For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationists come in many forms.
You seem awfully fixated on pure blind chance,
and "Darwinism".

Chance / random / chaotic is a compenent
of everything. So what, exactly?
Mutations have a random element to them.
So?
Like with a random word printer, a selection process
would soon see order emerging.
Order from chaos is a thing going on all about you.

You are making some distinction between " Darwinian"
and "actual" evolution.
Care to share what that might be?

Well I'm not fixated on random chance, Darwinism is- I don't think it's feasible mathematically.

There are possible alternatives that do not rely on random chance to create all novel biological form.

If mutations themselves can be directed somehow towards an advantageous outcome- and then that mutation is hereditary- you don't necessarily have to start going to church! You could be looking at some form of natural engineering, Lamarckism, we have a whole area of epigenetics- beyond gene sequences- that is poorly understood.

Some secular scientists already propose combinations of pre-loaded genetic information and re-wiring of the gene regulatory systems to explain biological changes not accountable for in genetic sequences. (no matter how lucky the mutations). There are also distinctly non-Darwinian processes proposed to account for the emergence of structures like eukaryotes, e.g. symbiosis of 2 or more organisms becoming one- again to help overcome the emerging problems of random mutation being the source of all novel biological form.

i.e. even in secular circles the question is no longer whether Darwinism falls short in explaining the 'origin of species', but rather how far short it falls.

My own position is that it can really only account for fairly superficial diversification- mainly where destruction of genetic code can lead to advantages in niche environments- e.g. flightless birds, sightless fish, bacteria losing the ability to digest certain compounds in antibacterial agents etc..
the loss of these functions can certainly be explained by Darwinian processes. Just not the gain of them.

And this is all born out in the fossil record which shows more gradual change towards degradation than emergent properties.

 

[Shemjaza]

I agree.

But perfect genes eventually gave way to the Fall, and God eventually placed a restriction on close marriages.

So, yes.

Adam & Eve's children married one another at one time, but by the time of Moses, entropy had done enough damage as to place these kinds of marriages off-limits.

Doesn't Follow.

From a scientific perspective you don't get the diversity of humanity found in the era of ancient Egypt from a single small families worth of genetics.

Even if you assume antediluvian humans don't have any kind of genetic disorders, you need constant miraculous intervention to account for the evidenced population of the ancient world.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well I'm not fixated on random chance, Darwinism is- I don't think it's feasible mathematically.

There are possible alternatives that do not rely on random chance to create all novel biological form.

If mutations themselves can be directed somehow towards an advantageous outcome- and then that mutation is hereditary- you don't necessarily have to start going to church! You could be looking at some form of natural engineering, Lamarckism, we have a whole area of epigenetics- beyond gene sequences- that is poorly understood.

Some secular scientists already propose combinations of pre-loaded genetic information and re-wiring of the gene regulatory systems to explain biological changes not accountable for in genetic sequences. (no matter how lucky the mutations). There are also distinctly non-Darwinian processes proposed to account for the emergence of structures like eukaryotes, e.g. symbiosis of 2 or more organisms becoming one- again to help overcome the emerging problems of random mutation being the source of all novel biological form.

Do you have references for your comments?

Because the existence of complicating factors in genetics and inheritance does not in any way imply that the evidence that the vast majority of form and function is in fact inherited.

Even regulatory functions are traits built from genetic structures that can in turn be affected by mutation and selection.

i.e. even in secular circles the question is no longer whether Darwinism falls short in explaining the 'origin of species', but rather how far short it falls.

A ridiculous comment. Darwin is not now and has never been the prophet of evolution. It has always been the initial scientific publication on the topic.

It's exactly as logical as the Flat Earthers who make comments about Newton or Einstein to try to imply gravity is wrong.

My own position is that it can really only account for fairly superficial diversification- mainly where destruction of genetic code can lead to advantages in niche environments- e.g. flightless birds, sightless fish, bacteria losing the ability to digest certain compounds in antibacterial agents etc..
the loss of these functions can certainly be explained by Darwinian processes. Just not the gain of them.

Why? How do you define destruction in this context how do you detect it?

And this is all born out in the fossil record which shows more gradual change towards degradation than emergent properties.

That is just false.

The fossil record, again and again shows extinctions and diversification into new novel forms.

100 million years ago all mammals were a few weird types of rats and hedge hogs.
500 million years ago there were no mammals, reptiles, birds or amphibians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if you assume antediluvian humans don't have any kind of genetic disorders, you need constant miraculous intervention to account for the evidenced population of the ancient world.

Like this?

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

 

[Shemjaza]

Like this?

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Which is all fine... but it makes all the science themed explanations about pure genetic codes and attempts at population genetics completely pointless.

Miracles, constant miracles on every level is absolutely an explanation that functions to explain any interpretation of the Bible.

The problem is when Intelligent Design proponents make statements about the scientific support for their ideas and then more honest Creationists repeat versions of their arguments.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is when Intelligent Design proponents make statements about the scientific support for their ideas and then more honest Creationists repeat versions of their arguments.

No argument there.

 

[Buzzard3]

So you don't understand it, and just make things up as you go along.

Reminds me of the endless streams of pseudo-scientific stories dreamed up by evolution scientists, which are then fed to the masses.

How did sight evolve, for example? No ones knows, but Darwinists offer various "explanations", invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses ... which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.
Where would the cult of evolution be without its story-tellers and bs-artists?

But, of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to advance the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science. ToE is basically a bed-time story for atheists, masquerading as science.

 

[Buzzard3]

Almost like you are 'on a mission'. or witnessing or something, hoping that you will not encounter someone that actually understands the relevant science.

Reminds me of all those atheists who dilengently study ToE and then aggressively defend and promote it as if their very lives (or sanity) depend on it.

Their devotion to the cause rivals that any religious or political fanatic.

 

[Buzzard3]

Simplistic nonsense.

Which YEC website did you get that from?

I'm not a YEC.

 

[Shemjaza]

Reminds me of the endless streams of pseudo-scientific stories dreamed up by evolution scientists, which are then fed to the masses.

Strong words from someone defending ideas that are without evidence if they can even be defined in the first place.

How did sight evolve, for example? No ones knows, but Darwinists offer various "explanations", invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses ... which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.
Where would the cult of evolution be without its story-tellers and bs-artists?

The individual components of the various different version of sight found in the animal kingdom can absolutely be broken down into functional steps that are consistent with observed mechanisms.

If you see a car crash with skid marks going around a fallen branch, do you assume that the car was thrown by an elephant and jokesters added the branch and rubber marks after the fact?

But, of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to advance the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science. ToE is basically a bed-time story for atheists, masquerading as science.

Trivially false.

Religious people who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties in most of the western world.

 

[Buzzard3]

The individual components of the various different version of sight found in the animal kingdom can absolutely be broken down into functional steps that are consistent with observed mechanisms.

Oh yeah; that's real convincing ... an hypothesis based on the theory/assumption that all extant organisms share a common ancestor. Typical Darwinist sophistry and pseudo-science.
Besides that, anyone can dream up an "evolutionary sequence" and claim that is how it happened, but it's just another Darwinist story.
Darwinists pull the same stunt with fossils - they put together what they claim is an "evolutionary sequence", but there's no way to test the hypothesis that the respective fossils represent biologically-linked descendents.

Furthermore, Darwinists need to not only explain how the "steps" evolved in terms of mutatons and natural selection, they also need to test those hypotheses. Otherwise they're jusy blowing smoke and telling pseudo-scientific stories.

Trivially false.
Religious people who accept evolution outnumber atheists of all varieties in most of the western world.

"Evoltion is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented" - William Provine

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - Richard Dawkins

 

[Buzzard3]

"Darwinism" has nothing to do with determining the age of the universe. You could throw out the ToE tomorrow, and astrophysics would still be dating the universe to billions of years.

I'm not questioning or doubting the scientific estimates of the age of the universe or the earth.

 

[SLP]

blind luck, random mutation, random chance, call it what you will- these are all semantic debates, the substance is the same:

Blind luck is the operating principle, the defining characteristic of the Darwinian theory of evolution, not necessarily actual evolution

Look at the creationist relying on misrepresentation, as they do.

Waiting for you to drag out Piltdown man or that out of context/date Raup quote, as is your calling card.

 

[SLP]

I admit I was guilty of that when I was a staunch believer in Darwinism-

I remember arguing that re. the Cambrian explosion, 200 million years was still a long time-
Wikipedia has it down to '13-25' million years now. It keeps getting more explosive.

That sounds fabricated. But then, creationists tend to go with what they know.

 

[SLP]

Creationists come in many forms.
You seem awfully fixated on pure blind chance,
and "Darwinism".

Chance / random / chaotic is a compenent
of everything. So what, exactly?
Mutations have a random element to them.
So?
Like with a random word printer, a selection process
would soon see order emerging.
Order from chaos is a thing going on all about you.

You are making some distinction between " Darwinian"
and "actual" evolution.
Care to share what that might be?

Ducks quacking and all that.

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin once also claimed not be a creationist. Then I came across an essay of his explicitly promoting creationism.
ICR geologist Steve Austin claims that he was an 'old age evolutionist' until he studied at Mt. St Helens after the 1980 eruption and magically became a creationist. Then a fellow creationist exposed him as having written YEC essays under a pseudonym for at least 4 years prior to the eruption.

 

[SLP]

Do you have references for your comments?

Because the existence of complicating factors in genetics and inheritance does not in any way imply that the evidence that the vast majority of form and function is in fact inherited.

Even regulatory functions are traits built from genetic structures that can in turn be affected by mutation and selection.



A ridiculous comment. Darwin is not now and has never been the prophet of evolution. It has always been the initial scientific publication on the topic.

It's exactly as logical as the Flat Earthers who make comments about Newton or Einstein to try to imply gravity is wrong.



Why? How do you define destruction in this context how do you detect it?


That is just false.

The fossil record, again and again shows extinctions and diversification into new novel forms.

100 million years ago all mammals were a few weird types of rats and hedge hogs.
500 million years ago there were no mammals, reptiles, birds or amphibians.

This one has a track record of merely making assertions and relying on a couple of long-ago debunked creationist tropes.

 

[Astrid]

Ducks quacking and all that.

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin once also claimed not be a creationist. Then I came across an essay of his explicitly promoting creationism.
ICR geologist Steve Austin claims that he was an 'old age evolutionist' until he studied at Mt. St Helens after the 1980 eruption and magically became a creationist. Then a fellow creationist exposed him as having written YEC essays under a pseudonym for at least 4 years prior to the eruption.

Its impossible to be an educated yec, and honest

 

[SLP]

Reminds me of the endless streams of pseudo-scientific stories dreamed up by evolution scientists, which are then fed to the masses.

How did sight evolve, for example? No ones knows, but Darwinists offer various "explanations", invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses ... which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.
Where would the cult of evolution be without its story-tellers and bs-artists?

But, of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to advance the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science. ToE is basically a bed-time story for atheists, masquerading as science.

Like I said - you don't understand it, and just make things up as you go along.
And add some laughable creationist tropes for good measure.

 

[SLP]

Reminds me of all those atheists who dilengently study ToE and then aggressively defend and promote it as if their very lives (or sanity) depend on it.

Their devotion to the cause rivals that any religious or political fanatic.

Almost like you are 'on a mission'. or witnessing or something, hoping that you will not encounter someone that actually understands the relevant science.

 

[SLP]

I'm not a YEC.

And yet you write like one, act like one, use the same "arguments' that they do...
Amazing how that works.