Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

First, if you are serious, you need to stop missing parts of my post, then playing like I've never addressed certain things and in this case playing the innocent party and making something my fault that is not. If you keep doing that I won't be taking you seriously anymore. Once again if you feel you need that trash in order to make your point, maybe I'd rather not waste my time with that seemingly frail argument.

That said, and as I know I have already said, we can take this in an orderly fashion...simply put a brief explanation to Random Variation, here, make it simple and short as you think I can understand and if I don't understand I'll ask questions.

That way others can see it, take it apart to see if any funny business is involved in the explanation. Plus we don't have to depend on one uneducated opposition to defend themselves against 10 that at least think they are educated . I mean you do want this as fair as possible right?

Why would you think there would be any "funny business?" What exactly do you think is going on here? Do you really think I am trying to fool you? That especially makes no sense with what we are talking about now, which you could easily verify for yourself.

Random variation is just what it says. Each generation of a species presents a range of variants. Some are shorter, some are taller, have more or less hair, longer or shorter digits, etc. These variations are distributed randomly, that is, they approach a random (or "bell curve") distribution. Consequently, for each trait, most of the individuals possess the trait at or near the average value but there are more extreme outliers at the tails of the distribution.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't have time to defend myself against more unproven nonsense, I mean not if you wantt me to work with the other unproven nonsense...one at a time.

Post your explainable from the other post now, and I'll be back whenever.

Not suitable for this forum. Not worth the trouble, anyway. I've seen most of the creationists' arguments on this point and found them vacuous. I am satisfied with a view of scripture which has served Christendom well for 2000 years. What do I need with the politically-motivated apologetics of some 19th century Protestant pop-up?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Why would you think there would be any "funny business?" What exactly do you think is going on here? Do you really think I am trying to fool you? That especially makes no sense with what we are talking about now, which you could easily verify for yourself.

Random variation is just what it says. Each generation of a species presents a range of variants. Some are shorter, some are taller, have more or less hair, longer or shorter digits, etc. These variations are distributed randomly, that is, they approach a random (or "bell curve") distribution. Consequently, for each trait, most of the individuals possess the trait at or near the average value but there are more extreme outliers at the tails of the distribution.

Random variation is not the issue of contention... every creationist would agree with micro evolution. What evolution fails to do is show any credible hypothesis for how life evolved from a single celled amoeba to the countless species now living on planet earth... macro evolution.

 

[USincognito]

What evolution fails to do is show any credible hypothesis for how life evolved from a single celled amoeba to the countless species now living on planet earth... macro evolution.

How would you know? Have you looked at the evidence, or is that just "common knowledge"?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

How would you know? Have you looked at the evidence, or is that just "common knowledge"?

Please enlighten me with a simple cursory outline of how macro evolution is accomplished. If you can cite any real world examples that would be great.

 

[Snappy1]

Please enlighten me with a simple cursory outline of how macro evolution is accomplished. If you can cite any real world examples that would be great.

If you'll define macro evolution I'm sure someone will try to help you out with an answer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please enlighten me with a simple cursory outline of how macro evolution is accomplished. If you can cite any real world examples that would be great.

None exist. That is why on EVERY SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY TREE, we must imagine common ancestors where the claimed split occurs. Now this might be a reasonable request if they were missing a few, but there can be found not one single common ancestor for any of the claimed splits. We have many examples of what was claimed to have diverged, and many example of what supposedly went before, but not a single example for the creature that split to become others. Mainly because they do not exist, except as imaginary focal points on imaginary trees.

 

[USincognito]

Please enlighten me with a simple cursory outline of how macro evolution is accomplished. If you can cite any real world examples that would be great.

"How macro evolution is accomplished"? That doesn't make any sense.

Macroevolution is defined as: evolution above the species level. That's not a great definition because all evolution happens at the species level, but we need to communicate using proper terms and definitions. What you are calling "macro evolution" is actually common ancestry writ large. The evidence for common ancestry is found in numerous lines - anatomical homologies, past and present biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, shared DNA, shared endogenous retroviral insertions, shared psudogenes, transitional fossils, etc.

There's nothing magical or mysterious about common ancestry. Ancient populations undergo mutations and separate due to geographic or selective isolation and over time develop into new species. That new species might serve as a basal population for a new lineage. For instance about 350,000,000 years ago a population of lobe finned fish began evolving limbs and gave rise to terrestrial tetrapods. We know this because of the fossils we have found any by looking at the DNA of fish and terrestrial tetrapods.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/genes-linking-human-fingers-and-fish-fins-are-now-hand

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

"How macro evolution is accomplished"? That doesn't make any sense.

Macroevolution is defined as: evolution above the species level. That's not a great definition because all evolution happens at the species level, but we need to communicate using proper terms and definitions. What you are calling "macro evolution" is actually common ancestry writ large. The evidence for common ancestry is found in numerous lines - anatomical homologies, past and present biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, shared DNA, shared endogenous retroviral insertions, shared psudogenes, transitional fossils, etc.

There's nothing magical or mysterious about common ancestry. Ancient populations undergo mutations and separate due to geographic or selective isolation and over time develop into new species. That new species might serve as a basal population for a new lineage. For instance about 350,000,000 years ago a population of lobe finned fish began evolving limbs and gave rise to terrestrial tetrapods. We know this because of the fossils we have found any by looking at the DNA of fish and terrestrial tetrapods.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/genes-linking-human-fingers-and-fish-fins-are-now-hand

So no actual evidence of such claims.... sounds like a Ron L Hubbard production. How's this one.. maybe it could be published...

Around 3,000,000,000,000 years ago, or was it 2,000,000,000,000? a fish developed mysteriously (can't say miraculously as that's a theological construct and has no place in true science) all the necessary attributes to be able to venture and thrive onto dry land, made the gigantic leap forward in evolutionary epicness. One question remains however which I'm sure one of our talented theorists will come up with, now that the newly evolved species has broken free of it's aquatic prison, where will it find love? How will this epicness be carried forward? Will our little hero have to remain celibate for another 3,000,000,000,000 (maybe only 1,000,000,000,000) years for a mate to be produced? I hope he has Netflix, it's going to be a long wait.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

None exist. That is why on EVERY SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY TREE, we must imagine common ancestors where the claimed split occurs. Now this might be a reasonable request if they were missing a few, but there can be found not one single common ancestor for any of the claimed splits. We have many examples of what was claimed to have diverged, and many example of what supposedly went before, but not a single example for the creature that split to become others. Mainly because they do not exist, except as imaginary focal points on imaginary trees.

They also do not address the "orphaned gene" issue which poses an insurmountable problem. Where do these species unique genes come from?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

If you'll define macro evolution I'm sure someone will try to help you out with an answer.

In the simplest of definitions.. how does a frog become a dog? Is it just a hairy toad that someone decided to leash up and take for a walk?

 

[Snappy1]

In the simplest of definitions.. how does a frog become a dog? Is it just a hairy toad that someone decided to leash up and take for a walk?

That's not a definition. No one is claiming a frog became a dog. Try again.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That's not a definition. No one is claiming a frog became a dog. Try again.

Have you not seen the teaching charts used in school that show how a fish became a frog that became a lizard that became a rodent that became a Chihuahua. Let me refresh you memory...

 

[USincognito]

So no actual evidence of such claims.... {snip}

To be quite frank, I don't think you're ready for evidence yet. We need to work on your understanding of the basics before we move into the specifics. For instance I listed whole areas of evidence for evolution:

The evidence for common ancestry is found in numerous lines - anatomical homologies, past and present biogeography, anatomical and molecular vestiges, atavisms, shared DNA, shared endogenous retroviral insertions, shared psudogenes, transitional fossils, etc.​

Which you promptly ignored and responded with childish mockery.

Around 3,000,000,000,000 years ago, or was it 2,000,000,000,000? a fish developed mysteriously {snip}

I would suggest spending less time trying to be clever and more time actually learning the subject of which you are trying to be critical. Fish evolved in the Cambrian and from basal (remember I used that word above) chordates like lancelets. It's not a mystery.

I'm sure one of our talented theorists will come up with, now that the newly evolved species has broken free of it's aquatic prison, where will it find love? How will this epicness be carried forward? Will our little hero have to remain celibate for another 3,000,000,000,000 (maybe only 1,000,000,000,000) years for a mate to be produced? I hope he has Netflix, it's going to be a long wait.

This childish comment betrays a tremendous ignorance of evolution. If one wishes to try and attack a subject, one should learn the basics of it. Evolution does not happen to individuals. It happens in populations and no descendant will ever be so different from it's parents (or the rest of the population) that it cannot interbreed with the rest of the population. Evolution isn't Pokemon or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies or whatever straw man you are thinking.

Again, if you wish to criticize evolution, you learn something about it first.

 

[Snappy1]

Have you not seen the teaching charts used in school that show how a fish became a frog that became a lizard that became a rodent that became a Chihuahua. Let me refresh you memory...

You could try reading instead of getting your info from pictures. Just a thought. And you never provided that definition.

 

[USincognito]

In the simplest of definitions.. how does a frog become a dog?

Frogs don't "become" dogs. No taxon evolves into another extant or extinct taxon. Frogs and dogs share a common terrestrial tetrapod ancestor.
Terrestrial Vertebrates

Is it just a hairy toad that someone decided to leash up and take for a walk?

Do you honestly expect us to take childish mockery like this seriously?

 

[USincognito]

Have you not seen the teaching charts used in school that show how a fish became a frog that became a lizard that became a rodent that became a Chihuahua. Let me refresh you memory..

That chart is a simplified version of the tree of life and the species used are representative of lineages.

Chihuahua is a breed of Canis lupus familiaris and are members of order Carnivora. Rodentia is a separate order. Both are also in separate groupings (Carnivora in Laurasiatheria, Rodentia in Euarchontoglires). Frogs are derived amphibians which evolved long after the amphibian/amniote split. And as I noted above, all terrestrial tetrapods are fish in that we are all descended from a population of Sarcopterygian lobe-finned fish.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Here's another bastion of silliness... I mean science.

Frogs don't "become" dogs. No taxon evolves into another extant or extinct taxon. Frogs and dogs share a common terrestrial tetrapod ancestor.
Terrestrial Vertebrates



Do you honestly expect us to take childish mockery like this seriously?

 

[Speedwell]

So no actual evidence of such claims.... sounds like a Ron L Hubbard production. How's this one.. maybe it could be published...

Around 3,000,000,000,000 years ago, or was it 2,000,000,000,000? a fish developed mysteriously (can't say miraculously as that's a theological construct and has no place in true science) all the necessary attributes to be able to venture and thrive onto dry land, made the gigantic leap forward in evolutionary epicness.

What makes you think it was a giant leap? Many small steps over a long period of time is more like it.

One question remains however which I'm sure one of our talented theorists will come up with, now that the newly evolved species has broken free of it's aquatic prison, where will it find love?

The same place you do: from another member of its own species.

 

[Ophiolite]

Have you not seen the teaching charts used in school that show how a fish became a frog that became a lizard that became a rodent that became a Chihuahua. Let me refresh you memory...

The chart does not show how any creature became any other creature. (Certainly not how a rodent became a Chihuahua!) It shows the relationships between certain animal groups, in a simplified manner, using representative examples of (some of)the major groups.

I am quite open to be shown that evolution is fundamentally wrong. (Despite my age I still think I am a rebel. More fool I.) Are you open to considering that you have it wrong, or is it simply your intent to make hamfisted attack on something you (currently) do not understand?

Perhaps we can reach an understanding. What, in your view, is the single biggest weakness of evolutionary theory?