Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    According to standard Darwinian evolutionary theory that's true. The selection and the generation of variation are separate steps.
    Mutation, symbiosis, viral infection, sexual recombination, and so forth, provide the variation. Selection acts on that variation.
    There is no "one single philosophy" involved.
    Nobody "started with" any scientific theory, and Darwinian theory is especially difficult to grasp. Most people are adults before they have any real handle on Darwinian evolutionary theory. You, for example, don't understand it (that's why you have been ignoring the evidence presented to you).
    You can't post a single accurate statement about any of the faiths or philosophies behind Darwinian evolutionary theory. You have no coherent or consistent idea of what "Naturalism" means, for example.
    Inbreeding is not evolution - specifically, it is the name for one common cause of failure to produce necessary variation (implying a failure to evolve in Darwinian fashion).

    As far as I know, nobody has nailed down "the" cause - or even the most important cause - of the extinction of the Woolly Mammoth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth. They did not suffer from inbreeding, for example, until their populations had somehow been reduced to a remnant. And most researchers seem to think that the explanation of the Woolly Mammoth's extinction probably should shed light on the near-simultaneous extinction of the other mammoth species extant at the time - don't you?

    Meanwhile, the many examples of beings that did not go extinct for many millions of years are proof that extinction via corruption of the genetic code is not inevitable. That's a central problem with your bogus "genetic corruption" argument - even one counterexample can blow it up, and there are millions.
    Define "environments".
    Define "stable". Include the concepts of "winter" and "forest fire" and "drought" and "flood" and "invasive, extinct, plague, migration, or newly evolved species" within the scope of your definitions.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Micro shows that the Genetic Code is generally stable, and it even provides the understanding of cellular processes which make that possible.

    As you said, there are thousands of examples of Genetic stability to be found in the fossil record. So Species have actually remained unchanged for all of recorded history, millions of years.

    Macro is certainly not happening there.

    So, the Genetic Code in Species is generally Stable.
    And we have many, many examples of Species where Macro never occurred at all.

    But even so...

    Micro proves that random Mutations can and do occur within a Species. It cannot prove anything like, one Body Plan can turn into another Body Plan. That is only unwarranted extrapolation and assumption.

    So what direction do those random Mutations usually take? Do they increase functionality or decrease the functionality of the Creature?

    Micro shows us that answer as well.

    Mutations are Harmful more often, by far, than they are Beneficial.

    So now we have the direction, and it does not provide evidence for Macro. Just the opposite!

    The direction of Micro is from more functional to less functional over time.

    From good Genetic Code to Corruption.

    And the evidence from extinction points in exactly that same direction.

    It is all telling the same story.

    Genetic Code can remain Stable, for millions of years.

    And Genetic Code can also be corrupted over millions of years, and result in extinction.

    Micro provides evidence for both.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nonsense. Having the original organism still around says nothing about the plethora of different organisms that may or may not have evolved from it. Macro might have been having a wild heyday - or several; the way to investigate that would be careful research into taxonomic relationships.

    And that is what analysis of taxonomic relationships indicates has happened, in many cases.

    It's quite common to have a species around that matches the expectations of Darwinian theory for a root or original immigrant into a new region, for example (illustration: there are native fruit flies in Hawaii that appear to be the - or much like the - original root species from which the great variety of such insects in Hawaii evolved
    http://photos.hawaiianinsects.com/index.php?/category/2https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12251219_On_the_Relationship_between_the_Scaptomyza_and_the_Hawaiian_Drosophila. )
    It proves the possibility - once you have variation all that is necessary is selection, and we observe selection.
    If you have continual variation and selection, you have Darwinian evolution - from then on it's just a matter of time.
    Doesn't matter. Selection sorts them out.
    The direction of selected Micro is from less "functional" to more "functional" (where by "functional" we mean "successfully reproductive") over time. Darwinian evolution explicitly incorporates selection.
    Yes.
    That contradicts your claim that genetic codes necessarily accumulate harmful changes and deteriorate to extinction.
    (All genetic codes suffer mutations of various kinds, btw. Is that the bit of information you lacked?)
    Not one. Every species we know of exhibits genetic evidence of having evolved from a quite different organism.
    If you doubt that, try naming an exception.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Really?

    How many transitional, missing links, have been documented in the fossil record?

    I mean, after all of the National Geographic frauds are thrown out?

    Artist’s Conceptual Drawings based on assumed history are only theoretical. They have never been proven. They are created by artists because real evidence for them does not exist.

    Not even one, which could prove Macro, has been documented with evidence.

    We don’t even have the DNA from the creatures found in the fossil record to enable us to compare them with the DNA of today.

    It is only guesswork.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2020
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Did someone tell you National Geographic are frauds?
     
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. They have been naturalistic because that is the best explanation for the phenomena.

    Every single time they have looked for something that cannot be explained by nature, they have failed to find it.

    And every time we've found a new seemingly inexplicable phenomenon, we've found either the explanation or several possible explanations. There has never been an 'impossible' result requiring divine intervention. Never.
    Nope. It is not arrogant to use scientific truth to view the world - even if you don't understand it. That is your failing, not ours.
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Well, if you're well versed in this blog you can explain it to me.

    Still, I don't know if you want Noah's Ark to be true more than evolution to be wrong.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Let's compare the National Geographic frauds to the frauds of the Catholic Church, shall we?

    How much did an indulgence for a murder cost, again? "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."
     
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Oh, Amen, I agree with you completely!!!
    Thanks so much for bringing that up.

    Frauds are Frauds no matter who perpetrates them.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I agree. Best to not follow fraudulent religions IMO.
     
  15. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I would say that the reality of Noah’s Flood breaks many theories about our past into pieces. And would require rethinking quite a bit of our assumptions about our past.

    I believe that it would also break the Theory of Evolution apart at the seams.

    It also clearly makes the faith of Naturalism false.

    And that is the primary reason all evidence for it is rejected.
     
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I agree with that as well!
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Not at all. We know there have been many floods throughout the ages, including one that matches the time and location of the "Noah flood." We can even see where the towns used to be along the shore. That all fits in to what we know about the evolution of the planet.
    Again, not at all. The Lake Victoria flood, for example, is held up as a great example of a type of evolution called adaptive radiation.
     
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    If the story of Noah's Ark wasn't in the Bible, would you think you would ever have a discourse like this about evolution?
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Changing the subject again.
    Ok: Thousands.
    Tens of thousands.
    Why do you ask? What difference does the completeness of the fossil record make?
    So you agree that the DNA evidence is not guesswork.
    Baby steps.
    We do have DNA from many "creatures" (the fundies always overlook plants and fungi and the like) found in the fossil record - we even have living examples of some of them.

    DNA resemblances came up in the early pages of this thread, as a quick and easy answer to your request for overwhelming evidence of "macro" evolution - you ignored that post: perhaps you have more interest now?
     
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Please provide a few examples of transitional fossils. Can you come up with three, that have DNA evidence, to confirm them?

    And please, if you don’t mind, look up how many years DNA can survive intact after a plant or animal dies?

    How about this quote?

    ““We might be able to break the record for the oldest authentic DNA sequence, which currently stands at about half a million years,” says Ho.“

    https://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

    So apparently, we have only been able to study DNA up to 500,000 years old, and that is extremely rare.

    Which means we have zero DNA data from all of the millions of creatures that died and/or went extinct for millions of years before that.

    Which means there is a great deal of guesswork going on, in general in this field, without any hard DNA data at all.

    Does that make sense?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes, I think I would.

    Noah’s Ark is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Are you serious?

    Also, I'm drunk and high.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Are they not all still fruit flies?

    Those native “root species” fruit flies could also be just the reverse, a Genetic Corruption.

    The theory forces only one interpretation on the data. All data is organized to fit it. And it does not allow for anything else.

    If anyone interpreted the data in any way that could go against the Theory of Evolution they would loose their Careers. And they all know it!

    It is terribly sad and pathetic!
     

Share This Page