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

[Yttrium]

Ah yes, but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.

"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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"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.

A very appropriate quote from tonight's episode of Futurama:

"How convenient... A theory about god that doesn't require looking through a telescope." Head monk to junior monk who wants to quit search for god with radio telescope.

 

[AV1611VET]

A very appropriate quote from tonight's episode of Futurama:

"How convenient... A theory about god that doesn't require looking through a telescope." Head monk to junior monk who wants to quit search for god with radio telescope.

Why didn't he just say: "Science can take a hike"?

 

[SLP]

Didn't he marry his first cousin?

Didn't Adam and Eve's sons marry their sisters?

 

[SLP]

Those genetic barriers are a jolly nuisance, aren't they?

What genetic barriers are these?

 

[SLP]

Macroevolution is not an "observed" anything - it has never been observed and is nothing more than an assumption.

Furthermore, thousands of years of humans experimenting with microevolution - in the form of animal and plant breeding - strongly suggest that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

Shall I conclude that you did not read the entire OP, or that you could not understand it?

 

[SLP]

Well said. It's more wishful thinking than science.

Consider dog breeders, for example, who have over thousands of years tried every trick imaginable in their attempts to produce novel breeds, but they've discovered that exploiting genetic variations has limits ... push the envelope too far and the result is sickly, weak, unfit dogs - that is devolution, the opposite of evolution!
In the light of such genetic limitations, macroevolution (by natural means) appears to be nothing more than a unscientific fantasy.

Simplistic nonsense.

Which YEC website did you get that from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't Adam and Eve's sons marry their sisters?

Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.

As I understand it, the gene pool was much purer (whatever that means).

 

[Shemjaza]

What prevents a random character generator from writing a story?

It's the same problem with Darwinism, you can only put so much down to blind luck.

Mutation creates variation from the existing stock and the selection of statistical advantage. All processes that have been trivially demonstrated.

A random character generator that fed through some system that checked if it made more sense would be able to build on the initial random chaos to generate a narrative.

Ah yes ... but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.

Billions of years is a conclusion from evidence from many independent fields of study.

It's also an exaggeration when you are talking about most of the evolution people care about. Life was pretty simple and squidgy before around 500 million years ago.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.

As I understand it, the gene pool was much purer (whatever that means).

Pure gene pool is neither a term or a concept described in the Bible.

I assume you are applying the rule:
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

But given that the mechanisms of reproduction and inbreeding are well understood by science, this is more a situation defined by:
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x


(A simple answer is that human diversity and lack of inbreeding issues were induced by miracles).

 

[SLP]

Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.

Evidence please.

As I understand it, the gene pool was much purer (whatever that means).

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

 

[Astrid]

What genetic barriers are these?

Maybe its a Discovery! I smell a Nobel!

 

[SLP]

What prevents a random character generator from writing a story?

You just cannot accept that your analogy-argument is not an actual, relevant argument, can you?

You have admitted that you are not a biologist, and nearly every one of your posts SCREAMS that - yet you persist with your strawmen and your empty assertions and out of context quotes and such.
Almost like you are 'on a mission'. or witnessing or something, hoping that you will not encounter someone that actually understands the relevant science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your random word generator could probably
write most anythjng, and pretty fast if it had
some feedback mechanism.

Well yes, if, like Dawkins 'Weasel program' you specify the outcome first.

" Darwinism" is a word only used by creationists btw,

well I'm not a creationist so apparently not!

And likewise, the idea that "blind" luck ( as opposed to-?)
is the operating principle of evolution is just a
creationist thing. Or " creotrope" for short.

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

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah yes ... but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well yes, if, like Dawkins 'Weasel program' you specify the outcome first.



well I'm not a creationist so apparently not!



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

Repeatedly ignoring selection doesn't make it go away as a direct explanation as to how randomness becomes order.

The weasel program is to demonstrate the mechanism, not as a direct analogy.

Genetic algorithms without specified end goals are used all the time in software and engineering.

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.

Do you have any kind of point?

Claiming you believed in "Darwinism" for faulty or foolish reasons just shows you have a history of believeing things for bad reasons... not that other don't have good reasons for whatever they do or don't believe.

Do you believe the Cambrian explosion actually happened when the evidence indicates it did?

If not, why does it matter? If so, why don't you accept the rest of the explanations for the diversity of life compatible with evidence and scientific theory?

 

[AV1611VET]

Pure gene pool is neither a term or a concept described in the Bible.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I think it's quite obvious you don't understand either.

In the college arena, nothing is pure anymore, is it?

That's why signs had to be erected:

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe its a Discovery! I smell a Nobel!

Ya -- that's what drives science today, isn't it?

Fame, fortune, and that KnowBel prize.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

[Astrid]

Well yes, if, like Dawkins 'Weasel program' you specify the outcome first.



well I'm not a creationist so apparently not!



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

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?