Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Lol yes, I chuckled at that thread being killed by mods but there was a difference, that was classed as a "spinoff thread" which is apparently not allowed.
This is a mirror thread asking a question in direct reflection of 'the other thread' which is allowed.
It's been a great read, and again I'll thank all contributors from each side of the argument for creating interesting reading for me.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please note the word microevolution, in the text that you quoted from me.

This disproves exactly what you said above about mechanisms being missing. If "micro" evolution has been fully demonstrated then there aren't missing mechanisms.

The primary way that microevolution differs from macroevolution is that microevolution has NO SPECIATION!

And that is completely irrelevant because my point was that they DID NOT SPECIATE, despite you specifically saying they did.

In that quote (which you also took way out of context, as well), I was clearly saying that despite the fact speciation was clearly not in evidence, other commentators had (falsely) agreed it was.

Other commentators? Your straw grasping here is getting ridiculous. We were referring to a scientific research paper, what do random commentators have to do with that? Sorry that was not out of context in the least. Did the research paper say that it was speciation? If not, then why even bring it up? Specifically which commentators are you referring to?

The topic thread, at the time, was Raggedy asking for evidence of macroevolution (in the form of a published scientific paper that specifically evidenced it, rather than evidencing 'just microevolution'). I was speaking directly to the topic and you started prattling on about something other than the topic thread (strangely, I failed to respond cogently to the voices in your head, sorry about that, because I was expecting you to be speaking to the topic and had no idea that you thought I was saying the exact opposite to what I did say).

You were the one that brought up the Pepper Moth example and claimed missing mechanisms. Micro evolution uses the SAME MECHANISMS as macro. There no difference outside of the amount of accumulated genetic changes.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please note the word microevolution, in the text that you quoted from me.

This disproves exactly what you said above about mechanisms being missing. If "micro" evolution has been fully demonstrated then there aren't missing mechanisms.

Microevolution does not include speciation nor either demonstrate or require the mechanisms of speciation. Those are some of the bits of the MES that it lacks.

The primary way that microevolution differs from macroevolution is that microevolution has NO SPECIATION!

And that is completely irrelevant because my point was that they DID NOT SPECIATE, despite you specifically saying they did.

Your point was moot because you were just repeating what I said.

I did not say that they speciated, my argument was that they did not speciate. You just misunderstood my argument.

Other commentators? Your straw grasping here is getting ridiculous.

The 'other commentators' are all those who suggest that the Peppered Moth's observed natural selection was an example of evolution, when plainly only natural selection was evidenced.

This linked page; Peppered Moth Evolution from Wikipedia is an example of those 'other commentators'. Read the titles of a number of the reference articles and papers towards the end of the Wikipedia article, for more of those commentators.

We were referring to a scientific research paper, what do random commentators have to do with that?

I referred specifically to over 108 papers in that thread, many of which explicitly state that there was a species change evidenced by the data, when there was not.

Sorry that was not out of context in the least. Did the research paper say that it was speciation? If not, then why even bring it up? Specifically which commentators are you referring to?

Links pointing to many of the papers were posted in previous threads. I don't have to repeat them.

The fact that you thought we were referring to a single paper also indicates that you did not pay adequate attention to the thread. I'm pretty sure I included the number of references in this reply to you.

You were the one that brought up the Pepper Moth example and claimed missing mechanisms. Micro evolution uses the SAME MECHANISMS as macro. There no difference outside of the amount of accumulated genetic changes.

Microevolution and macroevolution are different. They are referred to by different names because they are different. They don't have all the same mechanisms as each other, but they do share several mechanisms. The absence of speciation and the mechanisms it requires, in microevolution, is a big difference between it and macroevolution.

Please this nonsense, it can't look good for you and is off topic to the thread.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Microevolution does not include speciation nor either demonstrate or require the mechanisms of speciation. Those are some of the bits of the MES that it lacks.

Speciation isn't a mechanism nor does it contain it's own mechanisms, it's just the result of numerous accumulated genetic changes. It isn't a separate process in itself.

The 'other commentators' are all those who suggest that the Peppered Moth's observed natural selection was an example of evolution, when plainly only natural selection was evidenced.

Stop repeating this lie. The exact genetic mutation has been isolated and determined.

This linked page; Peppered Moth Evolution from Wikipedia is an example of those 'other commentators'. Read the titles of a number of the reference articles and papers towards the end of the Wikipedia article, for more of those commentators.

I just read them and not a single one mentions speciation or new species in it's title. I even pulled up a bunch of them and they were mostly about natural selection. I didn't see anything that claimed speciation in that particular case.

I referred specifically to over 108 papers in that thread, many of which explicitly state that there was a species change evidenced by the data, when there was not..

The fact that you thought we were referring to a single paper also indicates that you did not pay adequate attention to the thread. I'm pretty sure I included the number of references in this reply to you.

I literally just checked your link AGAIN and speciation is not mentioned in a single referenced paper at the bottom. If this is your claim, then post the paper that says this. Of course species change. Evolution is change, but it doesn't always lead to speciation, and speciation isn't always "macro" evolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution are different. They are referred to by different names because they are different. They don't have all the same mechanisms as each other, but they do share several mechanisms. The absence of speciation and the mechanisms it requires, in microevolution, is a big difference between it and macroevolution.

This is complete nonsense and you are pertuating a false dichotomy. They are exactly the same in mechanism. EXACTLY. Speciation is not a mechanism, it's a result as I already said, and it's not even always considered to be macro evolution, most times it's not because very often one species is almost identical to the next. LMAO at speciation being a missing required mechanism in a species that didn't speciate! I think you are the one that needs to cease and desist here. Your arguments have devolved into extreme straw grasping, changing your arguments in hind sight, semantics and claiming that papers support your case when they clearly don't.

I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but you are being very stubborn and if you even consider arguing that a paper that says "the species changed" means speciation, I'm not going to bother responding. I am seriously tired of the semantics.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Speciation isn't a mechanism nor does it contain it's own mechanisms, it's just the result of numerous accumulated genetic changes.

Are you suggesting speciation is random? Surely it has mechanisms?

And what of the observed cases where the gradualism (accumulation of changes) is conspicuously absent and yet speciation is claimed?

Can you see the circularity of the reasoning behind your statement?

Stop repeating this lie. The exact genetic mutation has been isolated and determined.

It was not a lie, only natural selection was evidenced by the data.

Nor do I think it is truthful to suggest 'mutation', when that is not evidenced, either.

Two genes (or rather, two locii) have been identified that are associated with degree of melanism and could have been responsible for the light and dark traits. Both locii are in a narrow band on chromosome 17.

The standard assumption used to be that the lighter coloured Peppered Moths were the default and that the darker ones were a mutation, but there is nothing to support that assumption! In fact, molecular genomics suggests that almost all of the ancestors were dark (Arjen E. van't Hof, Ilik J. Saccheri).

The variable melanism trait was carried in the entire population both well before and well after the period when the observation occurred. Therefore it is reasonalable to expect the gene or genes responsible to be similarly ubiquitous in the population as has been evidenced in numerous ways.

The variations in melanism are entirely explained in Mandelian genetics, there is no need for mutation to explain the data. Nor is there any evidence that mutation was involved.

This doesn't rule out the possibility that mutation did occur, but it does most definitely indicate that people, even those who should know better, make assumptions unsupported by the data and others parrot it.

Calling it 'a mutation' draws inferences that are not in the data.

This linked page; Peppered Moth Evolution from Wikipedia is an example of those 'other commentators'. Read the titles of a number of the reference articles and papers towards the end of the Wikipedia article, for more of those commentators.

I just read them and not a single one mentions speciation or new species in it's title. I even pulled up a bunch of them and they were mostly about natural selection. I didn't see anything that claimed speciation in that particular case.

As I explained in the previous paragraph, they mentioned 'evolution' as being evidenced, when only natural selection was. I made no mention of speciation.

I literally just checked your link AGAIN and speciation is not mentioned in a single referenced paper at the bottom. If this is your claim, then post the paper that says this.

No, I was referencing there the 108+ papers from the previous thread, not the Wikipedia article.

This is complete nonsense and you are pertuating a false dichotomy. They are exactly the same in mechanism. EXACTLY. Speciation is not a mechanism, it's a result as I already said, and it's not even always considered to be macro evolution, most times it's not. LMAO at speciation being a missing required mechanism in a species that didn't speciate!

I said that there was no evidence of speciation, that it and its mechanisms were absent from the evidence. That there was no actual speciation in the data; is entirely consistent with that statement. The mechanisms of speciations are required parts of the MES and were absent from the data. Therefore the data does not support evolution as codified in the MES. I'm surprised that it looks funny to you?

I think you are the one that needs to cease and desist here. Your arguments have devolved into extreme straw grasping, changing your arguments in hind sight and claiming that papers support your case when they clearly don't.

No, my argument has remained the same throughout and my posts are consistent with that.

You, however, keep coming out with sillier and sillier responses, misquotations and self-contradictions in support of your argument. It is Pythonesque.

I'm having quite a bit of fun.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Are you suggesting speciation is random? Surely it has mechanisms?

Genetic mutations and natural selection are the primary mechanisms. It is not a mechanism in itself. Sure, it COULD be random in cases of genetic drift, but speciation is a result of evolution and it is not a singular event, it's an accumulation of many events to the point where the current species can no longer breed with the original one. Think of it like comparing running a mile to running a marathon. Running the mile (genetic mutations & NS) and repeating that process is precisely what leads up to completing the marathon (speciation).

And what of the observed cases where the gradualism (accumulation of changes) is conspicuously absent and yet speciation is claimed?

Can you show me where the accumulation of genetic changes is absent and yet speciation is claimed? Genetic mutations happen every generation and in pretty much every cell replication, so to say that is absent doesn't make sense. Remember, just because an exact mutation is not observed live, does not make it missing.

It was not a lie, only natural selection was evidenced by the data.

Nor do I think it is truthful to suggest 'mutation', when that is not evidenced, either.

www.bbc.com...

Your data is outdated. I posted this in the other thread yet you keep repeating over and over that it's ONLY natural selection. That's completely false.

As I explained in the previous paragraph, they mentioned 'evolution' as being evidenced, when only natural selection was. I made no mention of speciation.

Another lie. You said that speciation was claimed by "commentators" but didn't make any reference to any of them.

No, I was referencing there the 108+ papers from the previous thread, not the Wikipedia article.

Why are you blatantly ignoring every point I make? I specifically looked at those references as well and none of them mentioned speciation. I literally JUST SAID THAT in the post above. What gives, dude?

I said that there was no evidence of speciation, that it and its mechanisms were absent from the evidence. That there was no actual speciation in the data; is entirely consistent with that statement. The mechanisms of speciations are required parts of the MES and were absent from the data. Therefore the data does not support evolution as codified in the MES. I'm surprised that it looks funny to you?

No, its mechanisms were NOT absent as we have already gone over countless times. You are changing your argument in hindsight AGAIN. No, speciation is not required for evolution to happen, it is the result of evolution happening for many generations.

I'm having quite a bit of fun.

If twisting arguments and using pure semantics to make an already poor point is fun, then I guess you got me there. I mean we can't directly observe speciation in every single organism we have ever studied, so evolution must have major flaws and is completely unknown, even though it's been observed over and over and over in numerous other organisms, but somehow it's a mystery in THIS case. Come on, dawg. Make a real argument.

originally posted by: Barcs
in reply to: chr0naut

I'm done discussing the moths. It's over, it's been documented and confirmed as evolution, the exact mutation has been shown, natural selection has been confirmed. I can't believe you would even try to argue that.

Let me continue then...

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

...
The Peppered Moth

Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”⁠20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”⁠22

The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”⁠23

The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

“According to Their Kinds”

The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”⁠24

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”⁠25 So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.”⁠26 And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.”⁠27 Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”⁠28 And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”⁠29

The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

Not a Basis for Evolution

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”⁠30

...31

The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”⁠32
[back to the beginning]
“Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.⁠1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠3

Numbered references linked before.Not sure if it was this thread

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry bud, you have to come up with better stuff than copy pasting JW propaganda if you want me to even consider that.

a reply to: Barcs
Well you said you were done with discussing the moths anyway. So these facts weren't presented by me for your consideration. And since neither your last comment or this comment adds anything interesting to the table, I'll leave it at that.

Just the type of comment some people prefer on ATS. Meaningless bickering that doesn't get to the bottem of anything significant or relevant to what was being discussed or what has been discussed so far in a thread. Short and devoid of much significant content to consider on this occasion.

a reply to: whereislogic

Come now neighbour, you constantly have told us you are trained in science (specifically Chemistry and Neuroscience), yet you can't even engage in the scientific discussion, and resort to cutting and pasting from sources that are clearly not scientific.

Science up. Speak to the science, engage in debate. Don't post dogma. Rinse repeat.

a reply to: Noinden
Just seperate them into a whole lot of those type of short comments intended for triggering a distracting* bickering routine (which revolves around discrediting the person having posted the facts that the others don't want to discuss or think about in any reasonable fashion), then you won't run into any trouble with the playbook and those enforcing it. *: red herring-like

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not the one who seems to be having the troubles here. You have not discredited a single thing the entire time I've read you on here.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Just the type of comment some people prefer on ATS. Meaningless bickering that doesn't get to the bottem of anything significant or relevant to what was being discussed or what has been discussed so far in a thread. Short and devoid of much significant content to consider on this occasion.

Meaningless bickering doesn't get to the bottom of anything, but copy-pasting religious propaganda does??? Do you really think my posts are just bickering? I cited numerous scientific resources and referenced actual research, while you just pasted pure nonsense to promote a religion rather than get to the bottom of anything. You are incapable of having a discussing so all you do is copy-paste other people's arguments that don't prove anything at all and go on long winded tirades. Even though I don't agree with him, at least Chronaut tries to have a thought provoking conversation.

a reply to: Barcs

then why are you still here?

Honestly, when it comes to the judeo-christian god, the big problem is that the genocidal, ethno-supremacist, tribal entity of the old testament, is the same as the goody goody Jesus.

The second problem is, that god becoming human and provoking a hostile authority to murder him, and via human sacrifice forgive all, is a nonsensical rube-goldberg ish means of forgiving for an all powerful omnipotent entity. Why did Jesus have to die? To forgive? It makes no sense.

Some christians said originally it was due to forgive original sin, but given genetics and archaeology, and geology, and astronomy, prove genesis false, now it is taken that even the simplest of sin requires this, or god would be forced to torture forever by his nature. He found a loop hole to his tendency to give eternal torture, and via vicarious punishment of himself forgiving others. It is nonsensical.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

then why are you still here?

Because I care about intellectual honesty. Perhaps I should just ignore all the frauds and liars, heck, it would probably be better for my mental health, but I care too much about integrity. I don't like seeing people spread false information and propaganda around as if it is on equal footing as science.

It's also funny watching these guys try their damnedest to argue science and throw all logic out the window when doing so.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You are likely to get the same answer I give.

Lets try another way.

Because its the correct thing to do. At least that is my guess

This speciation debate is stupid.

For speciation to occur all that has to happen is for two populations to stop interbreeding for long enough.

Given the inevitability of genetic change and its accumulation, it becomes clearly evident that without two populations interbreeding the changes won't be shared, and different random mutations will continue to accumulate in the two distinct populations.

Now what do you think will happen after vast genetic change rearranges each population to such a degree that it can no longer interbreed? Right they become two different species

Now ask yourself, what will stop the accumulation of random genetic change in each population? Nothing.

Is there an amount of genetic change past which interbreeding becomes impossible? Yup.

With ever growing amount of unshared genetic change, given time it is an inevitability this threshold will be reached. Genes need to work in coordination and be-paired up adequately to allow for embryonic development and proper function, enough accumulation of differences and this coordination will become impossible.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go, the science of the creation, and enlightenment.

my Point of View on The Creation.

originally posted by: SevenSkies
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There you go, the science of the creation, and enlightenment.

my Point of View on The Creation.

But where are the facts?