Originally posted by EladarWhat biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?
You are talking about micro evolution, not macro evolution. Micro evolution does not explain how the eye came into being because the specialized mutations required to result in sight are useless unless all the micro evotions happened in the same generation.
-after all, if you have a long enough series of microevolution changes then this could add-up to a macroevolution change.
To press home this point:
Here is just some of the comments from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
“Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.”
And :
“ macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolution.”
And:
“All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level.”
-note that “effect above the species level” is referring to “macroevolution”.
But by far the best one is at:
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm
“There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory. “
It then elaborates on this and then concludes:
“Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence. “
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo we really think that the discussion with KellyJay is leading anywere?
Don't worry, I am not accusing you of changing position. All I want is an admission that the original claim was false. I am more than happy if you say that it was merely badly worded not an intentional lie.
Does KJ learn anything of the disussion? No.
Do we learn anything about creationists? Yes.
Is this the main purpose of the discussion, to learn how creationists think? Okay, then the discussion is fruitful.
Is it fruitful for KJ? Do he really think that he can turn science upsidedown and make sound thinking pro-science people to anti-science creationists? I don't think so, I haven't seen any success of KJ in his ambition to do so.
So why this infinit discussion with someone not wanting to learn anything? The knowledge is there, everywhere, in textbooks, in TV-programs, in internet sites, like Wikipedia, shorly anywhere. He doesn't need to ask us about how evolution works, he can learn something for himslef and discuss the details here.
People, like KJ, doesn't want to learn anything, it's not their wanting. The creationsist knows it all anyway, and they cannot imagine why pro-scientists cannot understand their twisted views. They are proud to be anti-science, then they can go to their heaven with a proud heart.
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]You and your kids will go through the same end every other person on
Don't worry, I am not accusing you of changing position. All I want is an admission that the original claim was false. I am more than happy if you say that it was merely badly worded not an intentional lie.
[b]You can keep things going like giving your car a tune up
and so on, but in the end the parts will wear down to the point of
needing replaced. y increasing over time. But the facts clearly do not show that. Therefore your claim is false.
the planet will go through and that is death. With respect to the
increasing population that is true too, but what is increasing just
beings that live and die off and those numbers are not rock solid
going to always increase either. People, animals, plants and so on all
will die every living creature will die in our natural world. You can carve
out a face in stone and it will fade and given enough time will break
down.
I standby my statement, things wear down they break down they
will simply go through the process everything around us goes through.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioLet me have a bash at this one...
In what circumstance would it be beneficial to have blind spots? Or, if you prefer, in what life would it not be even slightly detrimental to have them?
Nemesio
If, just for the sake of this argument, one accepts the premise that the human eye was created for a specific purpose, the question then, as I understand it (and please help me if I'm wrong) is why would a creator create something that has an obvious shortcoming, such as blind spots?
For me the answer is pretty simple. EVERY aspect and functionality of any part of the body has some pros and cons - see for example the proliferation of Super Beings. e.g. Superman, and that family dressed in red that can do wonderful feats with their bodies that you and I can't do. Is that a shortcoming??
Whilst the human foot can jump, it cannot jump as high as a kangeroo! Whilst we can see OK, we cannot see as good as an eagle, etc etc. So why the human eye has blind spots, I really don't know, I am not an opthalmologist. However, I do believe it has something to do with where the optic nerve is fastened in the back of the eye, in other words, it is a mechanical inevitability. Nevertheless, the rest of it functions pretty OK.
Did I miss your point somewhere??
CJ
Originally posted by NemesioDo not know, never claimed they were. My claim was our bodies were
I wanted to reiterate my answer so you don't miss it, KellyJay, amongst Eladar's empty reassertions.
In what circumstance would it be beneficial to have blind spots? Or, if you prefer, in what life
would it not be even slightly detrimental to have them?
Nemesio
better at creation than they are now. Was there a blind spot back then
I have no idea.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course it was, every primate has a spot like that, every mammal has a spot like that. It's been there from all our ancestors. It's called evolution.
Was there a blind spot back then
I have no idea.
Kelly
And you just now did present a proof that evolution works!
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you refuse to address the fundamental point. If on average everything is wearing down then there must necessarily be less non-worn down things over time. That is not the case.
You and your kids will go through the same end every other person on
the planet will go through and that is death. With respect to the
increasing population that is true too, but what is increasing just
beings that live and die off and those numbers are not rock solid
going to always increase either. People, animals, plants and so on all
will die every ...[text shortened]... ey break down they
will simply go through the process everything around us goes through.
Kelly
How do you explain that?
Previously you said that it was because they were being repaired, but now you seem to be backtracking on that one.
You can continue repeating your lists of things that wear down for the rest of the year, it wont help your argument.
I have seen faces carved in stone, where did they come from? Why didn't they wear down aeon's ago? There is something missing from the picture you are painting and you just cant see it. Is it perhaps because God gave you a blind spot?
Originally posted by CalJustYes you missed a point. The octopus eye has the nerve cells on the back of the eye, so there is no need for the optic nerve to go through the retina. In addition to that the octopus eye design gathers more light. The octopus eye is a better design.
However, I do believe it has something to do with where the optic nerve is fastened in the back of the eye, in other words, it is a mechanical inevitability. Nevertheless, the rest of it functions pretty OK.
Did I miss your point somewhere??
CJ
What is decidedly odd about it all, is that for some inexplicable reason, all the life forms whose 'perfect eye' includes a blind spot, also have certain other traits in common. All the life forms whose eyes do not have a blind spot, seem to have a lot in common with octopus'.(or is that octopi?)
The same applies to most other body parts, for some reason all animals with beaks and feathers, also need wings (even if they cant fly). The patterns of body features make it abundantly clear that there is more to it than simple utility of the individual features.
Originally posted by CalJust…EVERY aspect and functionality of any part of the body has some pros and cons - see for example the proliferation of Super Beings. e.g. Superman, and that family dressed in red that can do wonderful feats with their bodies that you and I can't do. Is that a shortcoming??
Let me have a bash at this one...
If, just for the sake of this argument, one accepts the premise that the human eye was created for a specific purpose, the question then, as I understand it (and please help me if I'm wrong) is why would a creator create something that has an obvious shortcoming, such as blind spots?
For me the answer is pretty simple. Nevertheless, the rest of it functions pretty OK.
Did I miss your point somewhere??
CJ
Whilst the human foot can jump, it cannot jump as high as a kangaroo!
….
I think what you are suggesting here is that there is not such thing as a “perfect” design? -if so, then suggesting there is not such thing as a “perfect” design (regardless of whether that proposition is actually true or not) doesn’t explain why an intelligent person/“god” would deliberately make an obvious and stupid design flaw -if I was designing a camera, I may not be able to make a “perfect” camera nor a camera that can see through brick walls etc but at least I am intelligent enough to at least NOT create a “blind spot” by placing the start of the cables from the light sensors in front of those light sensors! -Else I would be pretty dumb -yes?
… So why the human eye has blind spots, I really don't know, …
You “don’t know” because you reject evolution despite there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the blind-spot. To an evolutionist, there is no problem here -evolution is a blind unintelligent process so it make sense if it sometimes produces apparent design flaws.
-in fact, the design flaws are considered to be evidence for evolution over “intelligent” design for that very reason!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWith the case of the eye, the specialized parts of the eye are not useful unless the other specialized parts are already in place. Therefore natural selection does not explain how these specialized parts evolved into what we now know as the ability to see.
What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?
I think Andrew Hamilton has hit the nail on the head. However, FabianFnas made an really interesting point earlier, one of those throw-away lines that actually contains much more truth than jest. He said that Creationists won't listen, so any attempt to convince them otherwise is futile. He then concluded that the point of this thread must therefore be to learn something about Creationists. I think we are, in addition to things we're learning about ourselves! Let me explain...
Creationists rely on a deductive argument, a type of argument wherein if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Their argument runs along the following lines:
1. God created all that exists.
2. Humans exist.
3. Therefore, God created humans.
Evolutionists rely on abductive reasoning, a type of argument that looks just like a deductive argument in reverse (and which is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy "Post hoc, propter hoc"!), wherein data is observed, hypotheses are presented, and the best one is chosen. Their argument runs along the following lines:
1. Animals and humans show evidence of changing over time in a manner that increases their fitness.
2. Of several hypotheses, the genetic theory of evolution best describes the evidence.
3. Therefore, the genetic theory of evolution is true.
Each type of argument has its strong points and weak points.
Deductive arguments are air-tight (a "valid" argument in the lingo of logic), and provided the premises are true, the result will be true. However, establishing the truth of the premises often relies on abductive reasoning in the first place ("who else but God could have created such wonders?", clear support for the God hypothesis over other possible creators, such as Steve's mom or television executives). Although the argument remains valid, the TRUTH of a deductive argument is extremely difficult to verify from first principles (one notable exception being mathematical induction, where we get to define the terms ourselves since we invented them).
Abductive arguments actually take into account the evidence presented, and makes use of humankind's uncanny ability to sift through possible hypotheses and come up with the right one. Although this type of argument is not valid (in the logical sense), it is more successful than deductive arguments in almost every case because it relies on experience and reason, but also permits refinement. Almost every scientific discovery ever made relies on abductive reasoning. For instance, it's possible that Maxwell's equations on electromagnetism are wrong, and it's been the gremlins producing the electromotive force all this time. However, his "guesses", devised, refined and verified through reason and experiment, have been so good for so long that I'll resign myself to the niggling ambiguity I feel whenever I look at the list of possible (but incalculably improbable) competing explanations.
I think we've seen that both parties look to their opponents argument and see wiggle-room for miles. Creationists put stock in the validity of their argument and deride the evolutionists' theories as the flawed product of human reason, but they rely on their faith to "prove" the existence of God and ensure truth in their argument, which is actually an abductive argument in disguise minus one crucial element - choosing the best hypothesis that describes the evidence. The have made a startling amount of progress in the last 150 years - namely, none at all. Evolutionists, on the other hand, can't conclusively prove the non-existence of God the Creator. However, they have made startling progress in the field of biology (the genetic theory of evolution, the Price equation, Hamilton's Rule, etc...) through detailed observation and refinement of their hypotheses, adhering to the best quality of the abductive argument by always striving to choose the best hypothesis and transform it into a theory.
So where does that leave us? The matter is still evolving... 😉
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point was that through evolution if all the changes we see could
But you refuse to address the fundamental point. If on average everything is wearing down then there must necessarily be less non-worn down things over time. That is not the case.
How do you explain that?
Previously you said that it was because they were being repaired, but now you seem to be backtracking on that one.
You can continue repeating you ...[text shortened]... re you are painting and you just cant see it. Is it perhaps because God gave you a blind spot?
also be because things are breaking down not getting built up. The
fact that there is change could produce splits in evolutionary lines, I
just acknowledge that those changes do not have to be a building up
into more complex creatures over time, but instead they are diverging
into a variety of complex creatures that hold to the basic design/form
of the first kind. Life is still fighting the good fight, it wards of things
as best it can that would end it within it's abilities, but basically the
changes we see could also be because of life's diverging into the
variety we see today.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne was designed to do what it does in water the other out of the
Yes you missed a point. The octopus eye has the nerve cells on the back of the eye, so there is no need for the optic nerve to go through the retina. In addition to that the octopus eye design gathers more light. The octopus eye is a better design.
What is decidedly odd about it all, is that for some inexplicable reason, all the life forms whose 'perfe ...[text shortened]... it abundantly clear that there is more to it than simple utility of the individual features.
water, and both body designs are some what different too. I this
is a meaningless discussion, you can have different means of
capturing radiowaves depending on the signals you want too, with
the eye it is what works best for the creature's basic design over time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThis discussion isn't meaningless, it gets to the heart of the Intelligent Design issue.
One was designed to do what it does in water the other out of the
water, and both body designs are some what different too. I this
is a meaningless discussion, you can have different means of
capturing radiowaves depending on the signals you want too, with
the eye it is what works best for the creature's basic design over time.
Kelly