Posted by anyman on Nov 03, 2002 at 01:12
(61.183.177.15)
Re: evolution is a fact (cougar)
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
and no creationary guy would disagree with the fact that genetic changes occur in populations over time (although we would certainly debate the quantity of time involved)
creationary folks (knowledgeable ones) virtually to a man agree that genetic radiation/variation occurs in most if not all organisms, but... (more below)
one problem is that this definition (as a definition of darwinian or whatever [transphyletic] evolution) is lame
it is a clever guise, a redefinition, of what is commonly meant by evolution...the problem is that the word (evolution) is used in different senses but evolutionary guys try to use them interchangeably and that is nothing short of deceptive (or ignorant at best)
the further problem is that this definition in no way addresses the missing mechanism for transphyletic evolution...the mechanism(s) responsible for origin of the brand-spanking-totally new, novel, never-before-extant highly specific complex genetic information, which is absolutely necessary to any "evolutionary" model
natural selection can never provide it because by definition... selection (natural or otherwise) can only select from among those things that are already extant
natural selection can describe preservation, death, and extinction...it can describe survival...but it cannot describe or account for in any way the arrival of totally new highly specific complex genetic information being added to the mix
mutations suffer from the same fate...mutations are mistakes in the genomic copying process...they can do no more than (mis)edit already extant information
at best, both of these alleged evolutionary mechanisms can provide a recombination of all of the extant (already available) genetic information, including that which may or may not have been laterally or horizontally transferred, into perhaps novel arrangements but they in no way add to or increase the gross or net total of highly specific complex genetic information
when selection occurs, generally, some things (already extant/available) are selected and some are neglected...this rapidly leads to nowhere except a LOSS of information
mutations again suffer the same fate...they generally lead to a loss of information...not one has ever been shown to add or increase the total pool of extant genetic info
natural selection and mutation can only explain the stasis or loss of info...they cannot account for an gain
birds (and insects) that were once winged or able to fly and no longer can, may in fact derive some benefit from that LOSS of information (so there could, at least in theory, be some "beneficial" mutations depending on one's perspective
bird beaks, head shape, coloration, etc may provide some benefit depending on environmental and other conditions...but they are still only the result of recombination and/or loss of already extant info
once sighted fish that have lost their sight and even their eyes may derive some "benefit" from such loss (ie bumping into rocks etc and damaging useless eyes that may then become infected, etc)...but it is still a loss and not a gain of information
the evolution of eyes and sight (independently, more than forty [40] different times, a la convergent/divergent evolution, the first of which was the most complex, btw...he he he :-) was supposed to be the result of "selection pressures" and was also supposed to be beneficial (hey, there it is again...heads, evolutionary guyz winz...tails, creationary guyz looz :-)
so one could seriously debate the "benefit" of such loss in the big picture...beneficial to a lesser creature than the original but lacking the greater range of habitat and thus greater potential for survival and reproduction of the original...or one that has lost sight and eyes can avoid infection of useless appendages but has still lost the ability to see that it allegedly first evolved for greater benefit...it's kinda like "benefit" vs "BENEFIT" ...which benefit is the greater overall...try to see the big picture...with that brain and those eyes that allegedly evolved in your ancestors by random chance accidental luck, non-directed, unintelligent processes :-)
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.
here is a very poignant example of exactly how evolutionary guyz try to transition from one sense use of the word to the other...either without acknowledging it or without recognizing it...in either event someone is being deceived, either the author (out of ignorance :-) or the reader (intentionally by the author :-) or both (ignorantly by both author and reader or intentional deception by author and willful ignorance by reader or... :-)
in your first two sentences (that i commented on at the top) you are referring to what is commonly called mIcroevolution...however, i do not endorse or condone or use that term...i opt for more apt terms like, "variation" or "radiation" ...all informed creationary guys agree that this does occur
in the next two sentences (those immediately above and under present comment) you are describing what is commonly referred to as mAcroevolution...again, i do not use the term in other than a reference sense opting for the more apt terms, transphyletic evolution, etc
you are referring to two different things even by the frank admission of many evolutionary guyz...it's bananas and strawberries, guy...you are trying to use the same word in two different senses without alerting the reader to the transition (whether ignorantly or intentionally :-)
further, your statement that
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.
is nothing more than tautological jazz...your point "that it is also considered a fact" could be appropriately restated to say "that it is also [believed to be] a fact"
the fact that you separated these two points demonstrates that at some level (whether conscious and therefore intentionally deceptive, or unconscious and therefore perhaps in part or in whole ignorantly :-) you are aware of the distinctive difference between the two different uses and senses and definitions of the word "evolution" :-)
while you claim that "The evidence for historical evolution [you here again revert to the ambiguous use of this word] -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact...," i maintain that the evidence from all of those fields, etc is not only not overwhelming but that it is rather particularly and decidedly UNDERwhelming and in many cases lacking entirely :-)
then there is this last portion of your oft repeated, tirelessly touted tautological testimony (sorry didn't wanna miss the opportunity to insert a very UNaffected alliteration :-)
The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Q -- has transphyletic evolution occurred; is it still occurring today
A -- undoubtedly; evolution is a fact
Q -- how did/does it happen; what was/is/were/are the mechanism(s) that cause(d) it to happen
A -- uuhhhhh...uh oh :-)
Q -- can you name one, any mechanism that has been demonstrated to increse or add to in any way the already extant pool of highly specific complex information...not a recombination of already extant info but a genuine, brand-spanking-new increase or addition of information
A -- (insert the now famous, or perhaps infamous depending on one's perspective, 22 second silence of richard dawkins in a wonderfully uninformative interview...which silence was edited down to a mere 9 seconds when released on video to the public...and which silence remains and screams from every other corner of the evolutionary camp :-)
not only is transphyletic evolution NOT a fact, it isn't even a good theory...it can at best be relegated to the category of hypothesis...and in my estimation, it does not even qualify as a good working hypothesis :-)
the ONLY fact about phyletic "evolution" is that it is very far from anything even remotely resembling a fact as that word is commonly used...the only fact about darwinian or other similar type claims of "evolution" is that it is not a fact :-)
btw -- none of what either you or i have said in this thread is new info...we have visited and revisited these same or very similar comments on several occasions over the last 4 1/2 years that i have been posting to this board...and we will revisit them a thousand times more if need be :-)
(and i have rarely posted on any other board anywhere on the net...i could likely count the instances on less than the fingers of my two hands)
but you welcome to try again...
the good news is...we all gonna know the answers to all the important questions someday :-)
ps -- no skydiving this time...i have only seen it twice here and i suspect that it was military exercise or display rather than sport...i have also only seen ultralighting (once was motorized paragliding or parasailing) here twice and was unable to locate the source...and private planes other than a few bizexec types (ie semicommercial) don't exist here to my knowledge...i don't just jump; i also fly:-)
sooo...i'll just have to wait until my next lecture tour brings me back to the other side of the pond...i look forward to all of the above...and a very large steak in one or more of the finest steakhouses that i am known to visit on occasion :-)
Closed minds are hard to change. cougar 03/11 12:51
(0)