• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

dasmiller said:
Gradual . . . . . . . . . Gradual
Accumulation . . . . Accumulation
of Numeric . . . . . . . of
Changes . . . . . . . . numbers
--------------------------------------
1234567890 . . . . 1234567890
1134567800 . . . . 112345678900
1034567800 . . . . 110345678900
1034577800 . . . . 1103456778900
1044488800 . . . . 1103445678788900
0044488800 . . . . 01103445678788900
Click to expand...

That's waaaaay over randman's head.
 
I'm going to make a suggestion that we concentrate on the difference between

Accumulation of genetic changes
&
Accumulation of genes

It's a simple point that Randman refuses to acknowledge. And as he taught us back near the beginning o the thread, we can't proceed until what's clearly true is acknowledged ;)

Please fellow posters, let's not allow anymore leaping around.
 
randman said:
No, I presented a peer-reviewed paper by working evolutionist scientist that stated the massive loss of genes was "surprising", and that stated it was "particularly surprising" to see the genetic complexity with genetic sequences corresponding to vertebrate nerve function, and how these things turn over common ideas on evolution. He comments in another link that one of those common mistaken ideas is the idea of genetic complexity going hand in hand with morphological complexity.

As far as you guys, I think you are too ignorant to be surprised as you'd have to actually understand evo theory in the first place.
Click to expand...

Rand, I'm sure if the authors of this peer reviewed paper saw how you've twisted their writings to suit this petulant argument of semantics I'm sure they'd be the first to put you in your place proper.
 
Let's see again the opinion of one of it's authors.

However, Professor David Miller says its genetic complexity challenges the notion that life started out simple then evolved to become more sophisticated.

"There's this intrinsic tendency to think about a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity in higher animals and what the coral genomes tell us is that that's completely wrong and that most genes were invented very early in animal evolution," he said.
Click to expand...

What does he say is "completely wrong"?

This....

There's this intrinsic tendency to think about a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity in higher animals
Click to expand...

Same thing I have said about the paper though I do go further in discussing the implications of what he says. He says:

"there is this intrinsic tendency"

concerning "a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity"

Please note he says his findings show "a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes have allowed an increased morphological complexity" is "wrong."
 
For the peanut gallery, this is slander. And not just a vague "Those people are frauds", but slander against members of this forum engaged in research into evolution. If there are SPECIFIC accusations that can be backed up, let's hear them; otherwise, this is pretty much the height of incivility in scientific debate. And as it's a flat-out lie that the guy randman is "quoting" said it, the slanderer is randman.
Click to expand...

Uh huh? The slander is in denying what he clearly states. You are free to disagree with Grasse, but pretending he has not charged some evos with deceit, some unconsciously and others knowingly, when he clearly has is not acceptable. I merely repeated what his opinion was to show he has indeed rejected NeoDarwinism very strongly as a "myth."

Do I need to repost it for you?

Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.
Click to expand...

First, he's talking about the idea of microevolution adding up to macroevolution which is the "myth". If you do not believe me, I can show you other quotes. And please don't throw out some silly charge of "quote-mining." What is quote mining is to claim he accepts NeoDarwinism (evolution to you guys), just because he says he accepts "evolution" in the sense of common descent. I am presenting what he actually thinks.

He thinks the typical NeoDarwinian narrative is a "myth", poopycock, not factually supported. He is so adamant about this, he accuses some evolutionists of deliberate, knowing "deceit."
 
Last edited:
randman said:
Same thing I have said about the paper though I do go further in discussing the implications of what he says. He says:

"there is this intrinsic tendency"

concerning "a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity"

Please note he says his findings show "a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes have allowed an increased morphological complexity" is "wrong."
Click to expand...
Yeah. So? That "intrinsic tendency" is not part of evolutionary theory. As has been pointed out to you several dozen times already.

He's saying that it's a mistake, and not part of evolutionary theory. We've been saying exactly that for the entire thread. The only person who says it is, is you.
 
Behe is a died-in-the-wool Creationist who only nominally accepts common decent when he's been shown to have no other options.
Click to expand...

In his own words:

The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species.
Click to expand...

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm

I have never read anything or anyone showing that Behe does not accept common descent. Nothing wrong with rejecting that imo, but he does not. Nor does Pierre Grasse or many other scientists that still reject NeoDarwinism.
 
randman said:
Prove it, or rather prove it wasn't before 2003 or when similar discoveries were made.
Click to expand...

We need to prove that laypersons' misunderstandings of theories aren't the way the theories are actually understood by scientists?

Isn't that why this thread itself is so long?
 
For those wanting to learn, here is a paper which states biologists are beginning to question some basic tenets of NeoDarwinism and, tellingly, entertain some ideas such as saltationism that Davison and others more prominent had talked about years before.

4. Saltational changes leading to evolution beyond the species level are common, and the mechanisms underlying them are beginning to be understood. Macroevolution may be the result of specific, stress-induced mechanisms that lead to a re-patterning of the genome - to systemic mutations.

5. The Tree Of Life pattern of divergence, which was supposed to be universal, fails to explain all the sources of similarities and differences between taxa. Sharing whole genomes (through hybridization, symbiosis and parasitism) and partial exchange of genomes (through various types of horizontal gene transfer) lead to web-like patterns of relations. These web-like patterns are particularly evident in some taxa (e.g. plants, bacteria) and for some periods of evolution (e.g. the initial stages following genome sharing or exchange).
Click to expand...

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-47572008000300001&script=sci_arttext

Please not the use of the term "macroevolution" which has been and is used by evolutionist scientists contrary to the popular myth promoted by evo defenders that it's just a product of creationism.
 
randman

How do points 4 & 5 above in any way support your ideas?

AFAICT, point 4 basically says "evolution can happen quickly for various reasons" and point 5 says "the tree of life doesnt quite work because of horizontal gene transfer".

Both of these points are evident to anyone with an interest in evolution, even a layman such as myself.

So, again, how does support your ideas?
 
I am a lurker, randman can you provide some clarification on your theory. Everything you have provided seems to merely suggest that evolution is wrong. Correct? What exactly is your alternative theory? Intelligent Design has been hinted at by other posters but you have not specifically said this is the theory you believe.
 
ehcks said:
We need to prove that laypersons' misunderstandings of theories aren't the way the theories are actually understood by scientists?

Isn't that why this thread itself is so long?
Click to expand...

More or less but it's the game of semantics and infinite goalpost moving on the part of Rand. Cherrypicking lines of a paper and not understanding the paper itself is what we've seen here. This has been pointed out numerous times.

If you don't care to understand why you're wrong then it's a lot of time wasted.
 
devnull said:
randman

How do points 4 & 5 above in any way support your ideas?

AFAICT, point 4 basically says "evolution can happen quickly for various reasons" and point 5 says "the tree of life doesnt quite work because of horizontal gene transfer".

Both of these points are evident to anyone with an interest in evolution, even a layman such as myself.

So, again, how does support your ideas?
Click to expand...

Well, you would have to read the 2 papers by Davison I cited along with my comments. If you do that, you could see the idea of saltation is a concept front loaders and others that reject the Modern Synthesis aka NeoDarwinism (at least how I am using) and how there is renewed interest in it. Same with the whole list challening Neodarwinian orthodoxy. Point 4 discusses the web-like patterns of relations but really you should read the whole paper and then maybe look up other papers on the various topics. These are areas of research suggested by front loaders, IDers and others long before mainstream evos would take them up and back when evos mocked these concepts and stood by strict NeoDarwinian orthodoxy.
 
AdmiralBuckles said:
I am a lurker, randman can you provide some clarification on your theory. Everything you have provided seems to merely suggest that evolution is wrong. Correct? What exactly is your alternative theory? Intelligent Design has been hinted at by other posters but you have not specifically said this is the theory you believe.
Click to expand...

First, it depends on how you define "evolution." The stuff I am writing here primarily addresses problems with Neodarwinism as a means of organic evolution of higher taxa. In other words, I haven't really challenged common descent on this thread though that's not because I necessarily accept it. I think evolutionist science needs to be fact-based and don't see that with NeoDarwinism and believe evolutionist thinking needs to move away from that and has begun to a little.

I posted some about front loaders because people here seemed unware they even existed, much less of a fairly long history of the concept or related concepts, including some very prominent scientists.

On Intelligent Design, I actually believe a thinking person would even call theistic evolution ID because evolution would have to proceed based on the properties of chemistry dictating it, and so is programmed and directed in some sense. Of course, many evos probably think the universe created itself, but that's just hogwash.

I am in the ID camp. I definitely believe God created the universe, life and mankind. Exactly how that happened, I am less positive about though I have some specific ideas I am comfortable advocating. But trying to lay out full, comprehensive model?

I don't think the data supports the current discussed models completely yet, but I could be wrong. I am more interested in looking at the data and seeing what it does and does not say and believe that's the best approach to the topic.

I think a lot of evos basically approach the subject as a matter of faith and doctrine and so have difficulty assessing data and ideas they are not sure fits into their worldview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom