Evolution's Brick Wall

[Ken Rank]

As an analogy, tell me - did your parents die when you were born?

That isn't how it works... are you lying or don't YOU know better? The "theory" goes that over MILLIONS of years, each animal evolves (through a process where a species adapts and modifies ultimately creating new forms of the original... the stronger versions surviving over time) whereas you actually tried to use a single generation as an analogy? That's not scholarly "Tas." And I wrote it that way because I don't hide behind screen names, my real name is Ken Rank. Nice to know you, have the last word. CYA.

 

[tas8831]

You'll have to. You sure turned a simple question into a major project.

But shouldn't you have thought about that BEFORE starting a thread on a particular subject?
When I started a thread on how creationists distort the coccyx issue, I did so because as one with graduate education anatomy, I can readily tell when such arguments are wrong and can easily find documentation that supports my position.

 

[inquiring mind]

But shouldn't you have thought about that BEFORE starting a thread on a particular subject?
When I started a thread on how creationists distort the coccyx issue, I did so because as one with graduate education anatomy, I can readily tell when such arguments are wrong and can easily find documentation that supports my position.

I started my thread asking a question... I have no doubt you started your thread giving answers, having a graduate education in anatomy and all.

 

[Halbhh]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

Evolution typically is understood by those believing fully in God to be His own plan and work and outcome, by His design, His will. See? Even whether guided with many interventions (even thousands or millions) or just a few.

Either way. His.

It's comparatively trivial a mere viewpoint of a person compared to the wonder and glory of His creation, but often I think He intervened very significantly to make us modern humans just the way we are, even if our niche had been (or not) partially created over time via whatever level of natural (God's design of nature) evolution.

 

[tas8831]

That isn't how it works... are you lying or don't YOU know better?

Yes, I know better. That is how I knew you had misrepresented evolution.

The "theory" goes that over MILLIONS of years, each animal evolves (through a process where a species adapts and modifies ultimately creating new forms of the original... the stronger versions surviving over time)

LOL! There it is (one of them)!

You are among the multitude that thinks "survival of the fittest", in evolution, means "the strong survive."

it is a pretty common misconception, but again, if I were going to argue against something, I would at least educate myself on the basics.

Right there in the Wiki:

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
​

Nothing about "strongest". That is your invention. Or that is the invention of the creationists who didn't know , either.

whereas you actually tried to use a single generation as an analogy?

I see the concept was too hard for you to handle?

Your implication is no sillier than what I asked, if one understands evolution.

That's not scholarly "Tas." And I wrote it that way because I don't hide behind screen names, my real name is Ken Rank. Nice to know you, have the last word. CYA.

Thanks "Ken." You see, "Ken", I am not like many creationists one encounters on the internet. I have never even considered contacting a creationist's employer, colleagues, co-workers, relatives and harassing them just because the creationist got the better of me. I learned long ago not to give out too much personal information on forums like this for that very reason. I also note that most people on here "hide behind" screen names - are you angry with them, too?
Or just angry that your real name is associated with your poor preparation for discussing these things?

 

[tas8831]

I started my thread asking a question...

Premised on a shallow understanding of the subject.

If you actually wanted to KNOW, something, were actually asking for answers, then you should have just done so. Instead, you made unwarranted assumptions about the issue.

I have no doubt you started your thread giving answers, having a graduate education in anatomy and all.

I didn't say a degree in anatomy, I said education.
But yes, I did give answer - or more correctly, explanations. On the other hand, I have started a thread (as have others) asking merely for evidence for creation. Not assumption laden questions, just pretty open requests for actual evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

Premised on a shallow understanding of the subject.

If you actually wanted to KNOW, something, were actually asking for answers, then you should have just done so. Instead, you made unwarranted assumptions about the issue.

I didn't realize you knew so much about me... please continue while I take notes.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes, I know better. That is how I knew you had misrepresented evolution.


LOL! There it is (one of them)!

You are among the multitude that thinks "survival of the fittest", in evolution, means "the strong survive."

it is a pretty common misconception, but again, if I were going to argue against something, I would at least educate myself on the basics.

Right there in the Wiki:

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
​

Nothing about "strongest". That is your invention. Or that is the invention of the creationists who didn't know , either.


I see the concept was too hard for you to handle?

Your implication is no sillier than what I asked, if one understands evolution.


Thanks "Ken." You see, "Ken", I am not like many creationists one encounters on the internet. I have never even considered contacting a creationist's employer, colleagues, co-workers, relatives and harassing them just because the creationist got the better of me. I learned long ago not to give out too much personal information on forums like this for that very reason. I also note that most people on here "hide behind" screen names - are you angry with them, too?
Or just angry that your real name is associated with your poor preparation for discussing these things?

I am not angry with anyone... you don't know me at all, and certainly not well enough to make that assumption. You did though... try to push the point under the rug. You can't be talking about a process that supposedly takes millions of years and then try to score a point talking about my parents, a time span of 20-25 years. That doesn't make sense and doesn't draw any picture that might answer the point. It was a distraction...

In any event, there is no sense in continuing here. Take care, be well, have a great life.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do tell. Where did Mendel show that mutations don't happen?

Mendel wasn't studying mutations, he was researching hybrids. And who said anything about mutations not happening, hybrids ate the artificial equivalant of naturally occurring adaptations. Genetics wouldn't be studying mutation for another fifty years.

 

[sfs]

Mendel wasn't studying mutations, he was researching hybrids. And who said anything about mutations not happening,

You did, when you said that Mendelian genetics showed that there were limits to how much species could change. Species change by mutation. Since Mendelian genetics didn't even touch the subject of mutation, it says squat about how much species can change.

 

[mark kennedy]

You did, when you said that Mendelian genetics showed that there were limits to how much species could change. Species change by mutation. Since Mendelian genetics didn't even touch the subject of mutation, it says squat about how much species can change.

Its in his only surviving paper and I know youve seen it because it was my signiture for years. Whats more you brought up mutations which might be relavent to fruit flies and bacteria fifty years later bit completely irrelavent to his work debeloping hybrids.

 

[pitabread]

Its in his only surviving paper and I know youve seen it because it was my signiture gor years.

You do realize that Gregor Mendel died in 1884 right? Biology has moved on quite a bit since his time.

 

[mark kennedy]

You do realize that Gregor Mendel died in 1884 right? Biology has moved on quite a bit since his time.

Its moved on largely due to the rediscovery of his work which yeilded at least two laws of heridity that clearly recognized limits to the gene pool producing adaptive change. Mutations are mostly nuetral but when the have an effect its usually deleterious

 

[sfs]

Its in his only surviving paper and I know youve seen it because it was my signiture for years. Whats more you brought up mutations which might be relavent to fruit flies and bacteria fifty years later bit completely irrelavent to his work debeloping hybrids.

Yes, mutations are completely irrelevant to Mendel. They are entirely relevant to differences between species. Mendel is entirely irrelevant to limitations on change in a species because he didn't know anything about the process that changes species.

This argument doesn't even rise to the level of being bad.

 

[sfs]

Its moved on largely due to the rediscovery of his work which yeilded at least two laws of heridity that clearly recognized limits to the gene pool producing adaptive change.

His work said nothing at all about the limits of adaptive change, since his work didn't deal with change at all. This is like saying that Democritus showed that nuclear weapons are impossible because of his work on atoms. The mind boggles at the disconnect with reality.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, mutations are completely irrelevant to Mendel. They are entirely relevant to differences between species. Mendel is entirely irrelevant to limitations on change in a species because he didn't know anything about the process that changes species.

This argument doesn't even rise to the level of being bad.

Well I'm not the one who brought up Mendel, I said Mendelian genetics. But even at that you only have a certain number of traits, and only so many changes that can be made to them and genetic mutation have very little to do with it. That is unless you want to equivocate a modified DNA sequence with a copy error.

 

[mark kennedy]

His work said nothing at all about the limits of adaptive change, since his work didn't deal with change at all. This is like saying that Democritus showed that nuclear weapons are impossible because of his work on atoms. The mind boggles at the disconnect with reality.

It specifically dealt with change, CO Napp recruited him to develop hybrids, they were the Broad institute of their day. Even Darwin discussed the commonality and differences between natural and artificial selection. Evolution is defined as the change of allels in populations over time, and allels are traits. Mendel worked with 7 traits he was trying to manipulate and discovered his famous dominate, recessive 3:1 ratio. Not about change? You got to be kidding.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is defined as the change of allels in populations over time, and allels are traits.

Alleles are variations of genes, not traits.

 

[expos4ever]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself )...

Ah the familiar "go look up the evidence to make my case for me" line.

I suspect the reality is that few, if any, reputable experts see things the way you have characterized.

But, please, prove me wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

That makes zero sense. If science doesn't reveal hard facts then it's science fiction until proven otherwise.

No. Science never claimed to be a method for establishing absolute 100% certainty. This should have been taught in high school.