RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,06:46   

This thread is for Southstar/Martina.

She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:05   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,06:46)
This thread is for Southstar/Martina.

She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

Thanks

My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.

So I wrote up in one of their forums on evolution and began shining some light on their very dim wits. It was all fine and dandy and I was about to prove that their whole idea was rubish when the called in their version of Darth Maul.

Now see I'm not a biologist and my knowlege of genetics is very superficial.

That said:
I had posted a study regarding mutation rates in humans. The study quoted in the talkorigins archive (Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304). was a bit outdated a new study Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, et al. 2010. Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Science [Internet] 328:636–639. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126....186802) finds that the amount of mutations is about half of the previous study. This new study does create quite an imbaresment for the evolution theory, and creates havok in the timeline.

Any ideas on how I could get out of this

I have other questions but let's take one at a time

Thanks for your help!!
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:39   

I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:46   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)
I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:50   

A foreign language is hardly the barrier it once was I'm sure you'll agree.

Please post the link.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,07:53   

Your DOI isn't found.  

Without the article, then I can't help too much, but I can say a few general things.

The mutation rates in different parts of the genome vary wildly.  For example, the membrane proteins in mitochondria would rarely mutate, because any mutation that changed the function would probably kill the organism.

On the other hand, the mutation rate in the immune system, at certain times, is exceptionally high, while the system randomly tries to find a way to latch onto your latest flu.

So, I would take any of these kinds of studies with a serious grain of salt.  What genes were they studying?

One thing to remember when arguing with creationists is not to get into the trap of answering every single detail that they bring up.  You will run into something no one knows about yet and then they will say "Yeah, see".

What you also need to do is demand that they provide the same level of detail that they demand of you for their own notions.

For example, in terms of genetics, you could ask exactly how (i.e. what mechanism did the designer use) to create the 673 HLA-A alleles from a maximum of 10 alleles (Noah, his wife, and the daughter-in-laws) in less than 6000 years.  That would require a mutation rate so high that the entire population would be one big tumor.

Of course, they will explain it away with magic, but the more you require them to explain things away with magic, the more that others will see its really not an explanation.

The point is, don't let them set the pace.  Evolution is a very, very powerful tool and it simply works.  Industry uses principles of evolution to make a profit... not creationism.  Businesses from financial markets to factories use evolutionary principles every day... not creationist principles.  Evolutionary principles have developed processes and products that humans could not have, even (in at least one case) a product that humans still don't know how it actually works... yet it does.  (Neatly avoiding the potential attack of 'frontloading'.)

Evolution is used to predict where to find cancer treatments and improve agriculture.  Evolutionary principles have saved millions of lives.  Creationism has not (at least in any actual double blind studies).

They can say all they want, it doesn't change reality.  

Hope that helps.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:01   

http://www.sciencemag.org/content....636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:03   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)
I'm afraid I can't help you.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

First, I would say that there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution.

In reality, we shouldn't expect to see macroevolution actually happening.  There is a study that showed a plant mutation resulting the offspring being in an entirely new genus.  I'll have to get back to the house, it's on my drive there.

But, again, only creationists demand something like this that is just not a requirement of evolution.

It all comes down to the artificial system of taxonomy that we use today.

It can take millions of years for a population to change at the level of the species.  For example, in spite of the massive morphology changes in dogs, they are all still dogs.  And we've only been breeding them for a few thousand years.  When will they become 'not dogs'?

Who knows?

This post might help a little: Post on orders in forestaro's thread

I've also got a series of blog articles that you might find useful: Cassandra's Tears

They are mainly written for the high school level student, but there are generally a lot of references.  I've also specifically talked about macroevolution a couple of times.  You might also read the chapter summaries from Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which is all about how we know that common ancestry does exist.  It's quite enlightening and should serve you well.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:05   

Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:07   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:18   

Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time?  I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:19   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2011,09:18)
Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time?  I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

birds of a feather, and all that

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:27   

Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:33   

Two chew toys!?!?!?  Wow, this is awesome.

Sorry, I'm a very trusting person.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,08:51   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.

The answer is "YES."

I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.

"Emergence of new species."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:00   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:06   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog....10.html

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,06:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

This is the "money quote" on mutation rates from the cited article;

Quote

Although both the observed transition-to-transversion ratio and the proportion of CpG mutations in our data match predictions, our estimated human mutation rate is lower than previous estimates, the most widely cited of which is 2.5 × 10^-8 per generation (10) based on three parameters: a human-chimpanzee nucleotide divergence per site (Kt) of 0.013, a species divergence time of 5 million years ago, and an ancestral effective population size of 10,000. More recent estimates indicate a nucleotide divergence of 0.012 (9), species divergence time between 6 and 7 million years ago (11–15), and ancestral effective population size between 40,000 and 148,000 (16–19). With these parameter ranges and a generation length of 15 to 25 years, the mutation rate estimate is between 7.6 × 10^-9 and 2.2 × 10^-8 per generation, which is consistent with our intergenerational estimate of 1.1 × 10^-8. Our estimate is within 1 SD of an earlier estimate of 1.7 × 10^-8 (SD of 9 × 10^-9) based on 20 disease-causing loci (20). The rate we report is for autosomes and should be substantially lower than that of the Y chromosome because in the male germ line, more cell divisions occur per generation. Although our rate differs approximately as expected from the recently reported estimate of 3.0 × 10^-8 (95% CI, 8.9 × 10^-9 to 7.0 × 10^-8) for the Y chromosome, this difference is not significant (21).
.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,07:11

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:07)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,08:01)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content........636


Sorry this is the correct link to the study

I don't know... the 1.1 x 10^-8 seems right in line with other studies,

Rates of Spontaneous Mutation

 
Quote
Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

As described here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog.....10.html

Thanks
Marty

1) I have no clue, as far as I'm aware, the fossil record of chimpanzees is very, very spotty.

2) It doesn't matter, it's still longer than the creationist timeline anyway.  Remember, if your arguing with creationists, your job shouldn't be to defend science.  It should be to show them how wrong they are in every particular.  

Of course science can be wrong.  On the other hand, science corrects itself and (to my knowledge) no creationist has ever corrected mistaken science.  All the great hoaxes that creationists point to... corrected by science, not creationists.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:24   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27)
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

As I explained,
1) i was drawing from talk origins site
2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard
3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

Cheers
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,15:24)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:27)
Martina, perché non si collega al forum Italiano?

Siete ritardati?

As I explained,
1) i was drawing from talk origins site
2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard
3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

Cheers
Marty

Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

  
George



Posts: 310
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:40   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:46   

Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Woodbine



Posts: 684
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:50   

I think 'dispensa' is their version of Batsh^t77.
 
Quote
The Piltdown Chicken: The Archaeopteryx

Which, to be fair, is quite funny .

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,09:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,09:46)
Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,09:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:02   

maybe ioseb-whatsis is GoP too

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:08   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2039
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,10:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:08)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

I've always liked that approach.

"The Beagle went down with all hands, two days out of port. No survivors. Origins was never published. There's no scientific theory of speciation. Your go, but remember: it has to explain all the data, be testable and repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and make verifiable predictions, backed by positive evidence."

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,11:39   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,08:51)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,05:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

"Macro-evolution" really boils down the emergence of new species from old ones.

The answer is "YES."

I have compiled a list of dozens of speciation events that is handy when creationists claim that there are none.

"Emergence of new species."

Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,11:59   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position.  That is all.  Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that."  Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is.  Ask what their research program is.  Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]