Evolutionism.

Gregor Eisenhorn

Well-Known Member
Fyi you can't change your genes. Short of receiving large amounts of radiation the genes you're born with are the ones you die with. So if you have tall genes but don't get enough food you'll be short. Your kids still have a good chance of being tall though. You can't change anything through behavior or environment to your genes. Fyi
What about genetic mutations? That's one of the only ways organisms recieve spanking brand new genes. Then, natural selection determines if that genetic mutaion was efficient/positive, not efficient/negative or neutral.
 

Rrog

Well-Known Member
I do not believe anything is evolving fast. Isolated natural selection can happen, but that's selection of existing traits and phenotypes, not evolution

There has been no burst of human evolution. It's slow and plodding, like it is for every species.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Hello again heis, im going to have to disagree with your conjecture. I used the term MICRO evolution to distinguish my own thinking on the matter, you might note that I separated the word micro and typed it in capitals.

Personal insults aside, it doesn't matter how you typed it, you are hiding behind the idea that you can admit to micro-evolution yet still deny evolutionary theory. It's nothing more than moving the goalpost via special pleading. You say there is no evidence for evolution, and upon being presented with evidence you can't deny, you simply say it doesn't count. It's not a particularly convincing bit of sophistry.


1. Micro evolution is evolution. Well it certainly has the word evolution in it, however microevolution and macroevolution are different intentions on the word. Microevolution is scientifically defined as, the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift or even migration) within a population or species. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary changes at the species level or higher,that is, the formation of new species, new genera and so forth. My point being that you yourself have incorrectly stated that 'the only thing the term micro evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it'.
You've merely restated my words. The terms do not indicate that we are talking about different mechanisms or processes, they indicate the scope. The distinction is in scale, not concept. But lets not pretend either of us are making original points or arguments. The micro vs macro misconception is well documented on the net. You are simply hiding behind a well debunked argument, refuted countless times. It's just one example of how deniers argue against a caricature of evolution than actual evolutionary theory.

2. Small changes add up over time. Ok? Can you list the structual changes needed for an invertebrate to form from a single cell? A cell doesnt have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, so how can a fish produce legs if it hasnt the gene coding to do so? You must know, because you argue for the processes so vehemently. Before you say mutation (like most dissident persons might) can I add that mutations might produce novel genetic changes, but NEVER has a mutation been known to ADD coded information to an already complex DNAsystem. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration in the information present in DNA. Never has a helpfull mutation been observed.
Again, simply another creationist talking point, refuted a thousand times. Evolution is defined as the adaptation of a population of organisms to its natural environment, and this does not necessarily require the information of the genome to increase. It can as easily decrease. Gene duplication is the most obvious example of a mechanism which can lead to increase. But in short, individuals do not evolve, populations do. You are confusing genome with gene pool.

3.Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. Morality is an indication of an individuals ability to rationalize and make correct judgment, so an individual acting immoral demonstrates poor judgment, no?
Not necessarily. A pervert can still be good at math. However, I will agree that it can be a factor, and depending on the particular moral failing, it may even be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Yet, my point was that it is not a reliable heuristic that can be used for testing. All hypotheses should be given the strictest of doubt regardless if the author is a sinner or a saint. That doubt is then resolved via the examination by qualified peers of the methodology and conclusions, by constructing tests designed to let reality falsify the hypothesis, and by demanding reproduction and quantification of uncertainty. If the theory has a high degree of accuracy, it can be further strengthened through application, meaning we can apply it to reality and gain some sort of control over nature. That is the process used to judge the accuracy of a scientific model, and nowhere does it involve the examination of morals.

Really, the concept is as silly as a teacher giving a student a C- on a math test, even though every question was answered correctly, because they found out the student had sex out of wedlock.

But hey, on the bright side, in just a few short responses you've allowed me to check off multiple boxes on my bingo card.

creationist-bingo.jpg
 
Last edited:

texasjack

Well-Known Member
What about genetic mutations? That's one of the only ways organisms recieve spanking brand new genes. Then, natural selection determines if that genetic mutaion was efficient/positive, not efficient/negative or neutral.
Correct, but most if that happens in the womb.
 

WeeblesWobbles

Well-Known Member
I do not believe anything is evolving fast. Isolated natural selection can happen, but that's selection of existing traits and phenotypes, not evolution

There has been no burst of human evolution. It's slow and plodding, like it is for every species.
Punctuated equilibrium.
 

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
Personal insults aside, it doesn't matter how you typed it, you are hiding behind the idea that you can admit to micro-evolution yet still deny evolutionary theory. It's nothing more than moving the goalpost via special pleading. You say there is no evidence for evolution, and upon being presented with evidence you can't deny, you simply say it doesn't count. It's not a particularly convincing bit of sophistry.




You've merely restated my words. The terms do not indicate that we are talking about different mechanisms or processes, they indicate the scope. The distinction is in scale, not concept. But lets not pretend either of us are making original points or arguments. The micro vs macro misconception is well documented on the net. You are simply hiding behind a well debunked argument, refuted countless times. It's just one example of how deniers argue against a caricature of evolution than actual evolutionary theory.



Again, simply another creationist talking point, refuted a thousand times. Evolution is defined as the adaptation of a population of organisms to its natural environment, and this does not necessarily require the information of the genome to increase. It can as easily decrease. Gene duplication is the most obvious example of a mechanism which can lead to increase. But in short, individuals do not evolve, populations do. You are confusing genome with gene pool.



Not necessarily. A pervert can still be good at math. However, I will agree that it can be a factor, and depending on the particular moral failing, it may even be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Yet, my point was that it is not a reliable heuristic that can be used for testing. All hypotheses should be given the strictest of doubt regardless if the author is a sinner or a saint. That doubt is then resolved via the examination by qualified peers of the methodology and conclusions, by constructing tests designed to let reality falsify the hypothesis, and by demanding reproduction and quantification of uncertainty. If the theory has a high degree of accuracy, it can be further strengthened through application, meaning we can apply it to reality and gain some sort of control over nature. That is the process used to judge the accuracy of a scientific model, and nowhere does it involve the examination of morals.

Really, the concept is as silly as a teacher giving a student a C- on a math test, even though every question was answered correctly, because they found out the student had sex out of wedlock.

But hey, on the bright side, in just a few short responses you've allowed me to check off multiple boxes on my bingo card.

View attachment 3594233
Great reply................
 

qwizoking

Well-Known Member
your genetics are always changing, along with expression, had to get rid of my favorite master kush cutting not long ago, the flavor was changing. epigenetic tags are loosely from the environment and can be inherited and therefore alter adaptations/evolution quite quickly. these changes are also subject to mutations etc.
The epigenome, can change rapidly in response to signals from the environment. And epigenetic changes can happen in many individuals at once.....

genetics is as complicated if not drastically more so, than my field of pharmacology.

heres a little example of one pathway it can work.. from wiki

Two important ways in which epigenetic inheritance can be different from traditional genetic inheritance, with important consequences for evolution, are that rates of epimutation can be much faster than rates of mutation[103]and the epimutations are more easily reversible.[104] In plants heritable DNA methylation mutations are 100.000 times more likely to occur compared to DNA mutations.[105] An epigenetically inherited element such as the PSI+system can act as a "stop-gap", good enough for short-term adaptation that allows the lineage to survive long enough for mutation and/or recombination to genetically assimilate the adaptive phenotypic change.[106]The existence of this possibility increases the evolvability of a species.
 

SamsonsRiddle

Well-Known Member
can someone draw me the evolutionary map to whales, or a giraffe, a woodpecker? If you believe in the evolutionary theory you inherently must believe that there is no period without time, but that is easily proven as false. Our human minds have grown so much to the point that we have begun ignoring the truth and believing all the lies we are spoon fed by idiots with big titles. it doesn't take a genius to see our species is moving in the wrong direction.
 

qwizoking

Well-Known Member
If youbelieve in the evolutionary theory you inherently must believe that there is no period without time,but that is easily proven as false



could you explain?




also forgive my earlier post(s) was a grumpy that morn
 

Nyan Rapier

Well-Known Member
I don't want to rustle any feathers here, Assuming life isn't a thing that has always existed and thus had to have occurred at some point in time, life appearing similar to how it is now opposes entropy A LOT. Kind of like a chunk or charcoal instantaneously breaking tons of covalent bonds and forming itself into a diamond. Then again creationism is basically magic.
 

SamsonsRiddle

Well-Known Member
For evolution to occur there had to be a period when nothing became something. a period where there was no time that became time, when nothing became something and progressed from there.

maybe i don't understand the evolutionary process, but i do know that some animals couldn't have evolved otherwise there is no way they could have developed to what they are today such as giraffes, woodpeckers, etc... they had to have been created and existed at one time because evolution could not work in their case.
 

SamsonsRiddle

Well-Known Member
I don't want to rustle any feathers here, Assuming life isn't a thing that has always existed and thus had to have occurred at some point in time, life appearing similar to how it is now opposes entropy A LOT. Kind of like a chunk or charcoal instantaneously breaking tons of covalent bonds and forming itself into a diamond. Then again creationism is basically magic.
and evolutionism is realistic? monkey fish frog?
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
For evolution to occur there had to be a period when nothing became something. a period where there was no time that became time, when nothing became something and progressed from there.
Evolutionary theory describes how species change over time. It has nothing to say about how time began, how the cosmos developed, or if there was nothing before something.

maybe i don't understand the evolutionary process, but i do know that some animals couldn't have evolved otherwise there is no way they could have developed to what they are today such as giraffes, woodpeckers, etc... they had to have been created and existed at one time because evolution could not work in their case.

You do not have a firm grasp on evolutionary theory. It offers many mechanisms which can explain how the animals you mentioned evolved into what we see today. You may want to explore them so you can go from having an uninformed opinion to an informed one. Evolution is fun to learn about!
 
Top