Macro-evolution with color!

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,681
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Honestly, if this can't illustrate macro-evolution for anyone here, then there's really no hope for them to understand...
For the record, I do understand it; it's actually no different than Greg's ceiling fan analogy.

But also for the record, I believe there's a point in this "fading to another color" in which the process meets a barrier that it cannot get around, and must come to a halt.

I see your OP as a dog still being a dog, from the first sentence to the last sentence, it's still a dog (or bear, or whatever).

Am I wrong in that assumption? were you demonstrating cyanobacteria-to-man?
 
Upvote 0
P

PhoceanCity

Guest
But also for the record, I believe there's a point in this "fading to another color" in which the process meets a barrier that it cannot get around, and must come to a halt.
Believe Shmelieve...
In fact that limit is in your own mind, when genetics scream otherwise.
Can you provide us with proof of your assertion?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,681
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can you provide us with proof of your assertion?
No, and neither can you provide proof of yours.

If you can, show me the daisy-chain between ... oh ... let's go with eohippus and a raccoon.

Please note that I specified 'daisy-chain'.

If you leave any missing links -- just one -- and I've got a right to insert a barrier in it.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,661
17,590
55
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟390,187.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, and neither can you provide proof of yours.

If you can, show me the daisy-chain between ... oh ... let's go with eohippus and a raccoon.

Please note that I specified 'daisy-chain'.

If you leave any missing links -- just one -- and I've got a right to insert a barrier in it.

So if you can't show a lineage between Adam & Eve & You, can we say you didn't come from Adam & Eve, (Remember you can't skip one single person)
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Could you put that in a textonomic tree for me please?

After all, while claiming the lines are so vague as to be indistinguishable, you guys seem to have a lot of branches and tees at specific places.
The only reason that taxonomy is not a nightmare (rather than just a headache) is because most species are extinct. This is why we can create trees with nice clear branches (most of the time). The OP is showing an example with all the intermediaries present. Just like you creationists want to see, btw.

.

If you leave any missing links -- just one -- and I've got a right to insert a barrier in it.
Why do you think you have "the right" to insert a barrier?
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
For the record, I do understand it; it's actually no different than Greg's ceiling fan analogy.
Are you still upset about the witch thing? Given your criticisms of common ancestry it seems you know enough to appreciate that Greg's analogy is nonsense, even if you don't agree that common ancestry happened as described.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,681
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So if you can't show a lineage between Adam & Eve & You, can we say you didn't come from Adam & Eve, (Remember you can't skip one single person)
We're still humans though, and inserting a barrier would violate my Boolean standards.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,681
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,968.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's a question, AV: What taxonomic nomenclature would scientists classify Adam and Eve under if they were to find their remains?
I'll take a guess and say, Homo sapiens.

Either that, or y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve.
 
Upvote 0

Itinerant Lurker

Remedying a poverty of knowledge
Sep 19, 2010
209
26
Visit site
✟8,302.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Texts don't reproduce with variation.

I see you get analogical mappings when one of yours presents it, but play possum when it is not in your favor.

I guess it's a good thing he wasn't trying to discuss the mechanism of evolution, as you were trying to do, and was instead giving an example of how small changes can form a continuous "blend" into distinct forms then.




Lurker
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targ

Regular Member
Sep 4, 2010
653
19
NSW, Australia
✟8,418.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Texts don't reproduce with variation.

I see you get analogical mappings when one of yours presents it, but play possum when it is not in your favor.

Which is as close as we are going to get to an admission that your analogy is wrong, and that you know it.

Let's go along with this anyway though and see whether your claim is true (I'm doing this more for the benefit of Sara (ooh, bold) and other newbies; everyone else need not read as you've heard it a thousand times before).

  • In the case of the text, each new word represents a new generation, i.e. the offspring of the previous word.

    By contrast, the fan never reproduces in Greg's analogy. It is the same fan after each variation. His analogy is better at describing somebody growing old than it is of evolution.

  • In the case of the text, it has genetic code (the font code) and in each generation the code is slightly different e.g. #d02003 changing to #d02004. This matches evolution as it represents the variation in DNA from one generation to the next.

    In the fan analogy, there is no genetic code described that is subject to modification through reproduction.

  • Variations in the font code lead to the text having different physical attributes (i.e. a different colour).

    By contrast, the change in speed of the fan never results in a change in physical attributes. The fan always remains a fan and never gains new features, or a stronger blade, or more efficient energy source or whatever.

The text analogy is not perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better than anything that Greg has ever come up with.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Which is as close as we are going to get to an admission that your analogy is wrong, and that you know it.

Let's go along with this anyway though and see whether your claim is true (I'm doing this more for the benefit of Sara (ooh, bold) and other newbies; everyone else need not read as you've heard it a thousand times before).

  • In the case of the text, each new word represents a new generation, i.e. the offspring of the previous word.

    By contrast, the fan never reproduces in Greg's analogy. It is the same fan after each variation. His analogy is better at describing somebody growing old than it is of evolution.
  • In the case of the text, it has genetic code (the font code) and in each generation the code is slightly different e.g. #d02003 changing to #d02004. This matches evolution as it represents the variation in DNA from one generation to the next.

    In the fan analogy, there is no genetic code described that is subject to modification through reproduction.
  • Variations in the font code lead to the text having different physical attributes (i.e. a different colour).

    By contrast, the change in speed of the fan never results in a change in physical attributes. The fan always remains a fan and never gains new features, or a stronger blade, or more efficient energy source or whatever.

The text analogy is not perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better than anything that Greg has ever come up with.
I understand that you are able to map the analogical components but texts don't reproduce with variation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Targ

Regular Member
Sep 4, 2010
653
19
NSW, Australia
✟8,418.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I understand that you are able to map the analogical components but texts don't reproduce with variation.

That's because it's an analogy. :doh: The purpose of an analogy is to represent something not to be exactly like something. The text analogy represents evolution on a number of key details. Your analogy does not.

In this analogy, the text reproduces, producing the next word. Of course the text is incapable of actually reproducing, but that isn't the point of an analogy. Though thinking about it, to simulate reproduction you could have a piece of computer code that allows the text to be copied and then pasted with variation on a continuous loop. Yeah, that'd do it.

By contrast, your analogy has no reproduction taking place at all. In your analogy, no reproduction with variation takes place, because all that happens is that you tweek the speed settings that were created when the fan was first made. No new fans (with variation) are produced in your analogy. In fact, no new features are created at all. Changing the speed setting on the fan is more analogous with a person deciding to run faster. It does not represent reproduction with variation in any way and this is why your analogy fails.
 
Upvote 0