DB Roy wrote:The difference between science and religion is that if the bible had insisted that there was no global deluge and that any religion that said there was is false, the fundies here wouldn't be saying a word about any flood and would argue vociferously and endlessly with anyone who differed with them on that point.

By "the fundies here" I suppose you mean Starflant, D.B.?
Any arguments I presented here are science based as far as possible. I'm not qualified to pronounce on geology. I pointed to a few things that seem to be at odds with the uniformitarian interpretation.

What Rush Limbaugh says is completely irrelevant to whether evolution is a good or bad theory. The same applies to U.S. politics.
This strikes me as being an attempt to bracket all sceptics as political extremists or hillbilly "fundies."

If you can explain to me why it's reasonable and scientific for me to believe that 99 percent of all the living species that ever existed throughout time are extinct, please do.

What's strange is how we are increasingly being moved away from almost any kind of objective reality. Some Washington State university students were questioned on identity.

I don't think that they are idiots and their laughs betray this reality. In fact it's a good thing to be tolerant, but just how far can you take this before objective reality itself is in question?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfO1veFs6Ho

Flann 5 wrote: What Rush Limbaugh says is completely irrelevant to whether evolution is a good or bad theory. The same applies to U.S. politics.
This strikes me as being an attempt to bracket all sceptics as political extremists or hillbilly "fundies."

Rush Limbaugh shows how religion and politics can lead people to extreme anti-science and frankly unbelievably ignorant positions. What DB Roy said is true. Creationists only have a problem with science where it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible. Creationists start with the position of the Bible as absolutely true and so it doesn't matter much what scientists have to say about evolution or the the geologic timeline. A Creationist will always take the side of the Bible. This is obvious with you as well, Flann. You regularly cite Creationist literature to show how skeptical you are of evolution, but this isn't true skepticism because you START with a rigidly held belief that the Bible is literally true and all facts that contradict this belief are discarded. Your mind is already made up before you start. The idea that there are problems with macro-evolution is a myth invented by the Creationist community. It's simply not true. The real evidence that supports evolution—micro and macro—far surpasses the few gasps of "skepticism" from the Creationist community.

geo wrote:You regularly cite Creationist literature to show how skeptical you are of evolution, but this isn't true skepticism because you START with a rigidly held belief that the Bible is literally true and all facts that contradict this belief are discarded. Your mind is already made up before you start. The idea that there are problems with macro-evolution is a myth invented by the Creationist community. It's simply not true. The real evidence that supports evolution—micro and macro—far surpasses the few gasps of "skepticism" from the Creationist community.

It doesn't always work that way Geo. In fact there are many like Jerry Bergman who began with the belief in the theory, but on closer examination found it at odds with the scientific facts.

The idea that there are no problems with macro-evolution is nonsense. I've provided plenty which I won't rehash here.

In the last talk I linked the biologist Arthur Jones pointed out that the most basic and tested laws of biology are those of biogenesis and heredity.

It's the evolutionists claiming an exception to this law, and without evidence,because they have to on naturalistic assumption.

The ratio of living species to extinct in the fossil record clearly belies the assumption of the theory. These are just a few to add to all the others presented in the course of this debate here and on other threads.

So yes I believe in the biblical account. What I find is that's it's more consistent with the scientific evidence. Man as a created morally aware, conscious being complete with language ability makes more sense.

I find theories of language based on the supposed goings ons of 'primitives' in the tall Savannah grass completely absurd, and no explanation for the obvious complexity,and inherited nature of language.

It's pointless rehashing the arguments, but I completely reject the claim that there are no scientific problems with macro-evolution.
There are many and they are fatal to it.

Flann 5 wrote:In the last talk I linked the biologist Arthur Jones pointed out that the most basic and tested laws of biology are those of biogenesis and heredity.

Where's the peer-reviewed article?

geo wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
In the last talk I linked the biologist Arthur Jones pointed out that the most basic and tested laws of biology are those of biogenesis and heredity.



Where's the peer-reviewed article?

You need a peer reviewed article to tell you that life is only generated by life? You show me the peer reviewed article proving an exception.

Flann wrote:There are many and they are fatal to it.

That's completely false. However many flaws you may think there are, they are a grain of sand to the mountain of confirming evidence. None of the flaws you've ever pointed out have withstood our scrutiny on Booktalk. Pick one that you think has. The vast majority are fabricated creationist pseudo-issues. The ones that are legitimate issues are not "flaws". And since when is ignorance fatal to a theory? Lack of information does not constitute a fatal flaw. It constitutes an argument from ignorance.

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
There are many and they are fatal to it.




That's completely false. However many flaws you may think there are, they are a grain of sand to the mountain of confirming evidence. None of the flaws you've ever pointed out have withstood our scrutiny on Booktalk. Pick one that you think has. The vast majority are fabricated creationist pseudo-issues. The ones that are legitimate issues are not "flaws". And since when is ignorance fatal to a theory? Lack of information does not constitute a fatal flaw. It constitutes an argument from ignorance.

What are the mechanisms for macro-evolution,Interbane? You repeat smooth assertions about a grain of sand in a mountain of confirming evidence.What is this mountain of evidence proving that organisms evolved from inert particles to people?
As I said before where tested in bacteria,fruit flies, plants and crops there is nothing remotely like changes from one organism to another different one but clearly defined limits to variation.
Where are the tests disproving this?

You claim arguments from ignorance. The paleontologists who have studied the fossil record for over a century do not accept that the record is not representative. Or that it shows evolutionary gradualism.

If you want to claim macromutations you face the further problem of the known negative effects of macro-mutations.
And the reality of the integrative complexity of living things.They must be co-ordinated.

The concept of errors in transcription creating complex co-ordinated transformations to entire biological systems and integrated organisms is entirely irrational.

Can you provide an example of macro-mutations doing anything of the kind? How would this work for the land mammal to whale transformations?
Where are these innumerable intermediates with biological systems that are partially one system and partially another?

Wouldn't entire biological systems,respiratory,visual, audio, circulatory and on and on, have to change completely and in an integrated and co-ordinated way?
And mutational errors in transcription will perform this miracle?

If it's true that over 99 percent of all species have become extinct over life's history from matter to man we would expect to find these far outnumbering living species in the fossil record. But the evidence is completely and dramatically the opposite.
So of course you will make your usual assertions about overwhelming evidence for macro-evolution.

If you want to believe this,that's fine. I don't, and as far as I'm concerned anyone looking at the arguments from both sides can make up their own minds.

Hello Flann, this distinction made in ID circles between micro- and macroevolution has always seemed odd to me, but I don't claim that as any reason that I can advance to refute what you're saying. A whole lot of microevolution producing the changes that account for speciation and even whole new orders of living things, has seemed perfectly reasonable to me. You say, I think, that this reasonableness isn't there once you confront the lack of true evidence that variations at the micro level have given us the diversity we see all around us. This diversity is more likely the product of a designer, working either at one moment with a word or thought or over time using what appear to be natural processes. Maybe you haven't explicitly made that creationist claim, but others clearly have, basing their claims on objections to TOE similar to yours.

Evolution is a comprehensive theory, the only one such theory that exists to explain life (although not the origin of life, at this point). Can ID creationists in all candor say that about their theory? How did this designer work, what processes did he/it use, over what course of time did he/it work, who designed the designer? There are gaps there greatly exceeding the gaps ID folks point to in the fossil record. What I'm saying here is isn't anything very substantive proving the TOE, but I'm just pointing out that purely in terms of quality of theory, TOE wins the beauty contest, and beauty attracts.

Not to inflict more reading on anybody, but I did find a Skeptic article laid out this controversy clearly for me. Of course, I didn't come to it with an entirely open mind, full confession. David Eller's central point about the failure of microcreationism is stated in a paragraph in which he points to the radical incompatibility of the microcreationist acceptance of microevolution:

"The really damaging aspect of the creationist tolerance of microevolution, though, is this: microevolution has a mechanism. Even the most hardheaded creationist who accepts the reality of microevolution must admit that it operates by natural processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, symbiosis, preferential selection, and the like. However, having allowed these processes into the world, there is no way to restrict their scope. If these processes can effect minor, or at least intraspecies modification over remarkably short time spans, there is no reason in principle why these same processes could not effect major modification, i.e., speciation, over remarkably long time spans."

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-06-30/

Flann wrote: As I said before where tested in bacteria,fruit flies, plants and crops there is nothing remotely like changes from one organism to another different one but clearly defined limits to variation.
Where are the tests disproving this?

All the evidence shows the "limits to variation" are a creationist fabrication. Change the environment, and the organisms phenotypes will alter to accomodate the new environment. The number of generations may be large, but there is no artificial limit imposed on this process.

As for the evidence, I've given it to you three or four times now, varying across multiple categories of study. Phylogeny, molecular evidence, historical vestiges, evolutionary constraint and parahomology, and more. You seem to forget this or not care.

The paleontologists who have studied the fossil record for over a century do not accept that the record is not representative. Or that it shows evolutionary gradualism.

You get stuck on these creationist catch-words. Try punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism.

Can you provide an example of macro-mutations doing anything of the kind? How would this work for the land mammal to whale transformations?

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... on-whales/

Regarding macro-mutations, do you have evidence of these? Why do you assume such a thing isn't merely the accumulation of many micro-mutations? Or a single micro-mutation with a large phenotypic effect?

Wouldn't entire biological systems,respiratory,visual, audio, circulatory and on and on, have to change completely and in an integrated and co-ordinated way?
And mutational errors in transcription will perform this miracle?

Are you unaware this is an argument from incredulity? Mutational errors alone do not accomplish this. The culling of the environment selects between the mutations.

But mutations do occur in mutagenic clusters - mutation showers. There are buffers to mutations where areas of the genomic code more likely to result in a stillbirth or nonfunctioning organism mutate less than other areas.



_________________________

None of what you've mentioned is anywhere close to a "flaw". At best, these things you mention are fallacious appeals. We can't describe how whales evolved(even though we can)? That's an argument from ignorance. You can't see how multiple mutations could occur in a way that allows coordinated phenotypic shift? That's an argument from incredulity. This isn't a cop-out. You're using fallacious reasoning. At least, if you think these "flaws" do any damage to the theory.

These grains of sand are nothing.

What is this mountain of evidence proving that organisms evolved from inert particles to people?

Do you mean, from proto-life to people? The evidence is all around you, more than a library can hold. Are you being serious? I'll give you a link to a few thousand books, a few hundred thousand studies, and terabytes of raw data. Flann, you're being absurd.

Interbane wrote:All the evidence shows the "limits to variation" are a creationist fabrication. Change the environment, and the organisms phenotypes will alter to accomodate the new environment. The number of generations may be large, but there is no artificial limit imposed on this process.

This is simply not true Interbane. You refuse to recognize that decades long experiments with plants and crops throws up the law of recurring variation. The same mutations keep recurring.

As Jones points out in his talk in relation to the Cichlid fish family,what is observed are variations of recurring patterns based on permutations of a small number of primary characters. The same is true of teeth and even their different behaviours.

There are many species of cichlid but nothing changing from a cichlid to another kind of fish.

It's increasingly evident that variation can occur rapidly and even speciation. For this reason it is even more inexplicable that bacteria and fruitflies over huge numbers of generations do not change fundamentally or show indications of transformation into anything fundamentally different.

You now postulate acquired characteristics. Fair enough but even these are not fundamental changes to the essential nature of the animal.
You have to demonstrate that these minor changes amount to major changes over time. Bacteria, fruitfly,plant and crop experiments say no.

As Berlinksi points out in relation to finch beak shapes and sizes, there is a correlation with seasons and weather events ( e.g.droughts) and they alter back and forth. Nothing major and they remain finches.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Can you provide an example of macro-mutations doing anything of the kind? How would this work for the land mammal to whale transformations?




https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... on-whales/

Regarding macro-mutations, do you have evidence of these? Why do you assume such a thing isn't merely the accumulation of many micro-mutations? Or a single micro-mutation with a large phenotypic effect?

You referred to environment related phenotypic change and now mutation generated large phenotypic change. There's a reason that major phenotypic change is not possible. Developing new body plans would involve changes at the early stages of development.
Here's the problem with this. It's a brief talk by Paul Nelson and I suppose the creationist source will be enough to put some off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz12PI3BkQ4

Interbane wrote:As for the evidence, I've given it to you three or four times now, varying across multiple categories of study. Phylogeny, molecular evidence, historical vestiges, evolutionary constraint and parahomology, and more. You seem to forget this or not care.

Phylogony? Morphologically based genealogical trees vary significantly from genome based ones. What molecular evidence?
Historical vestiges? Evolutionist myth of non functional vestigial organs and rapidly diminishing "junk Dna".
A failed prediction of the theory.

Interbane wrote: We can't describe how whales evolved(even though we can)?

You certainly can't Interbane. Show me where biologists have described this evolution biochemically. They line up dubious and even discredited fossils as if these were proof of whale evolution.

You could a better job lining up dog fossils to "prove" the direct linear descent of the poodle from the great dane. It's a joke.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Wouldn't entire biological systems,respiratory,visual, audio, circulatory and on and on, have to change completely and in an integrated and co-ordinated way?
And mutational errors in transcription will perform this miracle?




Are you unaware this is an argument from incredulity? Mutational errors alone do not accomplish this. The culling of the environment selects between the mutations.

But mutations do occur in mutagenic clusters - mutation showers. There are buffers to mutations where areas of the genomic code more likely to result in a stillbirth or nonfunctioning organism mutate less than other areas.

You are not even close to getting to grips with the problem of integrated complexity. Are you suggesting entire biological systems changes can be accomplished instantly by a single mutation or a series of mutations? Back to the early developmental problem again.



So obviously I'm not going to convince you, and you are not going to persuade me to change my mind.

If you really want to investigate the very real problems with the whole macro story, Michael Denton's recent book "Evolution still a theory in Crisis" does a far better and more detailed job on this than I can.