afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Diogenes seems to be making an honest attempt to understand my postion ... | Quote | Dave, I'm trying to summarize your current position, please correct any mistakes in my characterization of your position.
1) Creatures evolve by a mechanism of random mutation + natural selection
2) Speciation events have occured in the past (and are continuing to occur today?)
3) Large scale evolutionary changes (what would often be considered macroevolution, but with limits on the high end) occur (occured? or ongoing?) in short periods of time (on the order of 1000's of years)
4) Modern creatures descened from common ancestors, going back to certain Kinds, which were specially created.
If the above is correct, then more succinctly, you believe in all of evolution except common descent beyond some level (Kinds are roughly equivalent to the Genus level? Family? Order?), and that evolution occurs at a much faster rate than biologists currently believe. Furthermore abiogenesis occured in the form of special creation of fully formed complex creatures. |
Close. Very good. Thank you for being honest and forthright. For the most part, you are a good example to the others here. I would revise it as follows ...
1) An unknown number of organisms were spoken into existence by God during the Creation Week: Plants on Day 3, Water creatures on Day 5, Man and land animals on Day 6, etc. Similarly, an unknown number of air-breathing organisms and possibly seeds and other organisms were carried on the Ark of Noah to restart that portion of life on earth which could not survive the Flood.
2) Rapid diversification and speciation occurred after the Flood due to many factors: separated continents, foraging needs, massive climate change, to name a few. Similar diversification and speciation may have occurred after the Fall and Curse recorded in Genesis 3, but this is not of immediate interest to us because so many of the original organisms were wiped out during the Flood. It is much more relevant to our present situation today to consider what happened after the Flood. I may adjust the points in my Hypothesis to reflect this.
3) Creatures adapt by natural and artificial selection of pre-existing genetic information. I believe that God endowed the original creatures with a large enough amount of genetic information to allow them to adapt and form new species (species being defined as reproductive isolation). | Quote | Ayala, Francisco J., “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
“A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein.”
p. 59
“The forces that give rise to gene mutations operate at random in the sense that genetic mutations occur without reference to their future adaptiveness in the environment.”
p. 63
“It therefore seems clear that, contrary to Darwin’s conception, most of the genetic variation in populations arises not from new mutations at each generation but from the reshuffling of previously accumulated mutations by recombination. Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, providing a mere trickle of new alleles into the much larger reservoir of stored genetic variation. Indeed recombination alone is sufficient to enable a population to expose its hidden variation for many generations without the need for new genetic input by mutation.”
p. 64
“In any case there can be no doubt that the staggering amount of genetic variation in natural populations provides ample opportunities for evolution to occur. Hence it is not surprising that whenever a new environmental challenge materializes—a change of climate, the introduction of a new predator or competitor, man-made pollution—populations are usually able to adapt to it.
“A dramatic recent example of such adaptation is the evolution by insect species of resistance to pesticides. Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.” |
However, the only kind of adaptation that I am aware of are small changes: i.e. changes in length or size of the organism, changes in body color, resistance to pesticide, changes in amount of hair, etc. In short, changes in DEGREE of pre-existing structures and functions. I am not aware of any organism that has "evolved" if this is to mean something like, for example, a legless worm growing legs, a whale whose flippers turn into legs, etc.
4) Random mutation, as far as I can tell, does not create new features or functions such as eyes where ther were no eyes, legs where there were no legs, etc. Random mutation has been well known for a long time, however, to be mostly HARMFUL to organisms. | Quote | Wills, Christopher, “Genetic Load,” Scientific American, vol. 222 (March 1970), pp. 98-107.
“Some mutations are ‘beneficial,’ that is, the individual in whom they are expressed is better able to adapt to a given set of environmental circumstances. The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H. J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.” |
Hopefully this answers Diogenes and others' questions.
I do see that Jeannot had some confusion over the two 'Evolution trees' I posted, so I will post them again with some clarification ...
Jeannot asked where the plants are. Plants are not included for clarity on my "Improved ToE Tree" on the right. In fact MANY organisms are not included so as not to clutter up the chart unnecessarily. You will notice that I have only included organisms which I think that ToE proposes to be in the lineage of modern man.
Possibly I should change "Bacterium" to "Unknown Unicellular Creature" (UUC) as we discussed before. In this case, fungi, archea and plants would have their own horizontal lines originating with this UUC.
Again, the point of redrawing the tree is to make it more consistent with what we really find in nature. I have no problem with people advocating ToE. Everone has that right. I just think the usual "ToE Trees" (such as the on depicted on the left from Wikipedia) do not give a full accurate picture of what ToE advocates truly believe. For example, the tree on the left does not have any time scale and it does not represent increasing organism complexity in any graphical fashion. My chart on the right does both and also illustrates graphically that many organism have not "evolved" at all and that there should be a "transitional" nature in sequence data, just as Michael Denton has asserted there should be IF ToE were true.
***************************************
CHALLENGE TO DEADMAN ... SUPPORT YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF GISH AND MORRIS (AND ME) OR RETRACT THEM
Deadman claims that I quote mined and he is making an unsupported assertion that Gish and Morris were prolific quote miners.
You should prove it or retract it, Deadman.
The truth is that my Ager quotes means EXACTLY what I thought they meant, and Deadman is wrong. Derek Ager is clearly on record with this and several other similar quotes ...
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
Do you hear that? "WE DO NOT FIND GRADUAL EVOLUTION IN THE FOSSIL RECORD." Case Closed.
Deadman... | Quote | Except that I can point out where you have used false/faked/quotemined quotes half a dozen times, and I'm sure there are more. For instance, your last post...quoting Ager: Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
The person who began using this quote-mine was, naturally, Duane Gish. He and Morris were the most prolific quote-miners.
Note what you CLAIM the quote says: “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student have now been ‘debunked.’”
The complete sentence reads, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been debunked,"
The point being this: You never read that article. You are parroting what you read on creationist websites. None of what you post is original. You don't check sources, so you perpetuate quotemines.
And lest you say that it's not important, read what Ager has to say on how he was quotemined:
Quote
I get rather tired of these things...Of course they have misunderstood and misrepresented me |
There is no difference in meaning if the middle clause is removed, especially considering ALL the quotes in the same article as follows ... | Quote | Ager, D. V., “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” Proceedings of the Geological Association, vol. 87, no. 2 (1976), pp. 131-159. Presidential Address, March 5, 1976.
p. 132
“It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been ‘debunked.’”
p. 132
“We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation.”
p. 133
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.” |
I have discovered that when I copy a quote from a CD source and place it into Notepad before posting (how I do most of my posts), Notepad strangely removes elipses (...). There is an elipsis in my source where this middle clause. You can see that Notepad did this by noting that there are two spaces between "student" and "have now been debunked" in my original quote. Notepad inserted a space for an elipsis. I have manually reinserted the elipsis above.
Furthermore, infidels.org makes a false statement regarding this supposed quote mine here ... | Quote | Ager was only talking about the evolution of Ostraea, which is oyster-like bivalve molluscs, from Gryphaea, another bivalve, and saying that previous interpretations of their relationship have been mistaken.
http://www.infidels.org/library....n2.html |
No, he was not. He was referring to evolution stories which have now been debunked, from from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers' Zaphrentis delanouei. This is quite clear from the 4 Ager quotes I gave. Then there is another quote from Ager which confirms it even more.
| Quote | | "One thing which has struck me very forcibly through they years is that most of the classic evolutionary lineages of my student days, such as Ostrea-Gryphaea and Zaphrentis delanouei, have long since lost their scientific respectability, and in spite of the plethora of palaeontological information we now have available, there seems to be very little to put in their place. In twenty years’ work on the Mesozoic Brachiopoda, I have found plenty of relationships, but few if any evolving lineages." (Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 1981, p. 20) |
Now I am completely mystified as to how Russell or Deadman or anybody else can pretend that Derek Ager believes that the fossil record supports the notion of gradual evolution when he makes multiple clear statements like this ...
“The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find—over and over again—not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
How much more clear can you get, guys? Can you explain how this is not clear to you? And shame on you for spreading lies about Gish and Morris. These guys are careful, honest scholars.
Deadman... | Quote | I posted this on the previous page, stupid: Quote
Dawkins' overall attitude towards puntuated equilibrium is threefold:
1) So what?
2). Darwin predicted RELATIVELY rapid bursts, too, as did Mayr, who Gould & Eldridge barely acknowledged
3) "Rapid" even for Gould, is tens of thousands of years...generally about 50,000, as he acknowledged. ("I'd be happy to see speciation taking place over, say, 50,000 years…Stephen J. Gould as quoted in Lewin, R., "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science Vol 210:883-887.)"Geologically rapid" doesn't mean "overnight," stupid. |
I realize this. I never said anything about "overnight." Stop misrepresenting me. However, it has been acknowledged here on this forum that "Evolutionists NEED Deep Time" ... sorry, but 50,000 years doesn't qualify as Deep Time. You need a lot more than that even to make relatively minor changes. Example: You say that it took 5 million years just to get from the last Gorilla/Human LCA to a modern human!!
50,000 years doesn't cut it for ToE.
Deadman... | Quote | | The mere fact that there was a debate in the 70's and onwards about the tempo and mode of evolution...doesn't help you a bit, stupid. As cited above, 50,000 years is a lot more than you even think the earth existed, let alone for the speciation of one organism. |
Sure it does. It helps me a lot. Of course I have no illusions that any of the folks I quoted will come to the CORRECT conclusion from all this debate, but the debate does show that the whole Darwinian establishment is in disarray and they really have no explanations for Macroevolution, other than 'magic', then they turn right around and accuse Creationists of invoking magic. The truth is, BOTH sides have to invoke magic, if 'magic' is meant to be "processes which we do not presently understand."
Deadman... | Quote | | Your use of "macroevolution" now depends on a citation from a Berkeley site. The site claims that "macro" refers to "evolution above the species level." So...here's a question, stupid. We know that speciation occurs. Is it then "microevolution?" And don't say that speciation does not occur, I gave you several examples previously, which you did not refute, except to say "did the fireweed become a redwood?" and similar nonsense. when populations genetically related no longer/cannot interbreed, this is by definition, speciation. |
When did I ever say speciation doesn't occur? Of course it occurs. "Above the species level" can mean "well above" or directly above. No one can say for sure how to demarcate the original created kinds. Just like with ToE, no one can really say what the LCA at each node might have looked like. All we can say is that the evidence clearly indicates that there are inviolable boundaries and many of these are known. But we may never know all of them because creationists, like evolutionists, cannot go back in time.
Deadman... | Quote | | As far as your quotemining is concerned, sure I have lots of them. Want me to list them so you can try to whine? |
These latest accusations of quote mining have back fired. So sure ... bring on as many as you like. But only if can explain in detail why you think they are quote mines and then support your assertions.
Deadman... | Quote | My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.
Oh, that IS hilarious..basically El Stupido Grande is saying allopatric speciation is kept to a minimum (while sympatry is emphasized, stupid?)...which is quite a hoot, considering he claims to "know" about evolutionary theory.
He has no clue about how wrong his "hypotheses" are, and he IS trying to sugar coat the bitter truth of his ignorance in "science-y" terms. |
I have only claimed to know enough about ToE to know that it is implausible. Obviously, there are many details of "Cinderella", "The Wizard of Oz" and ToE that I do not know. What exactly, is stupid about my statement? You shouldn't call people's statements stupid unless you can explain HOW it is stupid.
OA... | Quote | | Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool? |
Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way. There are probably other ways which are not clear to me. If you are looking for me to be able to classify every living organism on earth according to original created kinds, I cannot. This is no more possible that you can describe every supposed Common Ancestor of every living organism on earth. I think the best that either theory--ToE or Creationism--can hope for is to propose viable hypotheses that do not contradict any known data. As far as I know, Creationism does not contradict any known data, but ToE does ... in spades, your loud protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Steve Story... | Quote | You can call science reverse engineering, and you can call engineering reverse science. Davetard tries to give himself cred by therefore equating science with engineering.
I can ride a motorcycle 100 mph. Does that mean I can ride it in reverse? No. It's a whole nother skill. |
Steve, you are a master at making inapplicable analogies. This is like the 3rd or 4th one I think. Surely you have heard of "reverse engineering" and surely you don't think it in any way resembles riding a motorcycle backwards? Reverse engineering WRT living organisms even has a formal name ... I think it's biomimetics. God is the Ultimate Engineer. Mankind routinely copies his designs in nature to create new technology.
JohnW... | Quote | Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Dave. I missed it first time round:
Quote
Creationists have been making predictions for years and they have been right--a great example being their prediction of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Finally, a testable prediction. And it's falsified (see here for starters). So I guess we're done. |
You AND Talk Origins are proven wrong with the numerous quotes already given. Talk Origins has proven to be a very unreliable source if you've been following this thread. I actually now look forward to people trying to refute me by referring to T.O. because most of the time, their arguments or flawed.
Now ... why don't YOU take up my challenge of showing me ONE truly transitional fossil and explaining why you think it's transitional (as opposed to just telling me over and over again about OTHERS who supposedly SAY there are transitional fossils.)
Russell... | Quote | And yet, you have thus far (1) failed to identify a single "lie" told in the name of Darwin and (2) you have ignored the many lies we've documented for your benefit told by AIG in the name of Jesus.
Exhibit A: chromosome fusions. Did you ever follow up on what you yourself finally acknowledged was just plain wrong, but AIG continues to peddle as The Truth? Did you get them to correct or at least acknowledge their error? |
Oops! Forgot to answer the second part of this about the chromosome fusions. No. I had forgotten to follow up with AIG, but I did yesterday and I linked to the thread where we discussed it. Thx for the reminder. Why do you mischaracterize AIG as a sort of "lie peddler"?? Can you not allow Carl Wieland to make an honest mistake about an arcane topic? Do you ever make mistakes? Would you like it if someone took one of your mistakes and trumpeted to the world that you are now a "lie peddler"?? How many kids do you think will be misled by this error? I don't know many kids who even know what a chromosome is, much less understand chromosome fusion, much less read this AIG article.
Come on, Russell. Where is your sense of fair play? I never accuse ToE advocates of "evil" or "conspiracy" or any such thing (even though Improvius has been trying for a long time to characterize me this way). I think they are honest, intelligent, hard working people who just happen to be wrong about ToE, much as many scientists were wrong about the earth being the center of the solar system.
BWE ... thanks for reposting the Portuguese piece. That was the meat of it, although there was more. And yes, I won. The best that Arden Chatfield--the resident linguist--and Faid were able to do was tell me that both Portuguese and Spanish were descended from Latin. But I already agreed with that. How does this refute anything I said? Answer: It doesn't. This is just as vacuous as all these bogus quote mining charges. It seems that you guys sure do whine a lot. I hear a lot of "Quoteminer!" (when it isn't) and "Liar!" (when in reality it's just a different opinion) and "Evil loki child abuser!" (when in reality it is ToE advocates who are telling half-truths to our public school kids).
--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|
