Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

I still don't see a mechanism preventing smaller changes from accruing into larger changes over longer time periods - just unsupported claims about what cannot happen. I'll just assume that you cannot provide one because you know of one none.

I'll give you an even simpler example of the same principle then,

you can make small changes to a guitar by adjusting the tuning. So you tell me, what mechanism stops these small changes, from accruing and changing the guitar into a piano eventually?


It's not so much a mechanism stopping this, as no mechanism supporting it

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not so much a mechanism stopping this, as no mechanism supporting it

And this is the fundamental error in your argument.....you seem to think there's a difference in mechanisms between microevolution and macroevolution, when in reality macroevolution is nothing more than microevolutionary mechanisms playing out over longer periods of time.

IOW, the difference between microevolution and macroevolution isn't the mechanisms, it's the time over which they take place.

 

[gnostic]

I do not evade questions but I don't give credence to the more nonsensical ones by dignifying them with a waste of my time. I allow them to stand as they are in all their glory. They don't need addressing....you know like suggesting that someone believes that cars have baby cars.

You are misunderstanding why I ask such "silly" question.

Guy's car analogy is a faulty one, because a car is not a self-replicating entity, eg it cannot produce offspring.

Life can reproduce, where the parents will pass their genes to the child. Those genes contained the biological makeup of the parents.

Evolution is about genetics, where genetic information are passed to successive generations....BUT, evolution is not about changes to a single individual, rather that it is change to whole population.

For instance, evolution IS NOT ABOUT change to one individual skinny person, who become fat with eating the wrong diet and not exercising, then losing those extra weight by changing his eating habits and exercising an hour or two each day.

Evolution about the changes some generations later to whole population.

To give you an example.

The last Ice Ages, known as the Quaternary glaciation or Pleistocene glaciation, started around 2.2 million years ago. The ice sheets usually associated with Ice Ages only covered certain parts of Europe and Asia, and North America, and pockets of ice sheets only covered some high altitudes regions, like mountain ranges of the Alps in Switzerland and north Italy or the Andes in South America.

Generally the whole Earth was colder than normal, but the ice sheets of the Quaternary glaciation didn't cover the entire the Earth. To give you an idea what regions were covered and what weren't covered, look at the image below of the northern hemisphere (source: Quaternary glaciation, Wikipedia):

The image depicted in shades of blue, show where the ice sheets covered, and yellow where there were no ice sheets. The palaeoclimatologists called this the Last Glacial Maximum, when the ice sheets its maximum areas, around 26,500 to 19,000 years ago.

Now, the brown bears living in areas living south of the ice sheets, can continue to range, hunt and hibernate as normal in their normal habitats.

But those brown bears that lived in regions covered by ice, would have to adapt in the environment they were living in, through physically and genetically, as well as change in their eating habits.

Some where around 60,000 years ago, there was split in the brown bears population, where the brown bears developed physically so that it can withstand the extended cold periods, the origin of the polar bears -

• their fur became thicker, more waterproof and wind-brown then southern cousin, changed colour to white that enable to blend better with the ice;
• their diet have changed, where they eat more fats from sea seals, which help the polar bears insulated their body from the cold, and give them buoyancy when swimming in the sea;
• they became larger then their southern cousin, longer heads, longer and more powerful limbs that allowed them travel over ice or swim in freezing sea waters;
• and they no longer hibernate during the cold periods because it is cold for centuries or millennia in the region they were living in.

All that, is what make polar bears different from their sister species, the brown bears.

For millennia, the polar bears continued to find mates from their own species, so they can continue survive for generations to come, even during the interglacial periods, where it was warmer in some areas. Some 10,500 years ago, whole regions that were covered by ice sheet melted, but the polar bears that still lived within the Arctic Circle, continued to thrive in the coldest regions on Earth.

That's evolution, adaptation that occurred over long period of times.

Cars cannot reproduce (self-replicating) or passed their genes to the next generation and to next. Which is why Guy Threepwood's analogy of car is not a good analogy of life. The comparison is very superficial and weak.

 

[Deeje]

You are misunderstanding why I ask such "silly" question.

Guy's car analogy is a faulty one, because a car is not a self-replicating entity, eg it cannot produce offspring.

Life can reproduce, where the parents will pass their genes to the child. Those genes contained the biological makeup of the parents.

Evolution is about genetics, where genetic information are passed to successive generations....BUT, evolution is not about changes to a single individual, rather that it is change to whole population.

For instance, evolution IS NOT ABOUT change to one individual skinny person, who become fat with eating the wrong diet and not exercising, then losing those extra weight by changing his eating habits and exercising an hour or two each day.

Evolution about the changes some generations later to whole population.

To give you an example.

The last Ice Ages, known as the Quaternary glaciation or Pleistocene glaciation, started around 2.2 million years ago. The ice sheets usually associated with Ice Ages only covered certain parts of Europe and Asia, and North America, and pockets of ice sheets only covered some high altitudes regions, like mountain ranges of the Alps in Switzerland and north Italy or the Andes in South America.

Generally the whole Earth was colder than normal, but the ice sheets of the Quaternary glaciation didn't cover the entire the Earth. To give you an idea what regions were covered and what weren't covered, look at the image below of the northern hemisphere (source: Quaternary glaciation, Wikipedia):

The image depicted in shades of blue, show where the ice sheets covered, and yellow where there were no ice sheets. The palaeoclimatologists called this the Last Glacial Maximum, when the ice sheets its maximum areas, around 26,500 to 19,000 years ago.

Now, the brown bears living in areas living south of the ice sheets, can continue to range, hunt and hibernate as normal in their normal habitats.

But those brown bears that lived in regions covered by ice, would have to adapt in the environment they were living in, through physically and genetically, as well as change in their eating habits.

Some where around 60,000 years ago, there was split in the brown bears population, where the brown bears developed physically so that it can withstand the extended cold periods, the origin of the polar bears -

• their fur became thicker, more waterproof and wind-brown then southern cousin, changed colour to white that enable to blend better with the ice;
• their diet have changed, where they eat more fats from sea seals, which help the polar bears insulated their body from the cold, and give them buoyancy when swimming in the sea;
• they became larger then their southern cousin, longer heads, longer and more powerful limbs that allowed them travel over ice or swim in freezing sea waters;
• and they no longer hibernate during the cold periods because it is cold for centuries or millennia in the region they were living in.

All that, is what make polar bears different from their sister species, the brown bears.

For millennia, the polar bears continued to find mates from their own species, so they can continue survive for generations to come, even during the interglacial periods, where it was warmer in some areas. Some 10,500 years ago, whole regions that were covered by ice sheet melted, but the polar bears that still lived within the Arctic Circle, continued to thrive in the coldest regions on Earth.

That's evolution, adaptation that occurred over long period of times.

Cars cannot reproduce (self-replicating) or passed their genes to the next generation and to next. Which is why Guy Threepwood's analogy of car is not a good analogy of life. The comparison is very superficial and weak.

Thank you for that stimulating science lesson gnostic.

But can I just bring out one very important point......that is a lesson in adaptation, which I have no problem accepting. However, the bears in your scenario, remained bears....just as the peppered moth remained a moth.

When pollution changed the color of the trees inhabited by the moths, they changed their color to become more camouflaged to the darker color....but when the pollution problem was addressed, they returned to their original color. This is not evolution. I strongly object to adaptation even being linked to macro-evolution. One suggests that it is proof for the other...that is simply not true. There is no concrete evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone a carry on from adaptive change, which is mostly cosmetic....color, thickness of fur, shape of a beak, etc. There is no change taking place that changes a creature into something else as macro-evolution suggests.

Was natural selection responsible for the moth's change in color? I believe it was, but reverting back to its original color just means it has an inbuilt mechanism that allows for that change to take place over successive generations. Adaptive ability is available to all creatures....even man. It is programmed into their DNA.

You believe in the mechanism but forget that all mechanisms need a mechanic to intelligently design the components, the process of assembly, and the way to implement the end result successfully. That is not rocket science...it is just common sense. Isn't it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm less interested in whether something is labeled a 'scientific theory', far more interested in whether or not it's actually true, wouldn't you agree?

I'm interested in whether the theory is useful - can it be used to predict and at times control any aspect of nature. If so, that's as good as it gets and as good as it needs to be. Compare evolutionary theory and the god hypotheses. One can be used to modify crop harvests and direct the production of vaccination. The other can't be used for anything.

What other criteria matter?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They'll never answer the question because they can't. I guarantee you no creationist will ever answer your question.

Yep. That's more or less the point in asking it any more after the claim that some imaginary barrier is reached.

"Macroevolution" is just a series of speciation events over long periods of time. According to the creationists here, at some point a species realizes that if they were to give rise to just one more species, the new species will have crossed an imaginary line into a new "kind" or something like that. So they somehow stop the process and all subsequent members of the population also come to this realization, lest they themselves give rise to a new "kind". This requires the existing species to be aware of their taxonomic and evolutionary status relative to both their ancestors and potential descendants.

It's a miracle.

 

[gnostic]

But can I just bring out one very important point......that is a lesson in adaptation, which I have no problem accepting.

No, that's evolution, because polar bears will not give birth to brown bear cub when they live outside of the Arctic Circle, or the ice melt in location they live in.

Adaption is evolution.

And it is more than changing colour. The white is just more suitable for hiding itself among the ice, while hunting seals.

The fur is different, thicker, more better suited for the icy wind and when they are swimming in the icy water. They can swin for days, something the brown bear cannot do.


They have changed enough to be considered different species to the brown bears.

You are not paying attention to the detail.

 

[Deeje]

That's more or less the point in asking it any more after the claim that some imaginary barrier is reached.

Funny how it is a barrier that science has never been able to refute by experimentation either.....

You guys are all bluff...where is the proof that adaptation can lead right on into macro-evolution when you have nothing to base it on in real life except speculation? Similar genetics? We share genes with bananas!

Does it mean we are related....or simply that the same basic raw materials of creation were used to fashion everything?

Its a bit like abiogenesis......can't touch that! "We don't deal in beginnings...just changes".
How did life arise? How did living things change? Which is the more important question? For believers, when you accept one, it explains the other. For scientists the mystery continues......

Life just magically poofed itself into existence one day for no apparent reason and then morphed itself into every living organism that has ever existed.

So who has the fairy story?

 

[Deeje]

No, that's evolution, because polar bears will not give birth to brown bear cub when they live outside of the Arctic Circle, or the ice melt in location they live in.

Adaption is evolution.

And it is more than changing colour. The white is just more suitable for hiding itself among the ice, while hunting seals.

The fur is different, thicker, more better suited for the icy wind and when they are swimming in the icy water. They can swin for days, something the brown bear cannot do.


They have changed enough to be considered different species to the brown bears.

You are not paying attention to the detail.

You are not paying attention to the obvious. Nothing in science can show us a slow change from one creature to another, except in diagrams. It can show us adaptation from one environment to another, but even in speciation experiments, the flies were still flies, and the bacteria were still bacteria, and the fish were still fish. That is not evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Sapiens]

You are not paying attention to the obvious. Nothing in science can show us a slow change from one creature to another, except in diagrams. It can show us adaptation from one environment to another, but even in speciation experiments, the flies were still flies, and the bacteria were still bacteria, and the fish were still fish. That is not evidence for macro-evolution.

Until they're not. That's what the genetics shows us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Life just magically poofed itself into existence one day for no apparent reason

That's from Genesis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing in science can show us a slow change from one creature to another, except in diagrams.

Several lines of evidence show exactly that. The core tenets of the theory of biological evolution are settled science. The opinions about scientific issues coming from faith based subcultures don't matter if they conflict with those of the scientists, or even if they concur. The scientists simply don't care what the gallery thinks, including people like me that happen to think that they are largely correct.

 

[Deeje]

That's from Genesis.

No its not. There is not a single bit of poofing going on in Genesis at all. The Creator is seen to have matter as his clay, fashioning whatever he wanted to make out of the materials at his disposal. You cannot prove otherwise.

The 'poofing' happened in evolution, with no one there to see it or observe all its branching and lines of descent or to direct it any of it in a purposeful way. It all just "happened" for no apparent reason....life just popped into existence all by itself and evolved its way into all the living creatures you see on earth as the result of a series of millions of very fortunate accidents.

You can believe that if you like.

At least creation has an intelligent Creator. We can see from the evidence that he crafted his creation over long periods of time and had a purpose for their being...each one able to self replicate and perfectly suited to their environment.....what purpose does evolution give us?

Several lines of evidence show exactly that. The core tenets of the theory of biological evolution are settled science.

Settled for whom? The biased ones looking for "evidence" to back up their theory? Making diagrams and drawings of things they cannot prove.

The opinions about scientific issues coming from faith based subcultures don't matter if they conflict with those of the scientists, or even if they concur.

All hail science.

One "faith based" belief system battling another and claiming superiority........why?

You have nothing of substance to base your claims on.

The scientists simply don't care what the gallery thinks, including people like me that happen to think that they are largely correct.

I don't think ID supporters could give two hoots about what pompous scientists think about their beliefs either. They can prove nothing, so what is there to be so arrogant about?

If God shows up tomorrow, you are all going to feel really stupid.

 

[ArtieE]

No its not. There is not a single bit of poofing going on in Genesis at all. The Creator is seen to have matter as his clay, fashioning whatever he wanted to make out of the materials at his disposal.

And where exactly did this matter and these materials at his disposal come from in the first place?

At least creation has an intelligent Creator.

But unfortunately creationists can't explain why this Creator would exist in the first place. Whether it was created, evolved or just happened to exist by accident.

 

[Deeje]

And where exactly did this matter and these materials at his disposal come from in the first place?But unfortunately creationists can't explain why this Creator would exist in the first place. Whether it was created, evolved or just happened to exist by accident.

I notice you seem to be hung up on this question ArtieE...when I see him, I'll ask OK?

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think ID supporters could give two hoots about what pompous scientists think about their beliefs either. They can prove nothing, so what is there to be so arrogant about?

If God shows up tomorrow, you are all going to feel really stupid.

If God did show up tomorrow we would have to first detain him, put him in a maximum security facility and charge him with all kinds of crimes against humanity. Scientists all over the planet would be ecstatic over getting the chance of studying an extra terrestrial life form.

 

[Deeje]

If God did show up tomorrow we would have to first detain him, put him in a maximum security facility and charge him with all kinds of crimes against humanity. Scientists all over the planet would be ecstatic over getting the chance of studying an extra terrestrial life form.

Good luck with that.

 

[ArtieE]

I notice you seem to be hung up on this question ArtieE...when I see him, I'll ask OK?

Thank you. I look forward to the answers. Can you go see him as soon as possible and get back to us as quickly as possible?

 

[ArtieE]

Good luck with that.

Thank you. Since you claim to have extensive knowledge about this particular entity can you provide us with information on how to build a trap for it and how to handle it once it's in our custody? What equipment is needed to contain it? How would we proceed in order to learn as much about it as possible?

 

[Deeje]

Thank you. Since you claim to have extensive knowledge about this particular entity can you provide us with information on how to build a trap for it and how to handle it once it's in our custody? What equipment is needed to contain it? How would we proceed in order to learn as much about it as possible?

He left us a manual to tell us all we need to know about him. It isn't all we want to know however and since the universe cannot contain him, I am afraid that you attempts would be somewhat like trying to catch the sun using fly paper.