Denying all evidence

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

All we witness is adaptation. .....

You ignored my questions. Do you know that Macroevolution has been observed? You do understand the classification levels, right?

Adaptation is a compulsory feature on designed structures.....

*Sigh* another ducked question. Could you please directly answer what the barrier (to adding up to larger evolutionary changes) could possible be?
​

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

That paper states another mechanism of evolution. Do you even understand what that paper says? You could ask for help from some of the real biological scientists we have here....

And no, with cars remaining cars in testing, the explanation for the diversity of cars is not an ascent from motor cycles.

I never mentioned motorcycles. Do you understand what a twin nested hierarchy is, and what we mean by whether or not one can be constructed? You know, that last response made it look to me like you were not actually trying to understand the point, but rather were just looking for some keywords that happened to be in a creationist canard that you could then mention. You'll learn more in life if you understand before responding.

We have simulated time with random mutations.
FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

News flash: Evolution results from natural selection combined with mutation. Speeding up the mutation rate helps, but cannot by itself substitute for the occurances from the cambrian to now.

Worse, that fruit flies article seriously hurts your credibility. I hope you do not take articles like it seriously. For one thing, it references creationist books by people with no biological or scientific credentials as if they were relevant, and uses old papers (note the dates). Even worse than that is that is uses the old creationist tactic of ignoring evidence, then claiming that this evience doesn't exist. It turns out that speciation is seen in fruit flies, and that this was seen well before your article was written. One example of ignored work was

Speciation occured in a strain of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963 in Theodosius Dobzhansky's lab. He wrote this up in:

Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field. Science 177:664-669

There are also plenty more examples of speciation in fruit flies in the lab, for instance,

workers produced reproductive isolation between two strains of fruit flies in a lab setting within 25 generations.

Rice and Salt 1988. American Naturalist 131:911
​

With over 3,000 species of fruit flies cataloged now, your expected response of "fruit flies remain fruit flies" is as empty as responding to the established evolution of a chimp like ancestor to us by saying "apes remain apes", or from our shrew like ancestor to us by saying "mammals remain mammals".
​

Those squiggly lines we call letters were programmed long before I typed this text.

So you are saying that once DNA exists, the subsequent evolution from bacteria to humans is OK, and is not evolution? So you agree with microbes to man evolution?

A human is not built through random mutation.

Of course not. Surely you are aware of natural selection, and that because of that evolution is not a random process, right?

Papias

​

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:You ignored my questions. Do you know that Macroevolution has been observed? You do understand the classification levels, right?

Human classification is for a sense of order. This has little to no bearing on cosmic balance of things

*Sigh* another ducked question. Could you please directly answer what the barrier (to adding up to larger evolutionary changes) could possible be?

A barrier presumes that there is the approach. That a road block is obscuring a car willing to pass. The car remains in the courtyard. No barrier necessary.

That paper states another mechanism of evolution. Do you even understand what that paper says? You could ask for help from some of the real biological scientists we have here....

The conventional view is that genetic change comes from stochastic, accidental sources: radiation, chemical, or oxidative damage, chemical instabilities in the DNA, or from inevitable errors in the replication process. However, the fact is that DNA proofreading and repair systems are remarkably effective at removing these non-biological sources of mutation. For example, consider that the E. coli cell replicates its 4.6 megabase genome every 40 minutes. That is a replication frequency of almost 2 kHz. Yet, due to the action of error-recognition and correction systems in the replication machine and in the cell to catch mistakes in already-replicated DNA, the error rate is reduced below one mistake in every 1010 base-pairs duplicated, and a similar low value is observed in mammalian cells (32). That is less than one base change in every 2000 cells, certainly well below the mutation frequencies I have measured in E. coli of about four mutations per every 100 to 1000 cells. In addition to proofreading systems, cells have a wide variety of repair systems to prevent or correct DNA damage from agents that include superoxides, alkylating chemicals and irradiation (33). Some of these repair systems encode mutator DNA polymerases which are clearly the source of DNA damage-induced mutations and also appear to be the source of so-called "spontaneous" mutations that appear in the absence of an obvious source of DNA damage (34). Results illustrating the effectiveness of cellular systems for genome repair and the essential role of enzymes in mutagenesis emphasize the importance of McClintock�s revolutionary discovery of internal systems generating genome, particularly when an organism has been challenged by a stress affecting genome function (Fig. 4; 5).
McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395)."
The paper is saying that adaptation is not random and that it is a programmed feature, much like you would expect to find on designed structures.

I never mentioned motorcycles. Do you understand what a twin nested hierarchy is, and what we mean by whether or not one can be constructed? You know, that last response made it look to me like you were not actually trying to understand the point, but rather were just looking for some keywords that happened to be in a creationist canard that you could then mention. You'll learn more in life if you understand before responding.

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars. Cars are designed. Tests show that motorcycles remain motor cycles, the same for bacteria, reproduction notwithstanding

News flash: Evolution results from natural selection combined with mutation. Speeding up the mutation rate helps, but cannot by itself substitute for the occurances from the cambrian to now.

Selection is simulated.

Worse, that fruit flies article seriously hurts your credibility.I hope you do not take articles like it seriously. For one thing, it references creationist books by people with no biological or scientific credentials as if they were relevant, and uses old papers (note the dates). Even worse than that is that is uses the old creationist tactic of ignoring evidence, then claiming that this evience doesn't exist. It turns out that speciation is seen in fruit flies, and that this was seen well before your article was written. One example of ignored work was

Speciation occured in a strain of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963 in Theodosius Dobzhansky's lab. He wrote this up in:

Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Species of Drosophila: New Excitement in an Old Field. Science 177:664-669 ​

You are comparing different experiments under the assumption that man has conducted only one experiment on fruit flies.

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70."

With over 3,000 species of fruit flies cataloged now, your expected response of "fruit flies remain fruit flies" is as empty as responding to the established evolution of a chimp like ancestor to us by saying "apes remain apes", or from our shrew like ancestor to us by saying "mammals remain mammals".

No its not. There is only the Darwinist perspective and the use of the classification system to facilitate a belief. If you can label a lion a mammal and a human a mammal, you have proven that humans can come from lions? There is the 747 and then the is Airforce one. Air Force One is specially designed for presidential service and though it has all the features of a 747, there are distinct features which make it unique. Marine One is a Sea King which again utilizes special features which make it distinct from mainline models. The presidents car in the motor cade is not just any Cadillac. From the perspective of a darwinist, the cadillac belongs to "cadillacia", the 747 to "747ia" the sea king to "sea kingia". When the actual classification is "president vehicles" their similarities to other vehicles notwithstanding. Only the purpose is taken into consideration. It is this very scheme which enables the Darwinist to say that whales descended from hippos as mammals are to come after fish and reptiles. Lets not forget about the fact that a hippo which gets its food from the sea gradually becomes a fish, while fish supposedly walking unto land, with all the food in the water gradually becomes a man even though it feeds from the sea. Regardless, the mind that is fish will never be the man. The mind that is lion cannot and will not be the fish. This is no different than saying that a rock can mutate into a man. But you already have chemical evolution for that. Purely chemical or chemical continuing within biological, this is only atheism
​

So you are saying that once DNA exists, the subsequent evolution from bacteria to humans is OK, and is not evolution? So you agree with microbes to man evolution?

Not what is being said.

Of course not. Surely you are aware of natural selection, and that because of that evolution is not a random process, right?Papias

Natural selection is taken into consideration, as with the random assembly of anything in existence.

 

[Papias]

Again you haven't answered my questions, instead posting vague and unsupported statements.

Greg wrote:

A barrier presumes that there is the approach.

You alread said there is an approach (adaptation). A You agree that some change over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars.

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. B

The paper is saying that adaptation is not random and that it is a programmed feature, much like you would expect to find on designed structures.

I read the paper and the section you posted again. It is simply showing how larger mutations, as opposed to the smaller point mutations often thought of, are relevant too. This was a conversation at a conference, and more than that, is nearly a decade old. Science works by investigation of ideas, and this has had a lot of time for more work and understanding. Do you have more recent work based on that start showing the larger (and already known) mutations? Have you asked actual biologists and biology professors to help you understand that paper?

Selection is simulated.

One cannot accuately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated? C

No its not.

Sure it is. Creationists just run up the classification until they find a common name that encompasses both creatures (like "bacteria"), and then say that the admitted change has some barrier to prevent that change from adding to more change.

Not what is being said.

Sure sounds like it. D

Natural selection is taken into consideration, as with the random assembly of anything in existence.

You are aware that natural selection is not random, right? E

Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed. F

Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist? G

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars. Cars are designed. Tests show that motorcycles remain motor cycles, the same for bacteria, reproduction notwithstanding

In fact, you could probably draw up several depending on how you ranked your categories.

But would you get the same unique nested hierarchy when you used various different sets of characters?

Niles Eldredge, the paleontologist, once tried to classify cornets in the sort of nested hierarchy he was familiar with from paleontology. He found it couldn't be done because of the extensive borrowing of features as manufacturers copied best ideas from each other. No clear lineage showed up.

What makes the standard biological nested hierarchy so impressive is that different lines of evidence (anatomy, geography, embryology, paleontology, genetic) converge onto the same nested hierarchy.

 

[SkyWriting]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible.... has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.
Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.
How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

Why worry? Its just a model.
Perhaps your "education" has no practical value.

If it is your responsibility to send this person into space, then you need to test to see if they can compute gravitational models correctly and safely. If this person is able, then you can conclude that the model they are using is sufficient.

If you are sending this person into the desert with your children on a camping trip, you better hope they fully grasp an earth centric model where the sun rises above the horizon in the east, then falls below the horizon in the west.

It's not as if you and your friends actually think about the earth spinning 1700 MPH toward the morning sun every day. Or that the seasons are changing because the earth is traveling 67,000 MPH around the sun.
If you do then I retract my comments.

 

[Papias]

skywriting wrote:

It's not as if you and your friends actually think about the earth spinning 1700 MPH toward the morning sun every day. Or that the seasons are changing because the earth is traveling 67,000 MPH around the sun.

Actually, I do often (not every day) think that and similar things. For instance, I often play a game with my kids, saying that a some light just left the sun, then after around 2 minutes, saying that it passed the orbit of Mercury, then after 8 minutes yelling "look out, here it comes - there look! it just smashed into the driveway!". For the earth's rotation, I use the easier to understand 1/4 mile a second speed.

Papias

P.S You don't have to retract your argument if you don't like, but especially with my kids, I try to be as truthful as is practical at the time (for instance, I don't describe quantum fluctuations if they ask if everything melts/freezes - see helium). But I certainly describe for them the real world we live in, and avoid common misperceptions like a flat earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Skywriting wrote:
It's not as if you and your friends actually think about the earth spinning 1700 MPH toward the morning sun every day. Or that the seasons are changing because the earth is traveling 67,000 MPH around the sun.

Actually, I do often (not every day) think that and similar things. For instance, I often play a game with my kids, saying that a some light just left the sun, then after around 2 minutes, saying that it passed the orbit of Mercury, then after 8 minutes yelling "look out, here it comes - there look! it just smashed into the driveway!". For the earth's rotation, I use the easier to understand 1/4 mile a second speed.
Papias

P.S You don't have to retract your argument if you don't like, but especially with my kids, I try to be as truthful as is practical at the time (for instance, I don't describe quantum fluctuations if they ask if everything melts/freezes - see helium). But I certainly describe for them the real world we live in, and avoid common misperceptions like a flat earth.

The earth being flat is not a misperception. It's a generalization. Few people outside of us flatlanders from Illinois think that the world is flat. It's pretty darn hilly. Most of the biblical writers know all about hills. Still, instead of the world being a series of hills, they generalize the world as being flat.

The general population has used this generalization even though more details have been available to some for a long time. You are free to improve the accuracy of what your kids memorize as much as you wish. But flat is a useful model that 100% of the population uses 100% of the time. There are few instances where the curvature of the earth can be seen with the naked eye, and fewer still professions that must take the curvature into account. All the road maps I use are completely flat, gps devices have flat screens and show no curvature, nor do Tom Tom's. Even airline pilots plan work with a series of completely flat maps. "Flat" is very common.

 

[SkyWriting]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/ ....has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric. Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary. How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

I found the discussion to include very little outside information, links, or citations. 99% was just arguing from opinion.
With that definition of a "valuable education" no wonder you are frustrated.

 

[Greg1234]

Again you haven't answered my questions, instead posting vague and unsupported statements.

Already given

Greg wrote:


You already said there is an approach (adaptation). A You agree that some change over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given. A dump truck adapts by raising the bed up and down. Where is the barrier stopping it from turning into an airplane. There is no barrier, because the truck is not sitting in idle waiting for the obstruction to be lifted to turn into an airplane. It does not even have the faculties to turn into an airplane. The hydraulic stem is not a barrier. Even though you remove it and let the bed rise indefinitely, it will not turn into an airplane. Neither is the ground a barrier. You suspend the truck in the air, it will not turn into an airplane. Adaptation is a critical part of any design, and this is actually evidence of creation rather than chance assembly. What has been done is to turn this into a phenomenon. Creationists said that the human was designed, but the human is able to adapt. Adaptation is not found in designed structures therefore bacteria can turn into men. A car is designed. But the car trunk can be raised. This should not be happening if a car was created, make it look like a discovery which contradicts the design of a car, labeling it a "new" discovery, then use the "new" factor to furnish an extrapolation that the rising car trunk is the origin of the rising truck bed. I have shown you tests which have shown otherwise.

Fruit flies have been tested for 40+ years which show that a fruit fly remains a fruit fly. Tests also reveal decrease in fitness.

'"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134."

Lenski's experiment on e coli reveal the same thing. There are not "accumulations" building on top of each other as predicted in Darwinism, but there are instead trade offs, and a decrease in fitness. Already, strains have lost the ability to utilize ribose. The ability to utilize glucose leads to the inability to digest other carbohydrates. Some have sacrificed the some ability to repair DNA. Within these experiments, what we have also observed is that a beneficial adaptation is very environmentally specific, not a rash continual process.

"Mutation rates are generally thought not to be influenced by selective forces. This doctrine rests on the results of certain classical studies of the mutations that make bacteria resistant to phages and antibiotics. We have studied a strain of Escherichia coli which constitutively expresses a lacI-lacZ fusion containing a frameshift mutation that renders it Lac(-). Reversion to Lac(+) is a rare event during exponential growth but occurs in stationary cultures when lactose is the only source of energy. No revertants accumulate in the absence of lactose, or in the presence of lactose if there is another, unfulfilled requirement for growth. The mechanism for such mutation in stationary phase is not known, but it requires some function of RecA which is apparently not required for mutation during exponential growth."


There are other cases where selective breeding doesnt show a continuation which then leads to the speculation into the distant future, but a halt when a limit is reached. As in the case of the beet plant experiment.

'"In any case the change brought about by selection tends to reach a limit, as was shown by sugar beets in France. These have been developed from ordinary table beets starting with roots having 6 percent of sugar. By planting seed from the best (i. e., richest in sugar) each year, after about 100 years, 17 percent of sugar was attained. This, of course, was a good result; but the same process of selection, continued for 40 years more, and gave no higher percentage of sugar [D.F. Jones, Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement (1924), p. 414]. This is the situation found time and again in nature with genes, which do not increase in effectiveness . . Charles Darwin, with no observation of such behavior but his neighbor's rule of thumb selection, guessed wrongly that genes change slightly in each reproduction, in every possible direction, and without limit."—William J. Tinkle, "Genetics Favors Creation," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, p. 156."

Another case of selective breeding is horses. Where there is a limit reached on how fast a horse can be bred to run. "Clearly there are limits to how much an existing characteristic can change. Horses already know how to run. Running is an existing characteristic. There is a limit to how much faster they can run. We believe this because there is evidence from the Kentucky Derby that they have reached the limit."

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. B

And how much time would that take. You take mammals, mammals have backbones, humans are mammals with backbones therefore humans must share an ancestor with mammals with backbones (tests show otherwise). I can do the same thing with a red vehicles, and vehicles with four wheels. Automatic and manual transmission. Animals with echolocation (both aerial and aquatic), warm blooded animals with back bones, (land based aerial and aquatic),

I read the paper and the section you posted again. It is simply showing how larger mutations, as opposed to the smaller point mutations often thought of, are relevant too.

No it is showing that adaptation is a coded feature within DNA, and does not require the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation for an organism to make minor adaptations to its environment. Acting on what are called "genome shocks", this is an intelligent process.

One cannot accuately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated? C

Natural Selection acts on random mutation. Different organisms exhibit different mutation rates. By speeding up the mutation rate in a fruit fly,increasing he chances of large morphological changes, millions of years of mammalian mutation is simulated, large mammals having a lower mutational rate than the tested organism. The increase in mutation rate is not the issue. Thats like saying because bacteria has a higher mutation rate than mammals, natural selection cannot act on bacteria.

 

[Assyrian]

skywriting wrote:


Actually, I do often (not every day) think that and similar things. For instance, I often play a game with my kids, saying that a some light just left the sun

How do you know?

then after around 2 minutes, saying that it passed the orbit of Mercury, then after 8 minutes yelling "look out, here it comes - there look! it just smashed into the driveway!". For the earth's rotation, I use the easier to understand 1/4 mile a second speed.

Papias

P.S You don't have to retract your argument if you don't like, but especially with my kids, I try to be as truthful as is practical at the time (for instance, I don't describe quantum fluctuations if they ask if everything melts/freezes - see helium). But I certainly describe for them the real world we live in, and avoid common misperceptions like a flat earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, I do often (not every day) think that and similar things. For instance, I often play a game with my kids, saying that a some light just left the sun

How do you know?

Some eggheads write it, others believe it without looking any farther.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

The earth being flat is not a misperception. It's a generalization. Few people outside of us flatlanders from Illinois think that the world is flat. It's pretty darn hilly. Most of the biblical writers know all about hills. Still, instead of the world being a series of hills, they generalize the world as being flat.

So all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization? Is that really what you are proposing?

Assyrian wrote:

How do you know?

Well, I haven't measured c to determine that it is, say, twice or half as much. However, I have done the calculations that support the distances of the planets as shown by the their orbital periods, and have directly observed these orbital periods (as can you if you watch them over the course of a year or several years in the case of the gas giants), and so that confirms those things, and the delay in our space program transmissions confirm this speed of light by showing the delay expected for these distances. Anyone (such as Skywriting, who wrote: Some eggheads write it, others believe it without looking any farther.) who is going to claim that this is not sufficient confirmation will need to explain why they accept other things by men without much confirmation either, such as the things listed on posts 7 and 8 here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492936/


The questions with Greg, which I gave letters for so we can better follow the discussion of each one:


A. You agree that some change occurs over time. What stops that change over time from adding up?

Greg has only given the vauge and unsupported statement that: Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given.

B:
Greg wrote:

Im telling you that I could draw up a nested hierarchy of cars.

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. (still waiting for his nested hierarchy, after he again said he could do it.)

​

Selection is simulated.

C. One cannot accuately simulate selection over millions of generations in a tiny fraction of that number. How are you saying selection over a huge number of generations was accurately simulated?

Natural Selection acts on random mutation. Different organisms exhibit different mutation rates. By speeding up the mutation rate in a fruit fly,increasing he chances of large morphological changes, millions of years of mammalian mutation is simulated, large mammals having a lower mutational rate than the tested organism.

I didn't ask how more mutations were made - that's obvious. I asked how natural selectionover a huge number of generations was accurately simulated. Please answer the question about natural selection, thanks.

​

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

Not what is being said.

There you ignored:
​

E. You are aware that natural selection is not random, right?

F Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed.

G. Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist?

H. I read the paper and the section you posted again. It is simply showing how larger mutations, as opposed to the smaller point mutations often thought of, are relevant too. This was a conversation at a conference, and more than that, is nearly a decade old. Science works by investigation of ideas, and this has had a lot of time for more work and understanding. Do you have more recent work based on that start showing the larger (and already known) mutations? Have you asked actual biologists and biology professors to help you understand that paper?
(waiting on answers to the last to subquestions after Greg again stated that his mutations listed in the paper somehow aren't mutations are somehow aren't subject to natural selection like any other mutuation).


I. Gregg, do you agree that speciation has been observed in fruit flies? This is part of the discussion of how creationists just run up the classification until they find a common name that encompasses both creatures (like "bacteria"), and then say that the admitted change has some barrier to prevent that change from adding to more change.

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

So all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization? Is that really what you are proposing?

You know the Earth is an ovid don't you?
It seems generalizations are running ramped in society.
Same mistake on your part.

 

[Greg1234]

The questions with Greg, which I gave letters for so we can better follow the discussion of each one:

You may write the entire alphabet. Its your prerogative which even then does not necessitate repetition.

Greg has only given the vauge and unsupported statement that: Nope, it remains in the courtyard. This was already given.

Alot more than that was given.

B:
Greg wrote:

OK, go for it. Be sure to include most of the features of cars. (still waiting for his nested hierarchy, after he again said he could do it.)

Examples were given. Not going to write out the entire thing.
​

I didn't ask how more mutations were made - that's obvious. I asked how natural selectionover a huge number of generations was accurately simulated. Please answer the question about natural selection, thanks.

Natural selection acts on mutation. Natural selection is replaced with artificial selection, where the results of mutation is monitored without the need for natural selection to preserve it in the wild, when predation, finding food, environmental conditions are not a factor.

'"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105."

D. You responded to my pointing out that saying that alterations to a text of language is pre-programmed because the language is already established is the same as allowing evolution after DNA is established. How is that not the case? You have only responded with:

Lol. No its not. DNA being a program, has nothing to do with bacteria being able to become men. For what we observe in DNA see previous posts.

E. You are aware that natural selection is not random, right?

F Still waiting on whether or not you know that macroevolution has been observed.

G. Btw, are you aware that the classification system predates Darwin, and was put together by a creationist?

All this was already given. Natural selection is taken into account in the random assembly of anything, chance cannot build a man. A minor alteration to reproductive faculties is as much of a macro evolution as the shuffling of enzymatic potency by the adaptive feature. A creationist is in fact a human.

(waiting on answers to the last to subquestions after Greg again stated that his mutations listed in the paper somehow aren't mutations are somehow aren't subject to natural selection like any other mutuation).

The paper provides evidence that random mutation, the Darwinian mechanism, is negated

I. Gregg, do you agree that speciation has been observed in fruit flies? This is part of the discussion of how creationists just run up the classification until they find a common name that encompasses both creatures (like "bacteria"), and then say that the admitted change has some barrier to prevent that change from adding to more change.

Papias

Only adaptation. Reproductive faculties, like enzymes, are not immune to minor changes. What we witness are trade offs, sacrifices and a decrease in overall fitness which eventually leads to a sterile or dead line. Not an accumulation, not an increase in overall fitness, not indefinite range.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, I haven't measured c to determine that it is, say, twice or half as much. However, I have done the calculations that support the distances of the planets as shown by the their orbital periods, and have directly observed these orbital periods (as can you if you watch them over the course of a year or several years in the case of the gas giants), and so that confirms those things, and the delay in our space program transmissions confirm this speed of light by showing the delay expected for these distances. Anyone (such as Skywriting, who wrote: Some eggheads write it, others believe it without looking any farther.) who is going to claim that this is not sufficient confirmation will need to explain why they accept other things by men without much confirmation either, such as the things listed on posts 7 and 8 here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7492936/

My question wasn't about your speed of light calculations, but the fact that you say light has just left the sun. We can hope that it does, we can even expect that it does, but you don't actually know the light has left the sun until 8 minutes later when it smashes into your drive

 

[shernren]

You know the Earth is an ovid don't you?
It seems generalizations are running ramped in society.
Same mistake on your part.

Indeed, for the Earth metamorphoses often; it waxes and wanes, according to the cycles of nature and the powers of the moon and sun -

oh! you mean an ovoid!

=========

You are mistaking the high likelihood of the evidence, given your argument, for a high probability.

Here's the difference. Assume that you have an attic; assume that you hear some rumbling in it. Someone tells you: "There are little gremlins in the attic!" (Unfortunately, in Soviet Russia, there is little ethics in the Kremlin.)

"What makes you think so?" you ask.

"Well, because if there were little gremlins in the attic, then it would be quite likely that you would hear rumbling noises from it."

"True enough," you respond. "But it isn't very probable that there even are little gremlins in the attic in the first place. As such, even though they would indeed make a plausible explanation for the rumbling if they were there, it's really not very probable that they are there."

You have just exercised Bayesian reasoning. For details, check Wikipedia. But it's ubiquitous in everyday life.

After all, many rich people are frugal;
but it doesn't then follow that all frugal people are rich.

Again, many pop songs sound awful;
but it doesn't then follow that all songs that sound awful are pop songs.
​

So it is with your interpretation of the Biblical evidence. It's true that

many people who know today that the earth is round, use flat earth language nonetheless;
but it doesn't then follow that all or even most people who use flat earth language do in fact know that the earth is round!
​

Imagine if students could use that excuse in exams. "It is entirely possible that I know everything on the exam, yet chose to leave my paper blank; the fact that I left my paper blank should therefore not be used to infer that I do not in fact know everything on the exam!" There is a much more plausible reason for a student handing in a blank paper (namely that s/he doesn't know the things on the exam); and there is a much more plausible reason for the ancient Hebrews to have used flat earth language (namely that they actually thought the earth was that way).

 

[shernren]

My question wasn't about your speed of light calculations, but the fact that you say light has just left the sun. We can hope that it does, we can even expect that it does, but you don't actually know the light has left the sun until 8 minutes later when it smashes into your drive

Though if the output of the Sun has really ceased between Papias' joyful proclamation and the illumination of his garage,

I suspect his children (and the rest of us) will have bigger things to worry about than the total destruction of his credibility in all matters accessible to an eleven-years-old's imagination.

 

[sfs]

Though if the output of the Sun has really ceased between Papias' joyful proclamation and the illumination of his garage,

I suspect his children (and the rest of us) will have bigger things to worry about than the total destruction of his credibility in all matters accessible to an eleven-years-old's imagination.

I see a pail of air in your future.

 

[Assyrian]

I see a pail of air in your future.

And a dog-eared SciFi book deep in my past...

 

[Assyrian]

Stop it... I've got this nostalgic grin wrapped around my face now.