?
 
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
As I said, I'm not doing math performance for you.
How sad, you won't tell us what you learned.
They would have dismissed this paper because of its triviality except it demonstrated a trivial empirical fact of life of how adaptive evolution to a single selection pressure operates and drug resistance evolves. It's really pretty amazing when you think about it. Such a simple mathematical equation describes that on the surface seem such a confusing physical phenomenon. I can't say no one ever noticed this before me. My 5th-grade science teacher saw this mathematical relationship and started the derivation on the chalkboard. That was more than half a century ago. If it took me that long to fully understand that 5th-grade lecture, I guess I should understand why it takes so long for a macroevolutionist to understand it.
I don't do trivial science.
Strange you would say that about this subject. Most people would say the evolution of drug resistance, herbicide resistance, pesticide resistance, and why cancer treatments fail is not trivial. The math may be trivial but not the physical consequences. But, to each his own, you go on and figure out your macro-science.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

Then why does nobody care? You still have next to no citations and seem to be reduced to pimping these papers on every single forum you can come across.

If your papers were really that correct/relevant/important, why are they being ignored?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Then why does nobody care? You still have next to no citations and seem to be reduced to pimping these papers on every single forum you can come across.

If your papers were really that correct/relevant/important, why are they being ignored?
Hmm, perhaps the lack of evidence?
 
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
Then why does nobody care? You still have next to no citations and seem to be reduced to pimping these papers on every single forum you can come across.

If your papers were really that correct/relevant/important, why are they being ignored?
It's better than pimping the lunacy of macroevolution.
 
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
Yet the "lunacy of macroevolution" is foundational to modern biology.

Funny, that.
That explains why biologists can't properly explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Build a field of study on a couple of courses in dumbbell math and a survey course in physics and that's what you get.

Not so funny for those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.
 
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

Yes,- I think we are all given a little piece of God's creativity, curiosity, will, fascination- created in his image- which is open to everyone but corruptible by ill will & cynicism.



It's something of a catch-22 I found in modelling also; stable populations are stable populations, advantageous mutations are lost in the crowd. A small gene pool is easier to influence but provides far less probability of a significant advantageous mutation occurring in a generation. Where a new generation's genetic makeup leans only slightly deleterious- 'survival of the fittest' still applies- but it is a common fallacy to presume that 'fittest' somehow denotes 'fitter than' or even 'as fit as' the previous generation. Rather the gene pool succumbs to entropy; degradation, decline and eventual extinction.


That's where the rubber meets the road. It is a fascinating academic debate, but clearly from common colds to cancer, we still lack the tools to wrestle these problems to the ground.

As quantum mechanics unleashed a whole new dimension of technical possibilities concealed by classical physics- for better or worse- so too when Darwinism is finally superseded by a more enlightened understanding of the mechanisms.

James Tour for one, synthetic organic chemist and nano-tech pioneer is achieving great things based on an assumption of intelligent design in cells rather than chance creation- it informs an entirely different set of questions, answers and solutions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,646
16,342
55
USA
✟410,968.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat

The things you claim to explain are not trivial, but you description seems to be.

Since you clearly don't grasp what I am saying, a rephrase:

I don't bother doing science that is so trivial none of my colleagues have any interest in it. Though you don't seem to have any colleagues.
 
Reactions: tas8831
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'm also calling the spontaneous creation of hierarchical digital information systems like DNA by 'natural mechanisms' an extraordinary claim.

While the same being produced through creative intelligence is relatively commonplace.

It's an understanding born of the information age, understanding not available to Darwin.
 
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
Fitness pertains to the fecundity of the variant. It can be measure in an absolute manner, the change in population size of the particular variant from one generation to the next. It is this measure that determines whether the variant has a reasonable probability of having a descendant with an adaptive mutation. Or it can be measured in a relative sense wherein in a competitive environment the variant with the highest relative fitness will usually take over the population and be "fixed"
That's where the rubber meets the road. It's a fascinating academic debate, but clearly from common colds to cancer, we still lack the tools to wrestle these problems to the ground.
It's not wise to squander the tools that we have.
As quantum mechanics unleashed a whole new dimension of technical possibilities concealed by classical physics- for better or worse- so too when Darwinism is finally superseded by a more enlightened understanding of the mechanisms.
And what is that mechanism?
Tour has good arguments against abiogenesis.
 
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

There is a distinction to be made between the theory and the observation though- i.e. I'm saying what we can observe and measure is breaking the laws of Darwinian evolution- as light waves disobeyed classical physics- the disparity shows that something more is at work.

And what is that mechanism?

As above- apples still fall from trees, genetic apples will still fall not far from there's - but something beyond a handful of simple laws + time and random interaction is at work in both cases. Specifically- information.
Some secular scientists already already use pre-existing information as an argument against God- 'no divine intervention needed, the necessary genetic information already existed and just needed to be switched on'

Another clue that Newtonian physics was insufficient, was the observation that the universe itself did not develop in smooth incremental steps, but sudden explosive stages- speaking to more specific information driving these explosive events. And the observation of increasingly 'explosive events' are likewise a growing hurdle for ToE.
 
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
The things you claim to explain are not trivial, but you description seems to be.
For evolution in a single selection pressure environment, the description (math) is trivial. Evolution in a multi-selection pressure environment, the description becomes a little more complex. Still, the mathematics is quite straightforward.
Since you clearly don't grasp what I am saying, a rephrase:

I don't bother doing science that is so trivial none of my colleagues have any interest in it. Though you don't seem to have any colleagues.
I don't think your colleagues would have any problem with the triviality of the math if it didn't contradict the concept of macroevolution. I've heard many "scientists" over the years say that the multiplication rule of probabilities does not apply to biological evolution. It is this axiom that contradicts the notion of macroevolution.

With or without the support of colleagues, I will persist in this because I believe it is correct and needs to be known. I will not stop because it disrupts a bad foundational concept for the field of modern biology, not when that concept harms people suffering from diseases that can evolve.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,646
16,342
55
USA
✟410,968.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat

What does most of this have to do with evolution? (And are you implying that sudden stages of development in the universe were clues against Newtonian physics/for quantum mechanics, because that is just not historically correct?)
 
Reactions: tas8831
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
What does most of this have to do with evolution? (And are you implying that sudden stages of development in the universe were clues against Newtonian physics/for quantum mechanics, because that is just not historically correct?)

Classical physics breaks down at both micro/quantum and macro/cosmological scales. It cannot explain the observations at these levels- this is hardly controversial.

Things do work differently at different scales, they have to- similarly in the superficial observation of natural variation, we are looking at a necessary design feature, not a design mechanism.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.