Denial of Evolution VI.

That question makes no sense. The "clear no other than the record?" Perhaps reprhase it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have completely misinterpreted what the "clear no" was in regards to. So has pretty much everyone who has ever put that quote on a creationist website. The standard evolutionist response is to reestablish the context simply by quoting other portions of the article. That's all that needs to be done. Most recently, it's been done by James R and Aqueous Id on page 26. Previous to that it's been done by an array of contributors across several threads in the last 2+ years.

Your problem, of course, is two-fold. First, you've either never read the article in its entirety, or you've failed to understand its content (hence your failure to correctly contextualize certain portions of it). Second, you refuse to listen to anyone who does understand it.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was a single evolutionary biologist at the Chicago conference who was disputing that gradualism is a key feature of evolutionary development. In fact both Francis Ayala and Stephen Gould, who clearly form the cornerstone of your efforts to extinguish the idea that gradualism was a concept championed by evolutionists of the day, are both on record (through statements as well as work they were actually doing at the time) as saying the opposite, and have been ever since.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shocking stuff. Read the full article here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also known as Intelligent Grappling:

 

No, there is evidence of Christianity. For example, archaeologists (who were atheist, by the way) have found ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea.

 

The beat goes on...

Chariot Wheels in the Red Sea Hoax Persists
June 15, 2012 By James F. McGrath 28 Comments

Wing Nut Daily recently featured a brand new article about a very old hoax, centered on the claim that chariot wheels have been found in the Red Sea.

That anyone could see the photos of relatively new and shiny metal wheels and not be skeptical astonishes me. That anyone could simply take the word of a sensationalist news source that these objects are solid gold (and hence not covered by coral) and that no one has found and removed them suggests that some people have yet to learn the difference between faith and gullibility.

One looks like it might be a ferry steering wheel, which makes me think this has less to say about the historical accuracy of the Exodus account, and more to say about whether it is a good idea to take a ferry trip on the Red Sea.

The hoax is at least as old as the charlatan Ron Wyatt. There are a wide array of sites, some explicitly by Christians, focused on exposing the lies and deceptions perpetrated by this individual.

That others have come along to try to profit from similar claims is unsurprising. That frauds can be exposed and have no effect on people’s willingness to believe is, however, disturbing.​

That's your "evidence of Christianity"?

 

I probably spent about an hour or so perusing the various resources related to the subject, and had quite a good time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I prefer hanging out here to get my kicks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[Double post.]

 

okay, no problem.
these scientists concluded that the process of microevolution can't be extrapolated to macroevolution.
how did they conclude that?

definition of macroevolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_04

 

leopold, there is an entire website dedicated to answering questions of this sort. Do us all a favor and read it. Most of your questions regarding Gould, et al. will be answered. Here's a link to take you specifically to the page on micro v macro evolution.

An excerpt from the pages introduction:

Macroevolution
Its Definition, Philosophy and History
by John Wilkins
Version 2.1.3
Copyright © 1997-2006
[Last Update: September 23, 2006]

To be read in conjunction with Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ.

This FAQ covers the following topics:

• What macroevolution and microevolution mean
• How the terms are used and how they came to be coined
• Confusions in the scientific literature about the terms
• A philosophical discussion of whether macroevolution is reducible to microevolution, or if it stands as a separate process in evolution
• Whether or not there are barriers that prevent microevolution, which creationists accept, from becoming macroevolution, which they reject
• Whether or not the idea of macroevolution can be falsified, and whether specific accounts of macroevolution can be falsified.

​

 

There is clear evidence of christianity - you for instance. However, there is no evidence of any supernatural aspects of christianity. That is not important or even relevent to this discussion. There is no evidence of creation as defined by the fundementalist in the christian religion.

As for the chariot wheels in the red sea found by the gang of athiest archeologist [that really cracks me up], even if it were true how could that be evidence of christianity? Are you refering to when Chaleston Heston led the christians out of Egypt and formed the first chapter of the NRA?

 

I notice nobody address evolution in water and natural selection of molecular form/function at the nano-scale. I am treating DNA as an animal in a water environment with certain characteristics giving it selection advantage, such as hydrogen bonding capacity and the ability to minimize surface area by folding and packing. I am applying evolution at the nano-scale based on the unique properties of water that can't be substituted with any other solvent. This is sub-micro evolution, will set the trends for micro and macro evolution, since all life at any level, is still very much dependent on water. Animals still have to deal with the water constraint.

For example, water forms icosahedral (H2O)280 water clusters. These look like hydrogen bonded water cages, which have the ability to expand and contract by altering between the two close energy states of hydrogen bonding (van der Waals or covalent). Water expands when it freezes into the covalent state and contracts when it melts into move van der Waals. Liquid water also does this expand and contract trick.

The importance of the water cluster is this clustering defined the steady state size of protein domains; natural selection. For proteins to alter configurations within water, to accomplish catalytic functions, it has to displace water which is tightly bonded to both the enzyme, essentially placing the enzyme is a cage. The water clusters, working in wave sequences, can open and close aqueous space with this naturally selected protein domains size, a perfect fit. This allows an entire enzyme train to push and pull or change the enzyme configuration in coordination to the water pushing and pulling the train via waves. If you have wave crest then trough, the enzyme in the crest is closed with the enzyme in the trough is open and as the moving wave changes crest and through, the enzymes reverse in perfect sequence. We could have predicted the size of protein domains simply by looking at the icosahedral (H2O)280 water clusters. Water has limitations life had to obey.

I mentioned this before. This has to do with the unique folding of proteins which is observed, instead of the average folding that had been predicted by statistical mechanics. Statistics assumed sufficient thermal energy for vibrations in the light of enzymes very weakly help together based on experiments. Observations, with better technology showed water inducing order by eliminating randomness.

If you look at life, in terms of it many structures, aside from the chemical reactions on these structure, life builds order. In terms of entropy, the structures of life build in the direction of lowering entropy. This is in the opposite direction one expects of entropy. Because entropy lowers at the level of the structures, entropy needs to increase; rapid chemical reactions. By making an enzyme fold into a unique fold, the structural entropy is lower, compared to an enzyme scenario with an average fold. The water create entropy potential in the enzyme, making it a better inducer of entropy change via reactions; natural selection at the nano-scale.

 

Creation, to be consistent with science, has to do with the evolutionary split into modern humans. Modern humans do not follow the path of natural selection since civilization add unnatural things to the earth. Strip mining comes from humans and if this is natural why do we complain about it? We complain because this create unnatural stresses. There is no straight line from apes to humans simple because apes do not have to evolve within the unnatural environment created by humans. The environments select differently.

We can watch chickens eat pebbles to help them digest their food. This is natural for chickens. But just because we can use willpower to copy this chicken behavior, does not make eating pebbles natural to humans. Humans could eat pebbles, as long as we have doctors and dentists and medicines creating smoke and mirrors, so we can sales pitch this as natural for humans. If you needed all this propping up and was living in nature, you would not be selected by nature, since nature prefers inherent capacity; no external props.

The theory of evolution is attributed to Darwin in 1859. But evolution was occurring way before he verbalized it. Why does he get credit for something that happened before he was around? He was the first to explain this change. As far as humans are concerned this perception of life became real in 1859, even though it was there a billion years ago. Creation is when humans become self aware of unnatural/divine and the line of evolution forms a branch. They did this 6000 years ago instead of 1859. I marvel at how advanced they were since they saw what even today appears to be beyond the ability of most scientists.

 

Why do we complain about hurricanes, earthquakes and floods? Maybe because they have unpleasant consequences?

 

You're babbling. That's why people don't respond to you very often. Even when you sound like you're making sense (which isn't now), you're suspect due to all the babbling you've done before.

I could continue just ignoring you of course, but if people don't point out to you just how often you go off the rails, how will you know?

 

They are over a dozen new species - hence it can't correctly be characterized as microevolution.

Nothing I've read fits that characterization. First there was a South American finch, and suddenly (we can estimate the interval because we know the approx age of the coral towers the islands stand on) - suddenly there were over a dozen new species of finch. Granted - they are not a new order or class, but that's not the correct definition of macroevolution either. So we have a different issue than it purports to be - an issue of the scientific meaning of certain words.

Yes, but I presume you would agree that Gould and Ayala were two of the three most authoritative experts in the field - with Dawkins being the third (I wonder what he was doing then).

I disagree with the way this is stated. It should be expanded to include the fact that they were talking about a particular issue in Gould's theory, and without qualifying the details, this remark would not convey the truth of the matter.

That omits the caveats that still are being buried in this thread.

Part of the disconnect here is that we are talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as amended, which only addresses speciation and nothing more. To my knowledge no scientist has ever proposed a theory of divergence of classes or orders -- or whatever you are looking for . . . which is still not clear to me because you have not said what level of taxonomy you believe is necessary to acknowledge that Darwin was correct.

My fingertips may rot but my tongue is fine. My reason for harping on creationism is that it's invalid. It's not science, and it doesn't care about the truth. All it wants to do is to replace the truth of nature with fiction. Worse, it has the zeal and propaganda of quasi-mentally ill doctrinaires who have the attention of millions of vulnerable and naive minds, to perpetuate errors like some posted here.

But I disagree that rejecting that vile brand of fallacy changes nothing. The fact is, the Theory of Evolution accounts for the nascence of divergent groups which no longer interbreed, from a common breeding pair (or pairs). This critical fact has somehow been buried in this thread. Creationism has to be wrung out of this discussion so we can re-center the focus to this critical fact. Creationists just don't want to talk biology. That's why I would have to say the opposite is true: creationists can foam at the mouth til the cows come home, but it changes nothing about the truth, clarity and accuracy of the theory of the origin of species - not classes, not orders, not even genera. But of course the rabid creationists don't even know what that means, do they? That's why we have to be careful to distinguish the meaning of words here. We have been talking apples and oranges for quite a while now. if anything, we ought to at least agree on definitions. That seems to elude this thread for some reason.

 

A hoax incorrectly cast as such, when the claim should read "evidence of Judaism", which isn't even correct since no one doubts that the religions exist. Severe breakdown in logic, characteristic of the antagonists of science. They don't get it because they just don't get it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah we also do not explicitly stating we are not talking about evolution on the sun or in the near vacuum of space - it is sort of obvious - don't you think?