Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

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

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,425
    Why would anyone want to do that? If he believes it was healed by God, or Lucifer, or Mickey Mouse - and is happy with that belief - good for him.

    (Of course, if he someday has a heart attack, I hope you convince him to go to the hospital instead of just waiting for God to fix it.)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    If you could reason with a person who believes God healed them, they wouldn't believe God healed them.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,777
    What makes it an extraordinary claim?

    You're right though. There is overwhelming evidence for macro-evolution.

    I agree with you on this point. So does every evolutionary biologist.

    No. The idea of "dilution" of the genetic code is nonsensical.

    Probably you have in mind the (false) Creationist idea that there's some kind of "perfect" or "optimal" genome. Probably you think that human beings possess it, or something.

    Not common sense. You need to know something about the process to reach that conclusion.

    No. Harmful mutations tend to kill individuals, not the species. It's the beneficial mutations that kill the species, eventually (or, rather, evolve it into something different).

    No. The harmful mutations don't accumulate. A harmful mutation in one individual tends not to get passed on to offspring, especially if it kills its host. You see why, don't you?

    You obviously haven't thought it through properly, since you're making so many mistakes.

    If you have questions, maybe I can help you. Currently, you have a very poor understanding of the topic you're trying to make pronouncements about. Maybe you should stick to Jesus, or magic rocks that spout water, or something?

    Haven't you looked yet?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,777
    Err... maybe there was a flood in China?

    Are you falling for the logical fallacy that a minority dogma-based opinion is somehow superior to careful scientific research?

    Well, some here reject the theory of evolution, too, so go figure. There are always reactionaries with ulterior motives. Apart from that, we have the uneducated, and those who don't want an education.

    Not open to change, apart from on anything other than the subject of evolution, eh?

    Yes, I see your point. Clearly these scientists are closed-minded fools.

    You're an expert on the Scientific Peer Review System as well, are you?

    Is it all in good shape except when it comes to evolution, then? Those evil evolutionists!

    Please list 10 frauds in evolutionary biology. It should be no problem for you to document so few.

    But let's assume that you were somehow to show that the theory of evolution is a fraud. What would that do to advance your Creationist argument? Nothing, as far as I can tell. What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2020
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,777
    1. Statement of personal belief.
    2. Statement of personal belief.
    3. Statement of personal belief.
    4. Statement of personal belief, coupled with an unevidenced assertion.
    5. False assertion, without even at attempt at a justification.
    6. Failed troll bait attempt.

    1. False assertion.
    2. True statement. The "denial" is, of course, perfectly justified by the overwhelming evidence of the non-reality of Noah's Flood.
    3. Personal opinion.
    4. Personal opinion.

    Got anything substantive, or is this the level you're now determined to operate at?
     
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Call me crazy...
    You know you want to...

    Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.

    Microevolution within the Genetic Code of a Species has been proven.

    Where the vast majority of the pre-existing Information in the Genetic Code remains stable and is totally unchanged. Showing only minor changes in an otherwise totally unchanged Genetic Code. And also showing that harmful changes outnumber beneficial changes by far.

    All of that is proven with “overwhelming” evidence!


    Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.

    Macroevolution has never been proven or observed, but instead is only assumed.

    Where New Functional Information is added to pre-existing Genetic Code. Combinations of pre-existing Code do not show that New Code can be created, only that Already Existing Code can be combined. No known chemical process can create New Functional Information within Genetic Code.

    Microevolution proves that the majority of the Genetic Code within a Species is stable.

    Thus, Microevolution disproves Macroevolution.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2020
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,777
    How are you measuring the information content and what statistics are you using?

    But minor changes accumulate over generations, adding up to major changes. How could they not?

    The harmful changes kill off individuals. The beneficial ones increase reproductive success and accumulate and are passed on to offspring. In other words, from a species perspective, the harms are constantly being discarded, while the goods accumulate progressively, leading over time to major changes from the "original" group.

    This is evolution 101.

    Suppose you have one beneficial genetic change per generation, which is passed on to offspring. In 100 generations, you have accumulated 100 beneficial changes. After 10000 generations, you have accumulated 10000 beneficial changes. At what stage do those cumulative changes become "statistically significant", according to you?

    How could it not follow from the proven "microevolution" you accept occurs?

    What does "functional information" mean? How are you identifying what is "functional" and "non-functional"?

    No. Take my example above. After 1 generation, there's one change accumulated. After 10000 generations, there are 10000 cumulative changes. Suppose the entire genome in this case is 20000 genes long. You might argue that the genome was "stable" after 1 generation, or 10, or even 1000, but are you still going to call it "stable" after 10000 changes (half the genes) have accumulated? Notice that, generation to generation, there's only ever ONE change, in this scenario. Look over a span of 5 or 1o consecutive generations and it's always going to look stable. It's only when you take the long view that you're going to start perceiving major changes.

    What is your measure of "stability"?

    Quite the opposite.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Totally agree...In fact while its logical microevolution adds up to macroevolution, I would also throw in Abiogenesis as this paper hypotheisies....
    file:///C:/Users/BARRY/Downloads/Pross2011_Article_TowardAGeneralTheoryOfEvolutio.pdf

    Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter:

    Abstract

    Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life’s unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,425
    What does "functional information" mean? Phenotype? Genetic information?

    The vast majority of genetic information is noncoding and does indeed change slowly with time, due to mutation. It is one of the "molecular clocks" that allow us to determine how closely we are related to (for example) bonobos.

    Coding DNA changes at exactly the same rate. However there are three types of changes:
    1) Changes that have no discernible effect. (99% of the changes) These are a second type of "molecular clock" that is useful for tracking evolutionary changes.
    2) Changes that are damaging. (.9% of the changes) These cause the organism to die, or to have trouble - basically not reproduce. While these happen at the same rate as any other changes, they end that genetic line - so the change goes away; it leaves the gene pool.
    3) Changes that are beneficial. (.1% of the changes) These changes are retained because they improve the reproductive fitness of the organism.

    See above.
    Correct!

    Ten million years of microevolution = macroevolution

    Erosion is a slow process. You could live your whole life and see only microerosion, a nearby stream changing course by a few feet perhaps.

    But give it ten million years and you get macroerosion (the Grand Canyon.)

    Evolution is just as slow. One human lifetime = "microevolution" in your terminology. Ten million years = "macroevolution."
    Correct! It's like letters in the English language. If you want to write a book you cannot create new letters. That does NOT mean you cannot write a new book with those old letters. You can take already existing letters, recombine them and create an entirely new book. It might be terrible, it might be a #1 bestseller.
    See above. Mutations create new functional information by exchanging base pairs and codons (the "letters" and "words" of genetics.)
    Nope. It's slowly changing all the time.
    Again, no. See above,
     
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    You guys keep presenting assumptions, and unwarranted extrapolations, as if you really believe that they actually prove Macroevolution. When they clearly don’t.

    You only have a belief system.

    Sorry, but I feel like you guys are kind of brainwashing each other.

    Micro proves Stability of the Genetic Code. It is a plain and obvious thing.

    Macro has never been observed.
    Macro has never been proven.

    If this is incorrect, simply prove it.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,425
    We have science to guide us. You have religion.

    Nuff said.
    Given that our genetic code is always changing, that's provably false (in the world of reality.)
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,777
    SetiAlpha6:

    Try being honest for a change.

    You can't keep ignoring all the substantive explanations that are put to you, pretending you weren't told and then repeating the same false claims.

    It seems pointless to keep trying to interact with you. All you want to do is preach.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    You have been ignoring all the evidence provided to you so far, about anything, by anyone (at least three posters in this thread alone). You ask for evidence, when provided you change the subject - and then ask for more evidence about the the new subject. This kind of tactic is so commonly employed by creationists on science forums its various subtypes have acquired names - the "Gish Gallop" is the most famous.

    There's a lot of scientific evidence for large floods that match up well with the Biblical stories - and all the other stories of big floods (almost every culture has one - humans have been living near rivers and beaches for a very, very, long time).
    Will you pay attention to it this time, deal with billvon's links say - or will you just change the subject again?
    For example - - - ?
    Meanwhile, you have posted this:
    I replied with this:
    And then you posted this:
    You first claimed that "Evolutionary Biology", not "Naturalism", corrupted geology. When asked for an example, you changed the subject.
    The same basic question can be asked of your new claim: What denial of what reality of geology do you think has been "force fed" by "Naturalism"?

    That makes at least three unusual and extraordinary claims you have made here without argument or illustration or even an example - so you've been asked: How did the "field" of Evolutionary Biology corrupt Geology? How did "Naturalism" corrupt Geology? Of what aspect or item of "reality" did Naturalism "force feed" denial?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,848
    In science we have overwhelming evidence, not mathematical proof.
    In that sense already done, earlier, in response to one of your earlier demands, in a post you ignored: the one that mentioned rock hyraxes.

    Padding the load:
    The evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria has been observed many times - including in vitro, where it can be isolated and statistically analyzed without confounding factors.
    It meets every meaningful reading of your confused definition of "macroevolution" - this gem:
    The evolution of genetically based and heritable herbicide resistance in plants has been observed many times.
    The large scale correlation of genetic code with large scale taxonomic relationship, rather than with smaller scale phenotypic resemblances or other plastic characteristics, has been observed many times.
    Successful predictions of functional information discovery in a species's genetic code have been made on the basis of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

    All of these "prove" (provide strong and replicable evidence of) the existence of evolutionary change in genetic code meeting your definition of macroevolution.
     
  18. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I think you are starting with faith in a theory and then are deliberately arranging the data and interpreting the data to prop up that theory.

    Basically, because you “know” that it “has” to be true, anyway.

    Again, Micro proves...

    Stability of the Genetic Code.

    Harmful Mutations outnumber Beneficial Mutations.

    Harmful Mutations are passed on generation after generation, and can spread throughout and corrupt the Genetic Code of an entire Species. Apply the extrapolation math to this!

    Example: Extinction of the Woolly Mammoth.

    Harmful Mutations are so small and gradual and accumulate over such great time spans, that they cannot be selected out by Natural Selection. Because they do not have to either kill members of the Species, or interfere with the reproductive process of the Species to actually be “Harmful”. Genetic Code is corrupted gradually over time.

    Humans have “Harmful” mutations in them, right now, all over the world and they don’t automatically die before they reproduce. The idea that “Harmful” mutations always kill or harm reproduction, is non-sense, and fallacious. It is too simplistic, and idealistic!

    Environments are generally stable for thousands even millions of years.

    Natural Selection provides no chemical process which can add new information to Genetic Code. If so, what is that chemical process, at the molecular, or even cellular level. Reproduction systems within each Species deter, even the re-combining of pre-existing Code in new ways. The reproduction system itself, is even designed to Select new Code combinations out.

    Single Cell to Man, where did all of the Genetic Code come from to build You!

    “The 'Human Genome' is the genetic code - the entire list of three billion letters - required to create a human being. The instructions are encoded in DNA. The four letters in the DNA alphabet – A, C, G, T - carry the instructions to make all living organisms. The meaning of the code lies in the sequence of the letters.”

    http://www.thehumangenome.co.uk/THE_HUMAN_GENOME/Primer.html

    At some point Genetic Code did not even exist.

    Where did it come from?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2020
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Since your religious cult has removed any substance of reason, logic or rationale from your worldview, it is highly unlikely you would accept anything science has to offer that your cult has already deemed blasphemous. Your posts of repeated denials in light of this are a constant reminder of just how petty, ignorant and dangerous your cult is to the world and why it must be stamped out.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,425
    Nope. We started with actual data - the world around us - and worked backwards to a theory. The theory has changed with time; Lamarckism (non-sequence "earned" traits that parents can pass on) was once completely rejected. But we now know that some traits can be inherited; hologenomics and epigenetics have demonstrated that some non-sequence traits CAN be inherited.

    But nothing we have learned has come close to casting doubt on the core of evolution - heritable change through mutation, followed by natural selection.

    And again, all you have is religion and feelings. That's why you always lose.
    Then how do you explain the fact that the genetic code is not stable, and changes with time?
    Nope. Harmful mutations kill or cripple the organism. It does not reproduce. Therefore the mutation is lost. Simple.
    Then from a genetic sense they are not harmful. All evolution cares about is whether you reproduce.

    Let's say someone is born who is cruel and mean, but is a brilliant tactician and leader. He leads armies to conquer the world. He rapes thousands of women. From your perspective, he's "harmful." But from an evolutionary standpoint he is very, very successful.

    Or let's take another case. Let's say someone is born with sickle cell anemia. That's harmful, right? But it turns out that sickle cell anemia makes you immune to malaria. Even if you have only one of the genes - then you don't express sickle cell anemia but are still immune to malaria. In a malarial area that is a beneficial mutation.

    Or let's take a third case. Let's say someone is born who is so stupid that she can never, ever figure out birth control. She has no morals, but is beautiful and has a way of getting men to do her bidding. You might call that a harmful mutation. But from an evolutionary standpoint, she's a very successful mutation. She has lots of kids (due to her stupidity) and has men support her (due to her attractiveness and ability to manipulate them) so her offspring survive.

    Now, let's say that gene spreads through the populace and the populace becomes so stupid they can't grow food any more. Then that whole cohort dies out, and the remaining genomes (which do not code for stupidity) return.
    Yep. And during that time you see relatively stable populations. Then the environment changes drastically and suddenly (climate change, a flood) and there's a slew of new evolutionary changes as organisms evolve to fit the new niches.
    As Ice mentioned, we have observed bacteria create new information to resist antibiotics. That is hard proof that evolution does indeed add new information to the genetic code.
     
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    The Woolly Mammoth and countless other examples, demonstrate how Evolution corrupts Genetic Code over time, and eventually leads to Extinction.

    And that Bacteria you mentioned, is still Bacteria.

    It is Good evidence for Micro, not Macro, not at all!

    It is only reorganizing existing Code, not creating new Code. And even that is more often than not, harmful.

    Most Genetic change is harmful, not beneficial.

    Diabetes is harmful, does not have to affect reproduction at all, and is passed down from generation to generation to generation...

    It is a Corruption of the Genetic Code, but is still passed on down the line, over and over again.

    There are many, many, examples of this.

    Your model of Evolution is turned upside down only because of your blind faith in Naturalism.

    You cannot prove Naturalism!
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2020
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,425
    ?? Extinction is part of evolution. That's the "natural selection" part of the equation. The climate changed and they no longer had a niche - and other organisms evolved to exploit the new niches.
    Yes, it is. It is an example of evolution creating new genetic information to successfully fight off a threat (antibiotics.) Great example of evolution.
    Exactly. Someone who contracts diabetes at age 50 after having 10 kids is, from an evolutionary point of view, 100% successful.

    Again, evolution does not drive evolution towards a point that YOU think is superior. It drives phenotypes to a point where an organism is successful at reproducing. That's it. It doesn't care what happens to you when you are 50, once you have had your kids.
    Every single scientific discovery, ever, has proved the superiority of naturalism over religion as a way to explain the world around us.
     
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Every single Scientific Discovery Ever has been strictly limited to Naturalistic Explanations by the bias built into the system.

    Don’t you see the circular reasoning there?

    Nothing else whatsoever is allowed in the faith and philosophy of Naturalism.

    Starts with Naturalism Assumed, without proof.
    Requires and allows only Naturalistic Answers and Explanations. And then declares that Naturalism is true.

    Rubbish!

    So what else should we expect?

    It’s kind of arrogant to force all of mankind to view all of reality only through the lens of one single unproven philosophy.

    I’m sure you agree.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2020

Share This Page