Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The purpose of Ev is not to model genetic propagation in nature, but to demonstrate that information can evolve in a genome. For this purpose, the exact encoding of the information is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

For that purpose, yes, you're quite right.

Please note: Most of the detailed behavior of Ev that we have been discussing has nothing to do with Schneider's original intent. He did not claim to model the complete evolutionary landscape, and certainly not phyletic evolution.
Click to expand...
Ah. Sorry. I looked at some information about it and saw that it was hardly a comprehensive model, and did not support many claims made for it by third parties, but given your explanation it would appear that the model is adequate for its intended purpose, and the fault lies with the inappropriate claims and not the model.

The fact that Kleinman has decided to co-opt Ev as the be-all-end-all of evolutionary modeling is his problem, not Dr. Schneider's.
Click to expand...
Quite, and I apologize to Dr Schneider for any offense my remarks may have caused.
 
Last edited:
Hammy, define "macro-evolution" and we'll try to answer any questions you might have about it.

The working definition for "macro-evolution" appears to be "whatever scientists don't have direct evidence for... yet".

As Paul said, we've observed speciation, for any meaningful definition of speciation. We've seen new functions arise, some traceable to individual mutations. We haven't seen genes "evolve de novo", because that doesn't happen.

Is speciation not macro enough? Where do you draw the line?
 
Paul: Goalposts on wheels.

Which quite nicely describes the entire edifice you call "modern Theory", and which remains a just-so-story.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
The working definition for "macro-evolution" appears to be "whatever scientists don't have direct evidence for... yet".
Click to expand...
Outside the reality of the fossil record, you have zilch.

.... we've observed speciation, for any meaningful definition of speciation. ...
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's easy when "meaningful definition" is another moving goalpost; need another? no problem ... it's only words. (flap, flap, flap .. ;) )
 
hammegk said:
Outside the reality of the fossil record, you have zilch.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong.

We have observed new species evolve. Pick your definition of "species" - one that is scientifically valid, please - and we have observed a speciation event according to that definition.

Yeah, it's easy when "meaningful definition" is another moving goalpost; need another? no problem ... it's only words. (flap, flap, flap .. ;) )
Click to expand...
You seem confused.

There are a number of valid ways to determine whether two populations represent distinct species. For ALL of those distinctions, we have observed speciation.

We are not moving goalposts; we are covering all possible locations for the goalposts.

Now, Hammy, your turn: Define macro-evolution. You seem to attribute some meaning to the term; tell us what that is.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
How do you explain away the taxonomic classifications and DNA differences?
Click to expand...
Why, yes species exist. Fossils so demonstrate them as does what we see as we look at existing life. That is not the question.

This is.
PixyMisa said:
We have observed new species evolve. Pick your definition of "species" - one that is scientifically valid, please - and we have observed a speciation event according to that definition.
Click to expand...
What you have done is move the goalposts on wheels to define "speciation" and then pretend you've demonstrated how speciation occurs -- there are cats & dogs, species, and we all know basically what I mean by species.

A speciation event has not been demonstarted in labs, models, or nature. And please spare us a re-gurgitation of the pap that demonstrates -- in the lab and in nature -- the bacteria that remain bacteria, birds that remain birds, plants that remain the same plant, ring species that remain the same species. Remain, that is, until the appropriate and needed re-definition of species has been provided to cover each specific case. Nor do we need to review the fossils, which at least do demonstrate new species occuring.

It would not bother my worldview an iota if you actually found an event that demonstrates speciation (that the world would acclaim as proof of what some name macro-ev). What bothers me is the pretense you have done so, and that all who don't accept results to date as that proof are dunces.
 
Other than to ask if you call cats dogs, not really.

However, as my buddy drkitten likes to point out I'm not even scientifically semi-literate. Perhaps you can educate me. Once cladistics identifies the proposed common ancestor of those different species, can a genotype for that ancestor be proposed? If so, if not now, soon ... build one; let's see if it's a viable phenotype.
 
Last edited:
Hammegk said:
Outside the reality of the fossil record, you have zilch.
Click to expand...
You appear to have missed the evidence from genomic analysis. Now granted, that is a recent development, but do please pay attention.

A speciation event has not been demonstarted in labs, models, or nature. And please spare us a re-gurgitation of the pap that demonstrates -- in the lab and in nature -- the bacteria that remain bacteria, birds that remain birds, plants that remain the same plant, ring species that remain the same species.
Click to expand...
Wait, you want to see birds turn into something else? I thought we were talking about speciation events. Or did I misunderstand your convoluted sentence here?

Nor do we need to review the fossils, which at least do demonstrate new species occuring.
Click to expand...
If you trust that the fossil record shows speciation, then you should trust that genomic analysis shows speciation. Either they both show speciation, or god has rigged the evidence in both cases.*

Now, what was that definition of macroevolution, again?

~~ Paul

* Can you say "endogenous retroviruses"?
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

Since you, me and Paul basically cross posted while I edited, I'll repeat:

...
Perhaps you can educate me. Once cladistics identifies the proposed common ancestor of those different species (say, dogs & cats ... whatever), can a genotype for that ancestor be proposed? If so, if not now, soon ... build one; let's see if it's a viable phenotype.
Click to expand...
 
Hammegk said:
However, as my buddy drkitten likes to point out I'm not even scientifically semi-literate. Perhaps you can educate me. Once cladistics identifies the proposed common ancestor of those different species, can a genotype for that ancestor be proposed? If so, if not now, soon ... build one; let's see if it's a viable phenotype.
Click to expand...
In general, I'm not sure how you can work backward completely accurately, given that the mutations that led to the different species are more or less random. And how would you ever know about features of the common ancestor that have disappeared?

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/classification/cladistics.htm

~~ Paul
 
How many old DNA samples do we have? We know of some that are 30,000 years old and they fall in to the tree where we'd expect. How far back will the doubters insist on?
 
kleinman said:
There is no way to explain mathematically all the new genes required to evolve reptiles to birds.
Click to expand...
Oooh, you thought of a new lie!

Of course, you can't substantiate your halfwitted lie, 'cos it's a lie, but it does seem to be one you haven't told before.

Hey, look everyone, kleinman thought of a new lie!
 
hammegk said:
Other than to ask if you call cats dogs, not really.

However, as my buddy drkitten likes to point out I'm not even scientifically semi-literate. Perhaps you can educate me. Once cladistics identifies the proposed common ancestor of those different species, can a genotype for that ancestor be proposed?
Click to expand...
Of course not, you drivelling halfwit.

Before you beg us to educate you, try reading a basic textbook on the subject until you understand it.

If drkitten called you "not even scientifically semi-literate", that is putting it very mildly.
 
hammegk said:
Perhaps you can educate me. Once cladistics identifies the proposed common ancestor of those different species (say, dogs & cats ... whatever), can a genotype for that ancestor be proposed? If so, if not now, soon ... build one; let's see if it's a viable phenotype.
Click to expand...

Instead of constantly using the Socratic Method to get others to constantly answer a different question than the one actually asked, why don't you just provide a precise definition of what you would personally accept as a "speciation event," and then let's see if someone else here can provide the published evidence to satisfy your definition.

It just gets so damn boring to watch the constant circling between opponents. Once and a while, someone needs to step forward and take the risk of getting hit back.

Note: This is where you would ordinarily respond with, "OK, why don't you propose a definition for speciation," thereby avoiding having to do it yourself, so that if someone else later satisfies my definition, you can continue to deny the proof, because you never accepted my definition.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom