Marx, Math And Myth

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
It was selective breeding I was talking about. Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.
I seem to remember you discussing it. Also, Hollie posted her crap from her atheist website on it. Let me review what you said. Sorry, I couldn't find it. Can you repeat?

ETA: Selective breeders know that hybrids cannot reproduce. They also know that there is a limit to what improvements can be made. The plants or animals become in stasis. Is that what you said?

How can evolution of sexual reproduction be natural? We had asymmetrical reproduction which is observable, but there is no way for it to become sexual reproduction.

You assume life began from DNA. You have it backwards DNA began from life.
I know I am taking out of context, but you sound awful confused. This is what creationists claim.

I'm chalk up that non-answer in the "Is not" category.
I get this from you a lot to my questions.
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution. It could have been aliens.

Kalam's Cosmological argument only points to a creator, there is no link to the God of the Bible.

Has Biden been proven guilty of sexual assault, or pedophilia?
In the near past, we already discussed the evidence that the Bible was discovered and that it was written by different peoples from different walks of life over the years. I also have said many times that Satan wrote the Antibible of evolution. All of the main books and articles in that were done by different atheist scientists over the past 170 years. Today, I discussed Ronald Fisher's contributions. In the past, I've discussed the contradictions in the Antibible contradict everything what the God of the Bible said. Thus, it is no coincidence that two are related. How else do you explain the perfect match? Thus, Kalam's Cosmological Argument is for the God of the Bible. Not Satan nor any other gods of another bible.

While I am tempted to post Biden's photo, I won't because that is for the Politics forum.
Do you realize that you represent yourself as an utterly unhinged conspiracy theorist with your diatribes about satans and their book authorship?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
It was selective breeding I was talking about. Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.
I seem to remember you discussing it. Also, Hollie posted here crap from her atheist website on it. Let me review what you said.

How can evolution of sexual reproduction be natural? We had asymmetrical reproduction which is observable, but there is no way for it to become sexual reproduction.
What ''crap'' are you on about regarding ''atheist website''?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
940
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
No, over billions of years, all possible mutations can and will occur, making the unlikely to become an absolute certainty after enough time.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,457
Reaction score
1,949
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
11. Now, a quick lesson on the irreducible complexity of DNA, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

"The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.



So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes: "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at."

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.
Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?

In my Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....
Regardless. The right wing is not moral enough for God to exist or we would only need Ten simple Commandments not the Expense of Government and the Taxes required to run it, for Right Wingers to immorally complain about.
Now, you have to resort to weak and wrong religious opinion to argue when Mathematical Biology has disproved how evolution can happen. It shows your explanations behind microevolution are wrong and that macroevolution cannot possibly happen. What should come out of this is different ideas about natural selection.

You, sir, are relegated to the doo doo pit along with the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,457
Reaction score
1,949
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
No, over billions of years, all possible mutations can and will occur, making the unlikely to become an absolute certainty after enough time.
I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.
 
Last edited:

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked.
Light and dark moths are exactly what evolution would predict. Why would God create both light AND dark moths? He couldn't make up his mind?

Only you claim humans came from chimps, evolution does not. Birds did come from dinosaurs and we have plenty of evidence to support it. IT HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,457
Reaction score
1,949
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.
I had to look it up since it really has been that long since biology class.

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I am not sure what you mean by, debunked. Homo sapiens sapiens are the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.
I had to look it up since it really has been that long since biology class.

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I am not sure what you mean by, debunked. Homo sapiens sapiens are the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies
The light and dark gray peppered moth did not evolve. Both existed before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. The air pollution really didn't have anything to do with it as the population ratios were uneven in other areas surrounding cities with a lots of pollution. The data of pollution of areas surrounding cities was cherry picked to fit the theory. Furthermore, there was a big controversy of how the experiment was done to show evolution and industrial melanism. The man who did it was first praised and became famous in high school and college textbooks using it as the scientific method for microevolution. I remembered seeing the moths on the light and dark tree barks and buying into it. However, later the photos were revealed to be dead moths and were glued on. The guy who became famous committed suicide as his experiments were panned for errors and later he did not get into the Royal Society. I guess becoming famous quickly and then being criticized harshly over time had negative effects.

++++++++

It's some of the homo genus descent from common ancestors that were debunked. A few turned out to be outright frauds. The homo sapiens sapiens skeletons are controversial in that it doesn't show common descent over time. They're all skeletons of different modern humans, e.g. homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens. The neanderthals should be depicted as much larger and stronger than homo sapiens.



I remember seeing the above in biology class.



Later I discovered some of the transitional fossils, i.e. skeletons, were frauds.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
58,457
Reaction score
1,949
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Evolution in the Animal Kingdom would suggest otherwise for more easily spotted, spotted moths from a predator perspective. Might does make right in the Animal Kingdom.

And, some fraud doesn't mean or imply all is fraud.

Take right wing alleged Theists who complain about Taxes; it should only require Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of secular and temporal Government on Earth. Simply having taxes and right wingers immorally complaining about taxes instead of obeying Commandments from God, is plenty of proof regarding right wing morality.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.
I had to look it up since it really has been that long since biology class.

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I am not sure what you mean by, debunked. Homo sapiens sapiens are the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies
The light and dark gray peppered moth did not evolve. Both existed before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. The air pollution really didn't have anything to do with it as the population ratios were uneven in other areas surrounding cities with a lots of pollution. The data of pollution of areas surrounding cities was cherry picked to fit the theory. Furthermore, there was a big controversy of how the experiment was done to show evolution and industrial melanism. The man who did it was first praised and became famous in high school and college textbooks using it as the scientific method for microevolution. I remembered seeing the moths on the light and dark tree barks and buying into it. However, later the photos were revealed to be dead moths and were glued on. The guy who became famous committed suicide as his experiments were panned for errors and later he did not get into the Royal Society. I guess becoming famous quickly and then being criticized harshly over time had negative effects.

++++++++

It's some of the homo genus descent from common ancestors that were debunked. A few turned out to be outright frauds. The homo sapiens sapiens skeletons are controversial in that it doesn't show common descent over time. They're all skeletons of different modern humans, e.g. homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens. The neanderthals should be depicted as much larger and stronger than homo sapiens.



I remember seeing the above in biology class.



Later I discovered some of the transitional fossils, i.e. skeletons, were frauds.
Of course, you're missing the point. Generations of peppered moths in Britain gradually darkened in response to the air pollution in the industrialized parts of the country. Researchers showed that the dark form of the moth predominated because their dark color provided camouflage as an adaptation to lessen predation by birds.

A prediction of evolutionary biology is that organisms will adapt to their environment. While you may believe that the gods intervened and gradually caused the darkening of moth populations, a basic precept of biological evolution is that populations evolve. The peppered moth is just one more confirmation of Darwinian Theory.

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

3. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

4. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

5. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

6. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
Haha. Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth? Both light and dark moths existed during the time.

I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years. There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs. Both have been debunked. For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal. Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys. As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.
I had to look it up since it really has been that long since biology class.

The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I am not sure what you mean by, debunked. Homo sapiens sapiens are the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.

The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies
The light and dark gray peppered moth did not evolve. Both existed before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. The air pollution really didn't have anything to do with it as the population ratios were uneven in other areas surrounding cities with a lots of pollution. The data of pollution of areas surrounding cities was cherry picked to fit the theory. Furthermore, there was a big controversy of how the experiment was done to show evolution and industrial melanism. The man who did it was first praised and became famous in high school and college textbooks using it as the scientific method for microevolution. I remembered seeing the moths on the light and dark tree barks and buying into it. However, later the photos were revealed to be dead moths and were glued on. The guy who became famous committed suicide as his experiments were panned for errors and later he did not get into the Royal Society. I guess becoming famous quickly and then being criticized harshly over time had negative effects.

++++++++

It's some of the homo genus descent from common ancestors that were debunked. A few turned out to be outright frauds. The homo sapiens sapiens skeletons are controversial in that it doesn't show common descent over time. They're all skeletons of different modern humans, e.g. homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens. The neanderthals should be depicted as much larger and stronger than homo sapiens.



I remember seeing the above in biology class.



Later I discovered some of the transitional fossils, i.e. skeletons, were frauds.
The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.

Two examples hardly makes a case for the magic and supernaturalism of your asserted gods.

Maybe you lecture everyone on the shroud of Turin or people seeing the Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
Generations of peppered moths in Britain gradually darkened in response to the air pollution in the industrialized parts of the country. Researchers showed that the dark form of the moth predominated because their dark color provided camouflage as an adaptation to lessen predation by birds.
And they changed themselves back to light color. All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution. With micro, there would have to be some genetic change in the population which didn't happen. Already, there were both types of moths, but the majority was whitish or light grey and speckled with black.

What was interesting was how since its discovery how evolutionists made claims of microevolution happened:

"The basic explanation of this theory state the following:
  • The peppered moth prior to the Industrial Revolution was well-camouflaged against a similarly-colored background of lichen growing on tree trunks.
  • The melanistic black form - when resting against the same tree trunks - was easily picked-off by birds, and thus rare.
  • The depositing of soot blackened the trees, allowing the black form to be camouflaged, and the normal form to be predated on by birds.
  • Strict regulations enforced pollution controls in the later-19th century, gradually restoring the coloration of the trees, allowing normal lichen growth, and enabling the normal moths their previous advantage at camouflage versus the black form.
The above is what evolution researcher H.B. Kettlewell formulated. However, it was found that birds weren't the moth's main natural predator nor does it rest on tree trunks and was camouflaged by its light color. Bats are the peppered moths top natural predator. The peppered moth fly at night like all moths (?) and rests in the daytime high atop trees and under its leaves. The change to dark color had happened due on its own and not because of the environment. There were already light and dark colored moth and light and dark color genes for them. The air pollution just caused the moth ratios to change, but not like Kettlewell and the other evolutionists predicted. This shows your #1 - 6 were wrong.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.
That is an understatement. The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people. People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil. Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used. I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake. Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
And they changed themselves back to light color. All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution.
ID’iot creationers, not having a science vocabulary, do have problems with terms and definitions.

The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:

2. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.


There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.
That is an understatement. The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people. People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil. Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used. I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake. Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.
Piltdown Man was an error corrected by scientists.

Your chart is an unsourced, unattributed but and paste for obvious reasons.



The site of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia has produced four superb hominid skulls ranging in size from 600 cm3 to 780 cm3. These sizes range from the lower end of Homo erectus downwards into the Homo habilis range. The fossils contain a mixture of anatomical features from erectus and habilis. They could arguably be considered to belong either to primitive H. erectus (or H. ergaster), or to a new species, Homo georgicus. Vekua et al 2002 concluded:

The Dmanisi hominids are among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to H. erectus or to any species that is indisputably Homo, and it can be argued that this population is closely related to Homo habilis (sensu stricto) as known from Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Koobi Fora in northern Kenya, and possibly Hadar in Ethiopia.

These skulls are intermediate in both anatomy and size between Homo erectus and H. habilis, and as a result are exceedingly difficult for creationists to classify. Creationists therefore either ignored them (the usual reaction), or were forced into the absurdity of claiming that the biggest skull is human but the smallest two are apes (Lubenow 2004), or the almost equally implausible suggestion that all of them are human (Line 2005).

In 2007, further light was thrown on the Dmanisi hominids with the announcement that a substantial number of bones from below the skull had been discovered (Lordkipanidze et al 2007). These included a right femur, tibia and kneecap (the most complete known lower limb of early Homo); an ankle bone, part of a shoulder blade, three collar bones, three upper arm bones, five vertebrae, and a few other small bones. Some of these bones were associated with some of the previously discovered skulls.

Analysis of the bones shows that the Dmanisi hominids definitely walked bipedally and upright. However, the bones show a number of differences from modern humans and have some features associated with Homo habilis. The upper body differences lead the authors to suggest, with some caution, that “the Dmanisi hominins would have had a more australopith-like than human-like upper limb morphology”.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:
This is quote mining and taking things stated out of context. Why don't you address my point?

"All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution. With micro, there would have to be some genetic change in the population which didn't happen. Already, there were both types of moths, but the majority was whitish or light grey and speckled with black."

The dictionary backs this up.

"from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

  • noun Small-scale evolution consisting of genetic changes occurring usually within a single species and over a shorter period of time than in macroevolution."

All you are doing is using "fitness" to fit what happened to your microevolution theory. Why don't you explain your statements using allele instead?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.
That is an understatement. The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people. People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil. Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used. I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake. Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.
Piltdown Man was an error corrected by scientists.
How does your link admit fraud and fooling an entire generation of people? It doesn't even refer to PM. You're just making excuses to protect your fairy tale beliefs in evolution. Otherwise, explain yourself using:

"The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton’s request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.

A second study, released in 2016, appeared to shift the responsibility for the hoax to Dawson. A reexamination of the Piltdown remains, which included spectroscopy and DNA analysis, strongly suggested that the fabricated remains were made by combining the bones of a single orangutan and no fewer than two human specimens. The remains from both sites showed similar patterns of chemical staining, gravel packed into spaces both between and within the bones, bone abrasion from filing, and the use of a cementing material reminiscent of dental putty to bind various bone fragments together—all of which were likely the work of one person. Although other parties may have been involved at various stages of the ruse, the study implicated Dawson as the common element at all of the important points of the story. He discovered the fossil remains at both sites and first brought attention to them by delivering them to Woodward. Other fossils were not discovered at the first site after Dawson’s passing, and he failed to reveal the exact location of the second site before his death. In addition, Dawson’s knowledge of archaeology and geology could have given him access to the skills with which to disguise the remains, and his desire for recognition by the scientific community, as evidenced by his ambition to become a fellow of the Royal Society, could have been Dawson’s purpose for creating the hoax."


My, my. Charles Dawson was another British fellow who wanted to go down in history as a member of the Royal Society.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:
This is quote mining and taking things stated out of context. Why don't you address my point?

"All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution. With micro, there would have to be some genetic change in the population which didn't happen. Already, there were both types of moths, but the majority was whitish or light grey and speckled with black."

The dictionary backs this up.

"from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

  • noun Small-scale evolution consisting of genetic changes occurring usually within a single species and over a shorter period of time than in macroevolution."

All you are doing is using "fitness" to fit what happened to your microevolution theory. Why don't you explain your statements using allele instead?
It seems you’re angry that your unsupported comment was refuted. Using your comment and addressing its falsehoods is what occurred.

You don’t understand that evolution is described by the process of natural selection. Fitness for survival was the process that gave an advantage to darker colored pepper moth. That process of natural selection was just one example of biological evolution.

Why don’t you refute this example of evolution with some counter evidence that describes how the gods intervened and hand-painted individual moths as a way to play a cruel joke on ID’iot creationers.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top