The Antichristian Phenomenon

I preserved this thread on my personal blog, but I figure the visitors here would be more interested, since I don’t even attempt to generate traffic there.  I’ve also modified it into a single post.  Now that the fireworks have died down and the Creationist ran away officially, I would say the debate is officially over, and quite post-worthy.

A silly “All-Access Customer” was harassing Cleric on his Expelled review (which he also posted on the ACP), and putting forth statements he couldn’t answer, so I was called in for damage control.  If you want to read the original source, my first post is on page 27, All-Access’s comments start somewhere around 20, his complete idiocy is exposed on page 26, but I have condensed the posts here and edited basically nothing. (I may have fixed a few typos and names?)  I left out posts that weren’t by myself, Cleric, or All-Access as they did not contribute to the debate.  If you want to read them, the link is above…

All-Access got confused and a bit angry at my blatant exposure of his logical fallacies, then I smacked him around with some science and he disappeared for over a month, claiming he was “sleep deprived” and couldn’t think about it yet.  When he came back, he complained again that he was sleep deprived and continued to ignore my post.  It seems that most Creationists/ID proponents can not seem to argue outside those tired boxes already set up for them.

Warning: some of the responses are MASSIVE, and there is not much logic to be found.  Overall, it is a pretty typical debate with a supporter of ID.  Also, if you see that I have made a mistake or provided mis-information anywhere, please let me know so I do not repeat it next time.

First, All-Access rambles about the bible, Cleric and he debate stories and dates and Nazis and a little bit of basic evolution. A few creationists come in and leave.  All unimportant. Here is the comment that initiated my posting.

All-Access Customer:

Re-invigorated by Mr. Robledo’s speech, I am going to post at least one more time in this discussion and then I’m tossing the ball.

Cleric, I have not taken your quote out of context. You were very precise in your wording, “The one aspect of evolution that is solid fact is micro-evolution. The only stage of that aspect that doesn’t prove evolution in full is that it hasn’t fully generated a new species, but I’m not entirely sure if people are working on that or if it’s currently being researched. Other than that the fact that organisms undergo genetic changes over periods of time is a fact.”

You’re really contradicting yourself in your Jan. 16th post.

You know, I can never understand what micro-evolution is meant to prove as far as evolution is concerned. If it is true that “Animals from two different species breeding and bringing forth a NEW species is not a mainstay of evolution” (i.e. macro-evolution) then what does MICRO-evolution prove? Is it recombination they’re talking about? Because we know that recombination only redistributes existing genetic material among different individuals; it makes no change in it. Given this fact, is it logical to think that, over any given amount of time, micro-evolution will create a new species? And concerning your article on this topic, I notice you didn’t give the name of the source of said article. From what magazine or news paper did it come? You’re not even sure of the date of the article. As far as these 70 some odd new species: were they different TYPES of an already existing KIND of species or were they completely new species all together?

I want to make it clear that I don’t judge the validity of Evolution based on any religious belief. I judge science with science (or lack thereof).

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2). It was the earth that was void–not void of God, but rather nonexistent before He created it. You have misinterpreted the Bible like so many non-Christians.

I want to make sure you know Cleric, Sir, that I have no personal beef with you. Compared to Christopher Bair, you seem liken to Glenda the good witch of the north. But while we’re on the subject, I want to pose the same question I asked him. This is a question that has kept Mr. Bair–someone who is usually very persistent and frequent in his posting–silent for nearly a week now, along with all his usual evolutionist cohorts. Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species?

Cleric:

“Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species? “

As I keep trying to point out to everyone here… I AM NOT A BIOLOGIST, THIS IS NOT MY FIELD OF STUDY. I have no idea how to answer this question, I have never once made a single claim that I had answers for these minute details.

The article was on Yahoo news. They were variants.

Two different species spawning a new one, how do you get a Mule?

I have not misinterpreted the Bible, you are merely interpreting it in a way that coincides with your beliefs. In which case, the way you see it, it sounds like there needed to be a “void” a space without God, before the Earth could be formed. That’s yet another possible interpretation. But I’m a non-Christian, so I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Anyway, if you want to know the answers to your micro-evolution questions I highly recommend you ask an Evolutionary Biologist, something I constantly tell people here I am not. You’re seriously debating with the wrong person if this what you want to talk about.

Then there is a little banter, “I’ll pray for you”, blah blah, “You’re demonizing me!!11!1″, No I’m not, you’re talking down to me and being condescending, “No I’m not, I’m sorry if I came across like that” Blah blah blah blah. Unimportant. Then I come in with some answers for All Access.

Anath:

I didn’t really want to jump in on this but I feel that I have to point out a very grievous misunderstanding.

“Mutations are said to be largely responsible (if not the sole reason depending on who you ask) for the many variations in species. But are mutations not very very rare? If so, am I meant to believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mutations are responsible for creating close to two million species?”

No, “mutations” are not very very rare. Certain types of mutations are actually very common such as point mutations. Here is a study done on the mutation rate of human genome: (I had a link to the study here, but it appears to be offline as of now, I will attempt to search it down again soon)

The most important sentence to draw out of this study is this: “The human diploid genome contains 7 x 109 bp (MARSHALL 1999 Down) and thus ~175 new mutations per generation (range 91-238)” While approximately 175 mutations per generation is not all that much compared to the billions of nucleotides present in a single strand of DNA, and these changes most likely consist of benign shuffling of Junk DNA, it most certainly indicates that mutation itself is FAR from rare. There is no indication whether or not these mutations are advantageous or disadvantageous, but the fact remains that if a population reproduces regularly with an average of 175 mutations per generation for millions of years… changes WILL happen.

For clarity’s sake when “mutation” is referred to, it generally does not mean X-men-style massive change within a single organism, or even serious adjustments in the chromosomal structures, which are both very rare to near impossible. Instead, we are referring to the shuffling of a handful of nucleotides. Think about it in terms of a deck of cards. First we open the deck (representing a single, parent species). It is organized by suit and number, representing the qualities of that original species and its genome. Now I switch two cards and pass the deck to the next person, representing one generation of that species and its subsequent small scale mutations. He switches two cards, and passes it on, and so on. We circle the table of 10 people once in this fashion. By the end of the first round, we do not see much change in the structure of the deck, but by the end of the 1000th round, we have seen many, many variations, and by the end of the 1,000,000th round, it is hardly recognizable as the same wonderfully organized deck. A near infinite number of combinations are possible, and theoretically daughter-species decks could have emerged at any time during the exercise to begin circling tables of their own.

Genetic mutation has been going on much much much longer than we could ever pass around that deck of cards, and with infinitely more variety. Small-scale Mutations are far more than capable of creating well over two million species given the time they have been running and the amount of material they have had to work with. If this concept seems hard to grasp, perhaps what is really needed is a brush up on genetics, not argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, he just didn’t seem to get it.

All Access Customer:

One of the smaller of many reasons I don’t believe in evolution is that, despite what they have told me, evolutionists are not on the same page. In arguing with a group of evolutionists once, they all conceded that mutations are random and are not evenly distributed from year to year. In other words, mutations are not so scheduled as you suggest. It’s also my understanding, as you hinted at, that mutations are rarely anything but harmful or lethal. It’s also my understanding based on other evolutionary sources that many mutations are so small that you can’t even detect them, which begs the question, “How do we know they happened at all?”. Perhaps it is probable that over billions of years the many changes could be made, but that requires that you believe the earth is billions of years old. And there are I don’t know how many theories for determining the earth’s age. But invariably they all include distorted, weird logic. Let’s remember also that beyond there being nearly two million species, there are hundreds of thousands of each specie creating trillions of different species inhabiting the earth. So I still concede that evolution is improbable if not impossible.

“perhaps what is really needed is a brush up on genetics, not argumentum ad ignorantiam” Now there is an example of someone talking down to someone, Cleric. But I can play that game. What in the world is “ignorantiam”? I know it is supposed to be Latin, but Spell Check doesn’t recognize it. Spare me your attempts at intellectual snobbery, please.

And right after that made another post:

“While approximately 175 mutations per generation is not all that much compared to the BILLIONS of nucleotides present in a SINGLE strand of DNA”.

“we are referring to the shuffling of a HANDFUL of nucleotides”. [emphasis mine]

I just want to emphasize just how tiny mutations are in the sense of Anath’s version of evolution.

175 is a SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER number than just ONE billion, but you’re talking billionS (plural). 175 (“handful”) mutations versus ???,000,000,000 nucleotides? The shuffling of a handful (175) of the unknown billionS (plural) of nucleotides?

Mutations have very minute effect on a species and I still concede that they are extremely rare.

I hope to get through to him this time by expanding my examples, yeah right. Beware, this is a huge huge post, a bit overkill… heh heh.

Anath:

I not once suggested that mutations were scheduled. I used a “regular” example to keep it simple, but each person at the table could have been doing a number of things with the deck. You will also note that in the paper and in the quote I posted from the paper it lists a RANGE of about 91-238 mutations indicating that 175 mutations per generation is an AVERAGE, not a set constant. Additionally it is entirely likely that a specimen in this experiment experienced only 23 or 576 mutations in a single generation, but those numbers are anomalies and far outside the bell curve. I, and the peer-reviewed paper, most definitely did NOT suggest that these mutations were some sort of regulated cycle.

But, how do we know the changes happened? Simple. We just observe them. Using an imaginary single celled organism as a model, lets say the original beginning 5 amino acids on one half of the DNA in chromosome 1 is “A-A-G-C-T”. The cell undergoes mitosis and now the 5 beginning amino acids are “A-C-G-C-T”. This is a small mutation where the adenine has been converted into cytosine. Scientists would know this for a fact because they can map the amino acid strings and get the corresponding letters, so even point mutations such as this one are within our ability to measure. Now, maybe this particular mutations means nothing in terms of how the organism functions or looks, especially if the first five happen to be junk DNA. However, say 500 generations down the line the first five amino acids have mutated into: “A-G-T-A-A”. This is vastly different and perhaps THIS particular combination (in conjunction with others on other chromosomes perhaps) changes the shape of the flagellum. Now we have a mutation that is physically obvious, which was arrived at by measurable changes in the DNA code, but this shape change itself was not a SINGLE mutation but the result of a combination of other mutations. “How do we know they happened?” …Observation.

This is similar to a fable I once heard of a bird sitting on a tree branch counting snowflakes in a blizzard. Another bird lands on the branch and is asked, “how much do you think a snowflake weighs?” “Nothing, next to nothing”. At that moment the bird reaches a rather high number (thousands? millions?), and the branch breaks under the weight of the “weightless” snow. And so how much does a single mutation matter? One, ten, might matter nothing, but a thousand can be the difference between species.

Also, the earth’s approximate age does NOT involve strange, convoluted theories. There have been quite accurate assessments due to radiometric dating methods and calculations of the heaviest earth-particle’s half lives compared with similar samples from celestial objects. These are simple mathematical calculations based on sound knowledge of radiation and isotopes. Again, this serious doubt of current calculations appears to be merely a case of personal incredulity. Certainly you’re not going to claim the age of the earth as 6000 years? From your past posts you seem much more reasonable than that.

Improbable though it may be, evolution is here. It happened, it is happening. Ex-post-facto statistics will not help you, and do not constitute a sound argument. What is the probably that you could 50 sixes in a row on a single six-sided dice? Low. But the probability of any other combination of numbers is equally as improbable. Rolling 50 sixes in a row proves nothing but the fact that it happened. The sheer improbability of evolution producing 45938 bagajillion species proves nothing but that it happened. However, the core difference between rolling dice and the complexity of “random” mutation is the sheer fact that evolution is actually NOT 100% random.

Remember those imaginary single celled organisms from earlier? Say the first mutation was actually “G-A-T-C- -”– a somewhat major mutation with two point mutations and a critical deletion of thymine. Say this mutation eliminated the organism’s ability to digest sucrose–its natural food source. It will not reach breeding age and it will die before passing on its genes. This mutation can NEVER, NEVER be passed on, as those doomed creatures who inherited it never survive to pass it on. Now say the original five were “C-A-a-A-G-T-C”, and these small mutations and additions allowed the organism to digest fructose–a new food source that is abundant with no competition. Our new organism would flourish and multiply. This is Natural Selection at work! Natural selection ensures that evolution is NOT purely random, that it is directed, that it does have a “purpose”–continuation of the genes. Simple concept — if it works, it stays, if it doesn’t work, it’s trashed. Mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Both (and much, much more) are components of “evolution”.

Now despite what you may think, I have not been “talking down” to you. I have been writing as though those reading have had a modicum of education and understand the basic concepts of biology and logic, and when they discover a gap in their understanding, they at the very least try to look it up. Since you asked, “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is an official, technical term for a very specific type of logical fallacy based on an argument from ignorance. Of course spell check doesn’t recognize it, it is not an English word and is a proper phrase, but it does trouble me a little that you could not be bothered to type three words into Google… I question how much you really have tried to understand what you are opposing here at its CORE, if you could not be bothered to look up a single unfamiliar phrase? I am most certainly not being snobbish here by utilizing a technical philosophy term any more than you would be by citing a highly specific biblical/theological allusion. The information is readily available and accessible for anyone who cares to find it, not reserved for some elite academic intelligentsia.

Do you concede that mutations, no matter how irrelevant they seem, occur within every generation?

Also do not forget that DNA is a highly complex chemical structure. One nucleotide in the wrong place COULD spell disaster.

All Access Customer:

I am currently sleep deprived and I have to go to bed, but before I do I want to briefly respond and address some other things later. I just want to do some damage control right now.

You are right about Google being a convenient source for nearly unlimited information; however, if you have slow, unreliable Internet service you are more reluctant to use it at times. Usually Spell Check recognizes common foreign words and if “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is as common as you suggest, I figured it would recognize it. It did after all recognize the “argumentum ad” part, which led me to believe that perhaps you made a spelling error or some other kind of mistake on the “ignorantiam” part. For the record, I don’t usual criticize other people’s spelling and grammatical errors, but in your case I felt I was being attacked. And the reason I felt this way was because I have been dealing with a total and complete jerk elsewhere of late. He is very arrogant, very condescending, and, I think, deliberately distorts everything I say and puts words in my mouth. Honestly, the experience has put me in a sort of hyper-defensive paranoid state. So my apologies for that. I realize now that you are a very patient, decent, fair-minded person (albeit misguided in my opinion). If only everyone I engaged were as considerate. I say this in hopes you will not reveal some devilish side later. I will say that is does seem a bit like you are trying to marginalize me in your last paragraph.

Confession: Before posting that “argumentum ad ignorantiam” remark I asked myself if God would have me stoop to that kind of behavior and all my natural instincts told me no. But stupid me did it anyway and it backfired on me as usual when I do things like that. When will I ever learn? For this I must repent.

And that is where it was put on hold for over a month. I suspect that as with Cleric, he wants to engage in debate about trivialities rather than the actual subject at hand, but I’m not taking the bait. I did not respond to his post until he responded again, gave him plenty of time too….

A new person, “Aelnathan”, re-entered the discussion. He had made a post before (which All-Access alluded to in the first post here) but had a large delay in replying. I didn’t respond to him before because my goal was to make All-Access go away, not take on every confused Creationist Amazon could spit at me.  I expect Aelnathan to respond at some point so I won’t include his posts here for now, and if anything comes out of that, I’ll put up a new article.  I don’t expect much, though.

But first, someone commented favorably on the review, Cleric replied thus:

Cleric:

Thanks! I find that, often, to be true of Zealots and the complain that we don’t have open minds and decry our points. For some reason they can’t see that they are blinded by their faith. And there are very few that seem to truly understand the science behind what they’re complaining about. I don’t understand why they argue over something they are unwilling to look at both sides for. Of course pro-evolution people easily do the same thing, but I seem to encounter it a lot more on the religious end of things, based on my personal experience.

All-Access is clearly watching, as he comes back within the day!!

All Access Customer:

“I seem to encounter it a lot more on the religious end of things”–Perhaps it is because you are yourself a BLIND pro-evolution “zealot”.

…. sure.  *shakes head*  These people will never get it.

Cleric:

–Perhaps it is because you are yourself a BLIND pro-evolution “zealot”.

But I’m really not… I’m open to being proven wrong on this issue if you can provide me with precise scientific evidence to the contrary. This is why I make such comments about the other side being blind, they completely ignore this point and I constantly have to repeat it.

And when are you going to respond to Anath’s points, which you said you were going to?

Aelnathan comes back in this time, but his comment is irrelevant to this discussion.

All Access:

“I’m open to being proven wrong on this issue if you can provide me with precise scientific evidence to the contrary”–Well, I thought I did. The problem, I believe, is that you shrug everything off as being minute, irrelevant details. My failure to respond to Anath sooner is due to classic procrastination. Part of my problem is that I wanted to word my response just so and…well, if you know anything about procrastinators (it’s a disease) I shouldn’t need to explain. I’ve decided to just do this no matter how sloppy it turns out. Here is a copy paste job from my other posts from discussions elsewhere (distraction: another part of my problem):

>>>I’ve seen and read about too many hasty and over zealous evolutionists who claim something is fact, only to be shunned by another evolutionist claiming something else is fact.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the case with the Indohyus (a fossilized fox-size deer believed to be the closest relative to the whale). Well upon finding this ONE (count them) ONE Indohysus, the finders hastily claim that it IS the missing link between aquatic and land animals beyond any doubt. But there are arguments within the group about whether it is an ancestor or a descendant of the whale. Yet, interestingly enough, ‘Other experts, however, caution that although the scenario is possible, the ancestry analysis is based on incomplete data. Researchers “really thought the book was closed on this,” says Annalisa Berta, an evolutionary biologist at San Diego State University. “To suggest that this fossil somehow is closer than hippos, that’s a big deal-I’m just not convinced.”‘ So their is another group who believes that the hippo is the closest relation. And notice the phrase “analysis is based on incomplete data”.

Then there’s the fact that there is no solid definition of a species!<<< In other words, I don’t trust them when they say something is fact. I think they’re “jumping the gun” as it were. They aren’t all on the same page as someone opined to me previously. Anath claimed that the assumed transitional fossils prove that micro-evolution has done what the evolutionists proclaim it to have done. Well, I say that micro-evolution is not fact but requires faith since its “proof” is purely subjective in nature.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with this link to carbon dating. It isn’t long at all. Be warned it is from a Christian website but try to keep an open mind (others have not–you could be the first).

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon

-dating.htm

I just want to emphasize that my goal here is to reveal that evolution is not a solid fact but requires faith. I’m not trying to convert anyone.

Cleric:

Just a quick response here, I should have time later this weekend for more. But I really need to isolate this out.

“Lastly, I’ll leave you with this link to carbon dating. It isn’t long at all. Be warned it is from a Christian website but try to keep an open mind (others have not–you could be the first).

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/carbon

-dating.htm”

Carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate and a good archaeologist does NOT use it to date anything beyond 1350BC. The percent error in the decay of that atom is no longer useful because, if I remember correctly, it becomes unstable. Anyone who is knowledgeable or up to date with archaeology could tell you this. I haven’t seen Carbon 14 referenced as being “accurate” since the early 90’s, if THAT. It’s not even mentioned in the newer history text books I own and have read unless it is being mentioned in a “history of archaeology and why this method doesn’t work” sense.

PS: I am also a major procrastinator as well! haha

Anath:

Oh and All-access:
>>The best example I can think of at the moment is the case with the Indohyus<<

You’re putting the cart before the horse and making an example into a generalization. I’ve read over and over about scientists agreeing about the existence and date and evolutionary status of trilobites, ankylosaurus, dimetrodon, Australopithecus, saber tooth tigers, wooly mammoths, therapsids, ancient sea sponges, early bacteria, plesiosaurs, primitive algae… ad nauseum… and in all my studies, there have been only a relative handful of unresolved controversies, most of which are just waiting on another fossil or two.

Current knowledge is also modified by further evidence and investigation, which is ongoing. The debate on the posture of T-rex is one example that comes to mind. As more evidence came in, paleontologists modified their image of the dinosaur to fit its actual bone structure. We now see an accurate depiction of the creature, where it had been wrong for many, many years. As more fossils and information become available, the Indohyus mystery will begin to resolve.

>>Anath claimed that the assumed transitional fossils prove that micro-evolution has done what the evolutionists proclaim it to have done<<

You should reread my post. The first time I mentioned fossils at all was in the last paragraph. Microevolution can now be proven–and has been– on a genetic level by mapping individual strands of DNA in every generation of a population. It does not require faith to see that A-G-T-A-A is now A-A-A-C-G on a data printout.

All-Access:

>>>”How do we know they happened?” …Observation<<< I was asking how we know that micro-evolution is responsible for the various species, so when you said this I assumed you meant observation of the fossil record. What other method proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro-evolution is responsible for all the various species in existence.

“The debate on the posture of T-rex is one example that comes to mind. As more evidence came in, paleontologists modified their image of the dinosaur to fit its actual bone structure. We now see an accurate depiction of the creature, where it had been wrong for many, many years”– After many, many years of being wrong how can you be sure we have the “actual bone structure” now. To me, this seems to be another example of the hastiness of evolutionists. Everything is a fact until proven otherwise.

And I think just because we use different branches of evolution in medicine (or what have you) doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution was involved. I’m of the opinion that you could study biology without evolution. Isn’t biology used to support evolution? I apologize in advance if that only makes sense to me. I’m still a little sleep deprived you see.

“Carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate and a good archaeologist does NOT use it to date anything beyond 1350BC”– That is news to me. The other people I have debated have sworn by carbon dating, practically cheering “Give me a C! C! Give me an A! A! Give me an R! R!……” Well, one more piece of evidence that they’re not all on the same page.

“PS: I am also a major procrastinator as well! haha”– Finally, some common ground.

Anath:

>>I was asking how we know that micro-evolution is responsible for the various species, so when you said this I assumed you meant observation of the fossil record. What other method proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that micro-evolution is responsible for all the various species in existance.<<
Stop assuming.

However, there is not much we can know about the past except for fossils at this time. But, if we can prove in a laboratory that microevolution works as predicted, and if not, how it is different, and its subtle intricacies, how can you claim that it did NOT work in the past in accordance with the mountain of evidence in its favor?

The only way you can claim this is, again, PERSONAL INCREDULITY. Figure out what I am actually saying to you before you begin placing words in my mouth. We can prove that microevolution works. We can prove that it is responsible for all variation you see today. We can set up accurate models that predict the past, present, and future in light of microevolution. The facts lie in the science. All you need to do is at least try to understand them, and every post you type makes it painstakingly clear that you do not.

>>After many, many years of being wrong how can you be sure we have the “actual bone structure” now. To me, this seems to be another example of the hastyness of evolutionists. Everything is a fact until proven otherwise.<<

Have you even read ANYTHING on this discussion? There is really only one way a particular hip structure CAN work, and one of the problems was not just the science, but early artist’s renditions of the creature and setups of the skeleton to resemble a kangaroo. The posture was not even really studied until the 1970’s, at which time it was more a bit “ooops, we should have actually looked at that more closely before, that’s not physically possible.” Now we also have computer reconstructions that allow us to test our theories and find the optimal solution… which is the current posture.

>>And I think just because we use different branches of evolution in medicine (or what have you) doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution was involved.<<

How the hell is this even POSSIBLE? Different branches of evolution could not have existed if it weren’t for the theory as a whole. I hope you go get a nice night’s worth of sleep and help us all understand how you can somehow balance extreme paradoxes in your head.

I haven’t exactly had the most rest this semester either, its no excuse.

>>That is news to me. The other people I have debated have sworn by carbon dating, practiaclly cheering “Give me a C! C! Give me an A! A! Give me an R! R!……” Well, one more piece of evidence that they’re not all on the same page.<<

Who have you been talking to? I haven’t encountered this at all, even in science classes, and I read a LOT of science books. At most they acknowledge carbon-14 dating as a historical dating method. They have gone over a lot of past samples with more accurate methods to date.

Please go back and write a full response to my original post. If there is anything you do not understand about it, I would be happy to clarify for you.

All Access:

“We can prove that microevolution works. We can prove that it is responsible for all variation you see today. We can set up accurate models that predict the past, present, and future in light of microevolution”– Then DO IT! Go ahead, prove it without the fossils. With that last post you take on the same misplaced, arrogant tone that everyone I come across uses. I thought you were different, but I guess you’re all the same. This is a pointless conversation. It has been so from the beginning and I no longer have the patience for it. I’ll go back to thinking you’re in denial and you can continue doing the same about me.

One last time: The Theory of Evolution = SUBjective OPINION. And do your own research folks. If I don’t respond again it is because I don’t look at this anymore. Anyone reading this discussion can decide for themselves who has made the most sense.

Here’s lookin’ at you kid.

Anath:

Read. My. Post. Already.

I explained how microevolution works on a genetic level. I explained how we have observed DNA varying and changing between generations. I explained how scientists do it. I did not mention fossils until the past few posts after you mentioned it. Genetics has worked in this manner since the first amino acids floating around in the primordial soup. GENETICS is at the heart of evolution. If you want to know how X turns into Y, you need to stop thinking about bits of rock and start looking at and learning at the GENES. It works like this now, it worked like this before. I have not seen you present any counterargument beyond fossils. Get into the 21st century already, there’s new information for you!!!

If you want scientists to post the genomes of every creature we currently have fossils of, you will be waiting a long time, and some creatures that do not have any organic remnants will never come. Currently they are working on the Wooly Mammoth and the Neanderthal though, so that is a start.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm and is filed under Internet, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.