Macro-evolution with color!

[Merlin]

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

inbetweens only work within kinds

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

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

So you are so backed into a corner the only defense you have left is the insanity plea?

Cause you have not made a single statement that makes any sense so far or even attempted to make one beyond throwing around "not meaningful" and "kinds" without defining that or stating why its not meaningful or what would be meaningful and what the difference is other then that you seem to think as long as you keep saying that long enough you wont have to look reality in the face.

Thats fine, good day.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

inbetweens only work within kinds

Reality would appear to contradict you and reality > your assertion. If you'd like to believe reality is not reliable that's your call. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with, a desire to be wrong which manifests as a denial of reality is not.




Lurker

 

[Split Rock]

inbetweens only work within kinds

Go ahead and define "kind." Tell us how to determine if two organisms are the same "kind," or different "kinds." You will be the first.

 

[wensdee]

The End

 

[SkyWriting]

This, hopefully, will illustrate how it's illogical to believe that macro-evolution doesn't happen, even given time for enough micro-evolution to occur.

It does illustrate how "macro-evolution" could occur. Creationists understand the concept of gradualism. What creationists add to the model is the observation that systems rarely have the capability to make small gradual changes that result in new, different, more efficient, more complicated, and/or more intelligent systems.

For example, lets say "Your Text" (above). It changed color, but if it underwent much of any real changes such as font, then it becomes increasingly less able to function over time and if the characters actually undergo suBstAntiAl chAngEs theN it g#tes H@rdeR & Ha&@$( to read.

It's "illogical" to pretend that there are no inherent properties that cannot be changed past certain boundaries. The amount of time is not a factor.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Like how its 'Illogical' to think that enough inches put in a row will cover a mile right?

 

[SkyWriting]

"text" in this analogy represents "life". So you're saying "Yea but it's still life."

If you make enough small changes it becomes useless &*@$ that is then unreadable.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you didn't notice that there's actually variation in the text? It may not work if you're colorblind. The variation in color represents the variation in a species through generations. If you're not keen enough to pick up on that then you most likely can't be helped. Sorry.

The text never changed what properties it needed to have to function. Contrast for example.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

If you make enough small changes it becomes useless &*@$ that is then unreadable.

Not if you are selecting for readability. Evolution = variation and selection.




Lurker

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

We prefer to trust current observations over the speculation of daydreamers.

 

[wensdee]

We prefer to trust current observations over the speculation of daydreamers.

What current observations might those be?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

We prefer to trust current observations over the speculation of daydreamers.

That's a screen capture for the ages. Thanks man.




Lurker

 

[MoonLancer]

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

Sorry but you cant define kind in real life so i really don't care

 

[MoonLancer]

If you make enough small changes it becomes useless &*@$ that is then unreadable.

Have heard of leet speak? they use numbers and letters all the time and its understandable to the people who use it. Also language is cultural and not dna driven.

 

[sk8Joyful]

So
you are so backed into a corner
the only defense you have left is the insanity plea?

Having followed these exchanges, 3 things are obvious:
1. atheists make assertions, that to them 'appear logical'.

2. Christians state there are 'gaping gaps', & 'inbetweens',
that are ignored, which are important to understand,
in order to understand more of the broader context.

3. atheists DON'T want to understand, nor consider the things of (God) - because
well, then they would be faced with the possibility, which they fight against, of them allowing Change...
so,
their response, evident in Exiledoomsayer's statement, aka 'overt insults',
he thinks are acceptable, cloaked as a question, but which he knows are really not.

Before this gets any crazier, perhaps some perspective would be helpful:
"A scientist tells God that they no longer need Him
because of all the things “science" can now do. God challenges him
to a man-making contest, to which the scientist agrees.
God says He wants the scientist to do, just like He did when He created Adam starting with dirt.
The scientist agrees and picks up some dirt, to which
God replies, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

To today’s scientists,
whose pretentious hype wants to show in the lab
that "artificial life" & "synthetic life", as life can come from non-life, all I have to say is, “Get your own dirt!"

...
you wont have to look reality in the face.

God's REALITY is untold billions of times bigger,
than all of humanity's minds together, multiplied to infinity...
and sooner than you think, you too will once again acknowledge a greater portion of this reality.

Thats fine, good day.

Indeed, it is. Good day to you as well
.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

-snip-


Indeed, it is. Good day to you as well
.

I do not recall having adressed you. If you are at any point ready to actually adress the issue then by all means go ahead but if all you intend to is spout some nonesense to make you feel better about being unable to formulate a coherent arguement by all means carry on.

Just for the record though you do now answer "2+2=4" by saying "There are holes in that" then expect the other to fold to your impeckable logic or nonsense. If the former you need to explain what you are talking about, if the later you need to refrain from going places where people do not agree with you cause it clearly causes enough discomfort to grap onto anything as long as you feel like it defended your position.

 

[Delphiki]

It does illustrate how "macro-evolution" could occur.

It wasn't supposed to. Nor was it "proof" of evolution. It was supposed to explain what macro-evolution is.

To put it simply:

micro-evolution x time = macro-evolution.

That's it.

 

[Nostromo]

1. atheists make assertions, that to them 'appear logical'.

There are rules to logic. If you believe something someone has said is illogical, check the rules and challenge them on it.

2. Christians state there are 'gaping gaps', & 'inbetweens', that are ignored, which are important to understand, in order to understand more of the broader context.

Usually because they're arguing from the point of view that they're already right in their beliefs, so everybody else must be missing something. That view isn't supported by reality.

3. atheists DON'T want to understand, nor consider the things of (God) - because
well, then they would be faced with the possibility, which they fight against, of them allowing Change...

You're badly mistaken if you think this is true.

Ask the atheists and the Christians on this board: "Could you be wrong?"

 

[Split Rock]

Having followed these exchanges, 3 things are obvious:
1. atheists make assertions, that to them 'appear logical'.

First off, evolution does not equal atheism. Secondly, macroevolution appears logical because it is... it is based on logical inferences from the physical evidence.

2. Christians state there are 'gaping gaps', & 'inbetweens',
that are ignored, which are important to understand, in order to understand more of the broader context.

If creationists wish us to accept their assertions about 'gaping gaps' then they must demonstrate their existance rather than simply assert it.

3. atheists DON'T want to understand, nor consider the things of (God) - because
well, then they would be faced with the possibility, which they fight against, of them allowing Change...
so, their response, evident in Exiledoomsayer's statement, aka 'overt insults',
he thinks are acceptable, cloaked as a question, but which he knows are really not.

You shouldn't make assumptions about the motivation of other people, especially when you do not understand them.

God's REALITY is untold billions of times bigger,
than all of humanity's minds together, multiplied to infinity... and sooner than you think, you too will once again acknowledge a greater portion of this reality.

We are not arguing against "God's REALITY," so much as some peoples' fantasy based on their erroneous interpretation of scripture.