Macro-evolution with color!

D3PyroGS · Feb 21, 2011

Get your own dirt!

I fail to see how this is in any way related to the topic of evolution. Regardless of how atoms originated, evolution only requires that there be stuff to work with and some sort of selection pressure. Not to say that the origin of material isn't a valid question, but by bringing this up you're moving the goalposts and diverting attention from the topic at hand. Evolution would work exactly the same if God created matter, if it sprung from nothing, if it has always existed, or it materialized from another dimension. If you can acknowledge the fact that the things are constantly changing and that if you want to walk a mile you must first take one step, then you should have no problem accepting that gradual changes can produce large changes.

FSTeapot · Feb 21, 2011

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

I didn't see this one answered, but it's pretty illogical, so figures. Asking for a transition from English to Chinese is like asking for a transitional form from a cat to a dog. It shows a misunderstanding in how languages work. Languages themselves evolve/change over time, you know. Case in point, try and read something written in Old English h.ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#Text_samples (won't let me post the link, remove the dot between h and t). Over a long enough period of time, languages change to the point where, looking back on it, we cannot even understand the old version of our own language anymore.

saywhatnow? · Feb 22, 2011

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

The way to look at the transition from English to Chinese would be to follow the language back along it's evolutionary timescale to the point at which a human (or ancestor) spoke a language that was a common ancestor of modern English and Chinese.

Along the way the change in language between generations may be imperceptible, or it may be quite marked, but there would be a gradual shift from the modern characters/words we have now to a more primitive proto-speak. From that common language ancestor you could then follow the evolution back down the alternate path to it's modern compatriot.

This works whether you believe humans left Africa 120,000 years ago or A&E were poofed into existence a mere 6000 years ago.

searchfind · Feb 22, 2011

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

Did you know that we can read the DNA as if it was written text?

Here are small excerpts from human DNA and the same DNA from many animals:

pnas.org/content/102/18/6368/F3.large.jpg

MoonLancer · Feb 22, 2011

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

Well these two languages fall under a nested hierarchy. They have a common language that's now long dead however.

notheoi · Feb 25, 2011

Delphiki said:
We all can agree (save for the severely color blind) that this text is red.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.

If we have red text and decide to change it by just a small amount, the change might be barely noticeable, but still a very small change. This, we will call our micro-evolution. Every word up to now can be considered red, with very minute changes in the hue. If I keep typing long enough, would anyone be able to tell me, just by looking, at which word or letter is this post no longer red, but actually purple or blue? All this micro-evolution keeps occurring in the text, with it's tiny changes in hue, but ultimately, I end up with a completely different color. It's actually the difference between what one would consider red and what one would consider purple (or a whole new species, in this analogy) which is macro-evolution. See, the common misunderstanding is, that macro-evolution means a dog being a direct offspring of some other different canine-like species, or even more stupidly, a cat coming from a dog. Well, that's not what macro-evolution is. There is really only one distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and it's the same distinction between their prefixes: micro and macro. Just like if something is microscopic or if something is macroscopic. Microscopic usually requires a microscope to see it because it's so small, but the macroscopic are things large enough to be seen by the common human eye. However, things of both size are completely visible and plainly exist, and there are many things in this universe between both general sizes. So as you read this, can you tell me the first word here that is blue, and not purple? After all, every change in color since the first word in this paragraph has only micro-evolved from the color next to it, but we've managed to macro-evolve through 2 colors. 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.

So tell me -- what was the first purple word in the block of text above? What's the first blue word? Remember, if macro-evolution simply can not happen then you're saying the words you are reading now are still red.

Thank you for this; it's about time. I wish there were a way to harness our technology and get this in front of hundreds and hundreds of people.

notheoi · Feb 25, 2011

D3PyroGS said:
I fail to see how this is in any way related to the topic of evolution...

Really? Evolution shows that the Christian version of how life began and evolved is totally incorrect. It also proves it's impossible human beings were called into existence by a god, along with all other animals at roughly the same point in history. Kind of like how the OP's post shows that a purple word or letter doesn't just pop up out of nowhere...it evolves from its ancestors (sometimes into something completely different over time).

notheoi · Feb 25, 2011

Ready for the clincher? The game-winner? The homerun? I mean, at this point it's already a blowout, but I'll add one more idea:

Yet another tool an evolution"ist" has at his/her disposal is a little something called prediction. Scientists can make predictions about the world (kind of like Darwin did), and say with certainty that if evolution is true, intermediary fossils (missing links, if you will) should be found...

...in a very specific area of the world
...in a very specific layer of sediment
...that date to a specific time period in history
...that have a certain genetic code, mutations, etc.
...that have certain physical characteristics

And guess what? THEY DO! THEY FIND THEM.

Can we please stop debating evolution as if it weren't already relied on in science the way only something true can be relied on? I mean, really.

The day Christianity and The Bible can accurately predict future discoveries in the fossil record, paleontology, geology, etc. is the day the Christian church will begin receiving research grant money. That's when you'll be taken seriously.

Dr. Massimo Pigliucci taught me this via a Podcast in which [I think] he debated Kent Hovind. Thanks Massimo! (I think it was on Point of Inquiry or The Infidel Guy, but you can find Dr. Pigliucci's debates on YouTube.)

pgp_protector · Feb 25, 2011

notheoi said:
Thank you for this; it's about time. I wish there were a way to harness our technology and get this in front of hundreds and hundreds of people.

It's called the internet

notheoi · Feb 25, 2011

pgp_protector said:
It's called the internet

It's called a joke

pgp_protector · Feb 25, 2011

notheoi said:
It's called a joke

In this section you can never tell

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

MoonLancer said:
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.

It matters not what drives the process. They use a PARTICULAR set of icons to represent something. The icons don't change or the process stops. Just as our language can't be altered too much or it fails to communicate.

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

Delphiki said:
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.

That's a theory. But nobody can travel in time so Science is limited to current observations and just speculation on past events.

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

wensdee said:
What current observations might those be?

Those reproducible events. Experimental confirmation. The scientific method.

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

Itinerant Lurker said:
That's a screen capture for the ages. Thanks man.

Lurker

If you need any elaboration, let me know.

MoonLancer · Mar 4, 2011

SkyWriting said:
It matters not what drives the process. They use a PARTICULAR set of icons to represent something. The icons don't change or the process stops. Just as our language can't be altered too much or it fails to communicate.

not true

It only fails when a word is redefined which creationists do all the time.

Language evolves over time through each generation. This is done culturally. English as we know it didn't exist at one time.

All animals are based on Thymine, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine. What change are you talking about?

Ar Cosc · Mar 4, 2011

SkyWriting said:
It matters not what drives the process. They use a PARTICULAR set of icons to represent something. The icons don't change or the process stops. Just as our language can't be altered too much or it fails to communicate.

Except the icons used can definitely change:

Source: Old English / Anglo-Saxon

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

Ar Cosc said:
Except the icons used can definitely change:

Source: Old English / Anglo-Saxon

Take note that the font has changed while the meaning of the letters remain immutable. And what that meaning is....I haven't worked out one word of it, because it has changed too much. I can assume the first word has some
meaning like Hark or Hello. But the rest of your communication fails. I imagine that why your not using this old English font and text to state your points.
You are intent on proving me correct.

Using the evolutionists logic, I'll assume the word near the bottom left is "open" and has evolved into "offer" on the right because it looks like it has. Maybe I can get a Science grant for my hard work.

SkyWriting · Mar 4, 2011

notheoi said:
Really? Evolution shows that the Christian version of how life began and evolved is totally incorrect. It also proves it's impossible human beings were called into existence by a god, along with all other animals at roughly the same point in history. Kind of like how the OP's post shows that a purple word or letter doesn't just pop up out of nowhere...it evolves from its ancestors (sometimes into something completely different over time).

Evolution does not even claim to show how life began. Only how life changes over time.
(not my usual stand.....I know)

Ar Cosc · Mar 4, 2011

SkyWriting said:
Take note that the font has changed while the meaning of the letters remain immutable. And what that meaning is....I haven't worked out one word of it, because it has changed too much. I can assume the first word has some
meaning like Hark or Hello. But the rest of your communication fails. I imagine that why your not using this old English font and text to state your points.
You are intent on proving me correct.

Using the evolutionists logic, I'll assume the word near the bottom left is "open" and has evolved into "offer" on the right because it looks like it has. Maybe I can get a Science grant for my hard work.

I've bolded the most important part of this post. The language has changed so much it's impossible to understand it, and yet it's still English. The script is also pretty much illegible in parts, as the standard shape of the letters has changed.

With that in mind, how does your previous point that changing the letters makes us unable to understand the words, somehow invalidates the OP's analogy, make sense?

Macro-evolution with color!

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Nothing is not connected.

Nothing is not connected.

Nothing is not connected.

Noted strange person

Nothing is not connected.

Noted strange person

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

I only exist on the internet

The Librarian

The Librarian

I only exist on the internet

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency