Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stripe]

If a YEC declared that the fountains of the great deep brought forth the water that flooded the Earth, but when asked to explain how that happened simply restated their idea, the Darwinists would cry foul — and rightly so.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's called circular reasoning.

It's called observation. We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms. That's why we call them "evolutionary mechanisms"; they're the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

The challenge to this from entropy requires you to explain the mechanism that converts energy from the sun into genetic information.

I told you...mutation.

The problem is that Darwinsm relies on randomness, which can never produce anything but noise.

Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time. Huh....:think:

And yet, evolution requires upward progression of complexity.

Which as the paper I linked to earlier shows, is a directly observed and documented fact.

 

[Stripe]

We see populations evolve via evolutionary mechanisms.

No, we don't.

When changes are observed in a population, they are demonstrably not the result of random mutations and natural selection.

mutation.

In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.

And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.

Yet we see evolutionary mechanisms causing populations to evolve all the time.

Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, we don't.

Uh huh.

When changes are observed in a population, they are demonstrably not the result of random mutations and natural selection.

What are they result of then?

In every other scenario, random changes are always bad for information.

Not in evolution.

And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.

Lol....tell that to a plant.

Nope. We see degradation, or, at best, adaptation in response to environmental changes.

By what mechanisms do populations adapt?

 

[Lon]

Why not?

Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait? I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification. Again, in your court, as I've a general overall of the field, but am not versed.

Understood.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Uh huh.

Yep.

Not in evolution.

That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.

If you want to declare a local reduction in entropy, you have to describe the mechanism by which energy is used to build better genomes.

And you don't get to assume the truth of evolution to establish evolution. That is called begging the question — a logical fallacy.

The problem is the random mutations part. Nothing is random.

Tell that to a plant.

Even better, let's test our competing ideas.

Define your terms, then shine sunlight on some plants and see what we get: Dead plants, or plants with improved genomes.

By what mechanisms do populations adapt?

Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.

There's also a means to test the adaptation hypothesis against the evolutionary model: A group of organisms exposed to conditions that see it change will not be as robust as the original population.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?

We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others.

And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crab

Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)
But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?

 

[Wick Stick]

And shining the sun on stuff destroys it.

Lol....tell that to a plant.

I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.

 

[patrick jane]

If a YEC declared that the fountains of the great deep brought forth the water that flooded the Earth, but when asked to explain how that happened simply restated their idea, the Darwinists would cry foul — and rightly so.

I think it's explained quite clearly.

And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.
6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

[6days]

....Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)

Superficially?? Greg....selection results in a loss of genetic variation. It is science.

But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?

Greg, you got caught making up stories about sharks growing an extra fin, so you should be careful that you aren't making up another story. Please post research showing mutations caused the coconut crab / robber crab to get bigger and more carnivorous.... then we can discuss it.

 

[Stripe]

Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others. And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crabSome shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?

You want us to explain it when you just did? :AMR:

I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.

Why wait? Here we go now. :thumb:

Who are you? :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

=
The thread titled 'Why Evolution is real science...' suggests either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)

If you were right, we'd have to toss out geology, astronomy, archeology, forensics...(long list). But you're wrong. The notion that evidence can't tell us what happened in the past, is so patently foolish that no one actually believes it. Not even you.

God's Word tells us He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib. (That is not science).

Right. Parables are not science. They are ways of teaching us by telling stories.

You seem to believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers.

(No matter how much scientists tell creationists that humans evolved from primates, they never quite get it)

Funny (sort of) that you abject to clarifying terminology before we start the discussion.

I'm merely pointing out that your declaration removing geology and forensics from science is pretty dumb.

Also funny (sort of) that you and the thread author only want to discuss "Why Evolution is real science" but don't want to discuss why 'evolution is NOT Real science.

We just found out why you think stuff like forensics isn't "real science." So it was useful to clarify what you believe, or at least claim to believe.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, doesn't dna already hold the trait?

Even if that were the case with plasmodium, that still begs the question....where did the genetic sequences for its traits come from? Do you believe God deliberately put them there?

I was under the impression maligned dna doesn't help modification.

Let's stay on topic here. Remember, we're talking about where the genetic sequences that allow pathogens, parasites, and pests to be so terrible came from. Creationists like to argue that evolutionary mechanisms can't do it and that only "intelligence" (i.e., God) can. So on the surface that seems to indicate that God specifically and deliberately created things like plasmodium with the ability to cause immense suffering and death.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's the issue. Entropy is a physical necessity. Evolution is just a theory. If all you have is your idea, entropy wins.

Good thing we have direct observation and documentation of populations evolving.

If you want to declare a local reduction in entropy, you have to describe the mechanism by which energy is used to build better genomes.

Already done, but apparently you don't hold yourself to your own criteria.

And you don't get to assume the truth of evolution to establish evolution. That is called begging the question — a logical fallacy.

No need to assume. We see it happen directly.

Define your terms, then shine sunlight on some plants and see what we get: Dead plants, or plants with improved genomes.

Here ya go: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00978.x/full

Plants, living in sunlight, evolving into new species that have larger genomes and are more robust than their parental species.

Don't know exactly. Organisms are designed, and that design likely contains contingencies so they can survive in varied conditions.

So you say populations adapt, but you have no idea how. Further, you say "organisms are designed" but you've done nothing but assume that to be true, which as you note above is begging the question.

You can't even meet your own criteria.

There's also a means to test the adaptation hypothesis against the evolutionary model: A group of organisms exposed to conditions that see it change will not be as robust as the original population.

Done. See above.

 

[Jose Fly]

I could totally envision Stripe arguing with a plant about this.

I know which one I'd put my money on. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Exactly! As long as there's an input of energy, localized decreases in entropy can occur.

:rotfl:
You think the loss of energy involved in converting hydrogen and oxygen gasses into water is not entropy?

Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Can any YECs here explain the well-documented phenomenon of island dwarfism?

We see it in humans, horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, among others.

Some shrink, which I guess would fit your reduction in genetic diversity theme (superficially)

A limited diet is the typical cause of stunted growth.

And we see island gigantism from lesser creatures in the absence of competition: see the coconut crab
But a crab population growing in size, one that keeps expanding its diet (now includes birds and cats) throws a wrench in that ideology. How do normal land crabs get bigger and more carnivorous if mutations are only bad?

An expanded diet is the typical cause of non-stunted growth.

 

[Jose Fly]

You think the loss of energy involved in converting hydrogen and oxygen gasses into water is not entropy?

You're not even making sense. Again, input of energy is what allows the localized decreases in entropy required for chemistry to occur.

Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system.

Try and keep up.....that's exactly my point. As long as there is available energy, localized decreases in entropy are possible.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're not even making sense. Again, input of energy is what allows the localized decreases in entropy required for chemistry to occur.

I am making sense, you are the one spreading nonsense.
The energy used in a closed system to convert hydrogen and oxygen into water becomes unavailable to do anything else, increasing the total entropy of the system.

Try and keep up.....that's exactly my point. As long as there is available energy, localized decreases in entropy are possible.

When you add the increase in entropy from the energy used with the so-called decrease in entropy from the conversion, you still end up with an net increase in entropy, not a decrease.

 

[Stripe]

Good thing we have direct observation and documentation of populations evolving.

Nope.

Already done, but apparently you don't hold yourself to your own criteria.

Nope.

No need to assume. We see it happen directly.

Nope.

Plants, living in sunlight, evolving into new species that have larger genomes and are more robust than their parental species.

Evolution is assumed. I used "robust" in a specific, measurable way. You don't get to use it in another way and claim to have shown my assertion wrong.

So you say populations adapt, but you have no idea how.

Nope. You can read my ideas.

Further, you say "organisms are designed" but you've done nothing but assume that to be true, which as you note above is begging the question.

Nope. Assertions are fine. Your problem is that you use your assertions as if they are evidence.

See above.

Not even close.

Were you only interested in your agenda?