Evolution Wins - Raphanobrassica

Originally posted by Cypress
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

There is nothing to debunk. Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing. Its a strawman argument.

Not according to creationists.....the singular argument is that they are NOT the same.

Originally posted by Cypress

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

Can I throw a wrench in the evolution debate? Evolution is a result and not a cause. Involution (Baptism) is the process and evolution (Rising to new life) is the aim of the creative process of design. Evolution is noticed, but this does not demand that it is the cause. In fact, no evolutionary claim would say that life was caused by evolution, despite the overwhelming allusion by the pundits that it does. From one side of the mouth, they state that we arise from evolution. From the other side, the claim evolution is not a cause. As well, the theory of evolution is taken on faith, just as a Creator is taken on faith. That is, until we have a simple proof. Here is the proof.

Evolution is a process. Its not part of a cause and effect relationship, but the process as a whole.
Changes in genetic structure/mutations and natural stresses would be the primary causes and genetic variation and changes in population dynamics would largely be the effects.

A governed thing must have a governor. In the early days, natural law was not understood. Today, it's a process of information processing and we know this. Energy is information. You cannot get around this fact. Leonard Susskind shows you that energy is information and it is governed by laws that are best described as a digital processing of information in a hologram.



The universe is fine tuned. This is not a fact that you can get around if you claim evolution as the cause. It's a result, just as you argue above. Say it the way you want, but it is governed and IS a process that is designed. Our universe is on a knife's edge when you view the settings and laws that are constant in nature.

Consider the cosmological constant. He speaks to this directly in detail. Notice that I do not use videos from Creationists. I use videos from current science and physicists that know what they are saying. The argument for an analog universe is very weak. The evidence for a digital universe is overwhelming. Evolution is reduced to a programming feature and not a platform to deny creation. On the contrary, what we observe is a platform to see a Creator.

Romans 1

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Wrath from an invariable God is not something I would tempt. God is evident and there is no argument that can deny it. As we can easily see, what we know as reality is NO accident. Notice what Susskind says when asked, "what caused all of this?" Water must be present, as Susskind says, to support life. What is the Mother's name? Aleph Mem (Strength of the Water). Father is Aleph Bet (Strength of the House). What is the Son's name? Bet Nun (house of seed). No accidents in nature and no accidents in this language as a blueprint for the universe. Get past this being embedded into the language before you can get past even the laws embedded into the design.

As it happens, we also have Genesis 1 and Pi. We have John 1 and e as an artifact to see as proof. Compare this to the entire picture in the Bible and you get it all. Nothing is left out. We are left with no excuse if we deny this as most evident. Nothing else compares.

reply to post by Vasa Croe


You're barking up the wrong tree, mate. You're trying to squeeze logic and reason into a FAITH-based paradigm. They are utterly incompatible. You ask for creationists to uphold the same standard but how can they? You're playing completely different games. Think about it - even if they believe they are being logical, they cannot be. Because it's ALL about faith (or more precisely, fear) In a sense, they have "absolute faith" that they are being perfectly logical.

I gave up years ago - we onoy have limited time and must carefully choose the battles we want to fight. Some causes (and most creationists) are just not worth it.

reply to post by jeramie

Plants are not living things.

WHAT?!!!! That is ridiculous and quite an ignorant thing to say.
"The Bible never calls plants alive"?

:shk:
Does the Bible ever call oceans wet? You're being obtuse and ridiculous. Have you ever planted a seed? Or seen a tree grow out of a walnut? Or watched a house plant GROW?

Wow. Just, WOW.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Though the thought that some people would save their dog instead of their neighbor was rather disturbing.

Really?

My dogs are family members. My neighbors are @$$hats. No question at all. My dogs, hands down. People would save their FRIEND instead of their THUG NEIGHBOR.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

A governed thing must have a governor. In the early days, natural law was not understood. Today, it's a process of information processing and we know this. Energy is information. You cannot get around this fact. Leonard Susskind shows you that energy is information and it is governed by laws that are best described as a digital processing of information in a hologram.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Changes in genetics leads to changes in life. Natural stresses factor into what genetic material survives long enough to reproduce. Its that simple. Evolution is not a cause or effect. That is one reason there is no difference in micro and macro evolution.

Just as an aside because i found some humor in another section of your post. So in the early days "natural laws" were not understood yet you continue to quote the bible to support your arguments? So then how far back do we have to go to define "early days"?

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
...
I would like to ask creationists to debunk macro evolution based on the following example:

Karpechenko's Raphanobrassica:

Brassicoraphanus is the name for all the intergeneric hybrids between the genera Brassica (cabbages, etc.) and Raphanus (radish). The name comes from the combination of the genus names. Both diploid hybrids and allopolyploid hybrids are known and share this name.
Early experimental crosses between species of these two genera had been sterile or nearly sterile, but large-scale experiments by Soviet agronomist Georgi Dmitrievich Karpechenko using Raphanus sativus and Brassica oleracea were remarkable because some of the plants produced hundreds of seeds. The second generation were allopolyploids, the result of gametes with doubled chromosome numbers.[1][2][3] As Karpechenko realized, this process had created a new species, and it could justifiably be called a new genus, and proposed the name Raphanobrassica for them, but the earlier name Brassicoraphanus has priority. Plants of this parentage are now known as radicole.[4]

Now I have already heard those that have said the completely new "kind" produced is infertile. That is not true. They are able to produce seeds and germinate both parent plants which would make them very much able to reproduce, and reproduce yet another "kind".

As far as I know, creationists consider plants life and this is a shining example of macro evolution for life.

I have also already heard, from creationists, that this proves Intelligent Design, to which I have stated that if this indeed proves intelligent design then creationists must believe that man is GOD.

So...definitive proof of macro evolution exists.

The above example is from two completely different genus, or "kind" as creationists like to specify, and they created a completely different genus, or "kind".

I am sure this will bring plenty of debate and semantics but facts are facts and this is one example that I have yet to see brought up in a creation vs evolution debate.

It is actually a very definitive example as it will force anyone in the debate to either say it is intelligent design, therefore calling man a GOD or that it is evolution therefore debunking creation. I have yet to figure out an in between stance on this particular example.

Here is the in-between stance you did not figure out:

The evidence you offer is excellent proof that species change does not require the efforts of an omnipotent God. However, it is not, as others in this thread have pointed out, proof that the Darwinian explanations for evolution are correct. It proves simply that it is possible for an intelligent mind who understands microbiology to generate a new species from existing species, using suitable isolation techniques.

It refutes the absurd notion that an almighty God must be responsible for all life, which is good. It also shows that intelligent humans can successfully dabble in genetics and create things that did not previously exist, just as they can create computers and automobiles from dirt and oil.

There is a theory out there that some find interesting, which declares that the entities who created the universe in general are nothing like the omnipotent God of modern religions, and had a natural origin. It offers several possible motivations for creation, but does not propose that the same entities who created galaxies, stars, and planets were necessarily responsible for the creation of biological life. It also proposes that the creators of life are not responsible for the maintenance of life, and that Darwinist principles are indeed the primary cause of variations within a species. (The principle is called adaptive engineering.)

The entire body of available evidence, from physics, astronomy, biology and microbiology invites some concept of conscious engineering, but disfavors the notion of an omnipotent God as the engineer. The same evidence offers no proof that it all happened naturally, and simple probability math indicates that whole genes cannot occur as the result of random chance. You might give the alternative theory a look. Digital Universe -- Analog Soul.

The theory also proposes that the same kind of entity (beon) that is responsible for the heavy lifting in biological life, such as abiogenesis and major species divergence, is the same kind of entity that is responsible for the occasional creative thoughts generated by humans.

Originally posted by jeramie
Plants are not living things. The life of flesh is in the blood. That is the reason God did not accept Cain's offering of the produce he had grown. There was no blood in it, therefore it was not alive, making it unacceptable as a sacrifice signifying the future Messiah.

So what about animals that don't have any blood? Are they not living things?

Originally posted by Greylorn

Here is the in-between stance you did not figure out:

The evidence you offer is excellent proof that species change does not require the efforts of an omnipotent God. However, it is not, as others in this thread have pointed out, proof that the Darwinian explanations for evolution are correct. It proves simply that it is possible for an intelligent mind who understands microbiology to generate a new species from existing species, using suitable isolation techniques.

It refutes the absurd notion that an almighty God must be responsible for all life, which is good.

It most certainly does not. The foundation of ALL life is the DNA molecule. How could anything other than an almighty God arrange atoms into a molecule that unwinds itself and spits out coded RNA that arranges these oh so convenient amino acids into proteins that form the bodies, brains, and thoughts of all living things?