(December 19, 2016 at 9:19 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Down my way we have a well respected chemist who actually runs the creationist museum in Portsmouth.
I was at an open meeting where creatoinism was discussed and it became clear that he knew a lot about chemistry but sod all about anything else.
He was quite, quite mad.
Do you not think that chemistry is involved here (if not foundational)? Also, if you have read the article, he is inquiring for others to explain this to him on a professional level.
(December 19, 2016 at 9:07 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree with pretty much all of that. I would also consider it to be microevolution or natural variation. I don't believe that it explains large changes in body plan or morphology. What is the mechanism or theory, by which these types of changes occur? Or if understanding is lacking, what is the evidence, that these did occur as the story is told? We do are best to connect the dots, as evolution tells us, but what tells us, that we should be drawing these lines at all?
This highly regarded chemist says that he doesn't understand it, and seems to say that there is a distinction.
Microevolution over time leads to bigger changes. Its the difference between taking one step down a road and taking many. So an accumulation of small changes leads to big cjanges eventually.
I shall explain this as though to a simple child. If everyday you put a pebble in one spot on the ground over enough time you will have a mountain of stones. Little things accumulate and there has been billions of years of evolution, which sped up exponentially when sex started.
[/quote]
I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain. I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles). I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast. However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.
The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of). You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited. Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?
Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it). I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it. That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply). The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened. But the question is... why is this a fact?
