Macro-evolution with color!

[Merlin]

How exactly is that "something meaningful"? What's the significance of english and chinese in relation to evolution?

Lurker

inbetweens

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

ok,
show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?
what's the matter?
having trouble withthe inbetweens?

So you mean like..

English
EngEish
Engishe
EngisEe
Engiese
EnNiese
Eninese
EHinese
Chinese

is that what you are looking for?
I'm sure you have a point to make so lets hear it.

 

[wensdee]

then do show me

Ask your pastor or your parents they seem to have all of the answers.
They are the people who made you like you are, I'm not allowed to say any more.

 

[Merlin]

So you mean like..

English
EngEish
Engishe
EngisEe
Engiese
EnNiese
Eninese
EHinese
Chinese

is that what you are looking for?
I'm sure you have a point to make so lets hear it.

it's still English words tho
species =yes
kind =no

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

it's still English words tho
species =yes
kind =no

So we've shown race to you satisfaction.
And also species to your satisfaction.
Kinds have no meaningful definition so I will safely disregard that.

I'm glad you understand now then did you have a point to make?

 

[MoonLancer]

May be they can. Not only two, I guess 10000 mutations could happen at the same time from one generation to another. But this does not say anything about my argument. Mutations are like numbers. They do not become letters. We may use letters to represent numbers, that would be the macroevolution. But it won't happen unless WE make it so. That is creation.

All DNA uses ACGT. So unless your claiming that our common ancestor with chimps used something other thann ACGT i don't see how your point has any relevance to the example or real life.

 

[juvenissun]

The logic is messy right from the OP.

 

[MoonLancer]

Your just getting snagged on something inconsequential and irrelevant. The logic is spot on. Creationists cant think past "kinds" as some sort of absolute, so they never truly understand how life changes.

Kind is really just a crude and outdated form of taxonomy that no longer holds up to scrutiny

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

inbetweens

O. . .kay. "Inbetweens" have already been shown in the first analogy using color, what I asked is what the significance is of your desire to see another analogy using two specific languages. How does this relate to evolution in your mind?




Lurker

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Unlike this drawing, all types of harmful mutations do not meet a dead end.

True, but they are typically out-reproduced by populations who do not have the said harmful mutation.

Detrimental mutations far surpass any benefit from a mutation.

Since natural selection promotes beneficial mutations whilst discouraging harmful ones the rare beneficial mutation will become fixed in a population while the more typical detrimental ones will tend to die out. Not only has this has already been explained to you, but it's been observed numerous times.

It is dished to creationists that natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations, and what you are left with is a spick-and-span genome impervious to any degradation.

No, that would be a pretty obvious creationist straw man. Evolution does not produce perfect adaptations, only ones that are "good enough" to survive better than their peers. For example, if you and me are getting chased by a hungry bear I don't have to be the fastest runner in the world to survive. . .I just have to be faster than you.

But natural selection is unable to weed out what it cannot touch. Not all detrimental mutations are severely felt at the phenotypic level and what you have is an accumulation of deleterious effects. This is genomic version of "wear and tear".

Oooooo, please tell me you're going to go with Mendel's accountant or some such garbage next. If detrimental mutations do begin to stack in a genome to some imaginary fatal point then a population dies: Natural Selection - it's kind of pass or fail.

{snip: another irrelevant analogy}




Lurker

 

[MoonLancer]

Humans because of medicine and other innovations actually have a lot to worry about when it comes to harmful mutations.

I have already died twice without modern medicine.

I actually worry quite about for the human population.

 

[pgp_protector]

Humans because of medicine and other innovations actually have a lot to worry about when it comes to harmful mutations.

I have already died twice without modern medicine.

I actually worry quite about for the human population.

without modern medicine wouldn't you of only died once?

 

[MoonLancer]

without modern medicine wouldn't you of only died once?

What i mean to say is that without modern medicine i would have been dead twice now. Two times modern medicine saved my life

 

[juvenissun]

Your just getting snagged on something inconsequential and irrelevant. The logic is spot on. Creationists cant think past "kinds" as some sort of absolute, so they never truly understand how life changes.

Kind is really just a crude and outdated form of taxonomy that no longer holds up to scrutiny

number is a kind.
alphabet is another kind.
codes for color is not nature. It is "created".

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

number is a kind.
alphabet is another kind.
codes for color is not nature. It is "created".

Lurker

 

[wensdee]

You can certainly see why they are creationists can't you?

 

[Delphiki]

I refuse to believe creationists are all that stupid. In fact, I believe that most creationists are simply ignorant -- which the difference is ignorance is curable and stupidity is not. I think what we're seeing here is that they do actually understand the difference between micro and macro-evolution now, and they are just playing stupid or giving us a hard time.

 

[Split Rock]

number is a kind.
alphabet is another kind.

Sorry, but you don't get to define "kind" for someone else's example. In fact, you guys cannot even define "kind" for you own examples.

codes for color is not nature. It is "created".

Do you know what an analogy is?

 

[Split Rock]

I refuse to believe creationists are all that stupid. In fact, I believe that most creationists are simply ignorant -- which the difference is ignorance is curable and stupidity is not. I think what we're seeing here is that they do actually understand the difference between micro and macro-evolution now, and they are just playing stupid or giving us a hard time.

Yeah, playing dumb is a common creationist tactic. I think it makes them feel holy too, since their god wants them to remain ignorant and "child like."

 

[Merlin]

So we've shown race to you satisfaction.
And also species to your satisfaction.


I'm glad you understand now then did you have a point to make?

yes i don't think you've shown anything meaningful