Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 7:47 am
(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: (February 22, 2015 at 12:59 am)Brakeman Wrote: What else do you think evolution is that is more than change over time?
Why would you believe magic god dust to be a better answer?
Would change over time plus a little magic fairy dust make evolution more appealing to you?
All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?
Bananas and great white sharks are distantly related.
The proof is in the DNA.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 7169
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 8:39 am
(February 22, 2015 at 1:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: Now, I've shown you mine, you show me yours: what is the mechanism that halts mutations, so that they don't accumulate to the point that we'd need to reclassify an organism? Based on his previous comments, I'm going to go with "I don't believe it is possible" as the mechanism.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 11:30 am
(February 22, 2015 at 7:47 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: (February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?
Bananas and great white sharks are distantly related.
The proof is in the DNA.
I'm sure he's aware of the DNA connection. He's not really interested in the science of evolution, he's just a desperate christian looking for a place to insert his god's magic foo-foo dust and I'm trying to squirrel it out of him where he's trying to put it.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 11:56 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote: I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk.
I'm happy to debate anyone here on Star Trek. The Star Trek which purports to be about four ex-Special Forces commandoes named Hannibal, Faceman, Howling Mad Murdock and BA Baracus driving around in a black van, not that "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise" bunk.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:00 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time, a spotted cat might produce a cat with no spots, does this prove that bananas and great white sharks are related?
And yet pig organs are compatible with human ones. Different species, but closely enough related that they can be used in transplant operations.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time
The theory of evolution assumes just that. Change over time. You are willing to accept that animals evolve new traits over a short period of time. So why put an arbitrary limit on how far animals can evolve over a much longer period of time?
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:40 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Irrational Wrote: The theory of evolution assumes just that. Change over time. You are willing to accept that animals evolve new traits over a short period of time. So why put an arbitrary limit on how far animals can evolve over a much longer period of time?
And it really is arbitrary: the species definition isn't an objective feature of biology, it's a label invented by humans to better categorize living things. All that's really happening is the real world is proving to be wider than human definitions, and that happens all the time.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:44 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Irrational Wrote: (February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am)YGninja Wrote: All things change over time
The theory of evolution assumes just that. Change over time. You are willing to accept that animals evolve new traits over a short period of time. So why put an arbitrary limit on how far animals can evolve over a much longer period of time?
It is because he's looking for a gap to put his god magic inside. He's a "god o' da' gapper" whose god shrinks with every scientific discovery.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:45 pm
(February 22, 2015 at 12:44 pm)Brakeman Wrote: It is because he's looking for a gap to put his god magic inside. He's a "god o' da' gapper" whose god shrinks with every scientific discovery.
And if you don't believe him, you believe the exact opposite position! 
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 132
Threads: 1
Joined: January 28, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 4:31 pm by YGninja.)
(February 22, 2015 at 1:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: (February 22, 2015 at 1:26 am)YGninja Wrote: The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral.
Untrue: mutations run the gamut from negative to positive, of which we've seen plenty of all stripes. For example, following population isolation, Italian Wall Lizards have been observed to evolve entirely new valves in their digestive tracts to handle the new food sources they were forced to predate on in their new environment. Bacteria has been observed to evolve the ability to digest nylon where no other food is available, and some populations of rattlesnakes are evolving out their rattles, as warning their prey isn't a good way to catch food. You're simply wrong on this one.
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fanche...tation.htm
"most mutations are neutral; they either make no change in the expression of any gene, or the changes made do not affect the function of any gene product. Of those mutations which do make a difference, most have a negative effect."
I said "almost exclusively", not "exclusively", and hence your post doesn't refute anything. Italian wall lizards didn't evolve anything, their DNA is identical to the original ones, the change was just a reversion to a previous type, utilising pre existing DNA which had merely been out of use. Nylonase isn't new information, a small amount of the original population held a mutation allowing them to digest nylon, when placed in the environment only the ones who could digest nylon survived, and only they reproduced, eventually becoming 100% of the population. Rattlesnakes, if it were true, would be an example of losing something, not gaining something. You can't get from a single cell to a human only by losing things.
Quote:Quote: Data is corrupted or deleted. Natural selection can act on it as much as it wants, the thing is only ever going to devolve. Whats more, you need a mechanism to increase the quantity of data. Mutation only changes existing data.
Nope. We've observed it adding genetic material and information too.
My original statement "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral. Data is corrupted or deleted."
Perhaps to clear up confusion it would be better put "The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral - data is corrupted or deleted".
There are ways for a genome to acquire "new" information, Just the "new" information is just duplicated old information, which then has to mutate to become "new" information, but mutations are almost exclusively neutral or negative, so this process simply isn't effective or common enough to support the idea that all life came from a single cell.
Quote:Quote: A human contains alot more data than a single cell, and you've no mechanism to explain how the genome can acquire such quantities of new data, even over billions of years.
Mutation is sufficient for this; new genetic information can be added, and there's plenty of reportage on this to prove it. I don't need a new mechanism: the old one works just fine.
Lets ask Richard Dawkins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Also see my above comment. Mutation is in no way sufficient. Imagine a book, and the more people who read and enjoy the book the more the book is "naturally selected", and widespread it becomes. Now imagine randomly deleting and changing the letters in the book. Maybe 1 in 1000 of those changes, will accidently add humour to the book, and make it more popular, but the other 999 will make it incomprehensible and actually shorten the length of the book. Whats going to happen if you repeat this process 10'000 times? You inevitably end up with a very short, defunct book of gibberish. You aren't going to end up with a better, bigger book, hence the same process in evolution is not going to create humans from single celled bacteria.
Quote:[quote]
Now, I've shown you mine, you show me yours: what is the mechanism that halts mutations, so that they don't accumulate to the point that we'd need to reclassify an organism?
There is no mechanism which halts mutation, and hence humans are weaker and have smaller brains than our ancestors. In the last 100 years alone western IQ's atleast have dropped an average of 14 points. This is your 'evolution' in process, it is change over time, but its effect is only negative, deconstructing things rather than building them better, and hence this isn't a theory that supports all life emerging from a simple cell and growing more complex, rather, it supports all life being perfect at the time of creation, and then degrading.
|
