Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

neal · 03-19-09 2:34 pm

To accept microevolution and reject macroevolution is equivalent to accepting microeconomics while denying the existence of macroeconomics. Same processes involved, just different scales. I am providing a link to some of the testimony in the Dover ID-Creationist trial. For the macro deniers, please read. Thank you. <a href="http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html" target=_top>http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_tra nscript.html</a> Bottom line, accepting micro means you accept macro by definition.

bob_2 · 03-19-09 7:30 pm

Tell that to Mendel's Accountant: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:SCIENCE: MENDEL'S ACCOUNTANT Can random mutations followed by natural selection (the two halves of the neo-Darwinian hypothesis) really account for the diversity of life we see around us? Numerous experiments have failed to confirm this over past decades (irradiated drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, starved e.coli bacteria, etc.). A new tool has been released by a team of researchers called Mendel's Accountant, named appropriately after Gregor Mendel, the Austrian considered to be the father of genetics. This is a computer modeling system that seeks to model random mutation and subsequent natural selection based on what we know about genetics already. The sophisticated model of mutations to the genome and their effects may be tweaked by the user to explore various effects, such as reproduction rates, population sizes, or the ratio of beneficial to harmful to neutral mutations (most are neutral in real life studies). In effect, it permits one to model evolution to see if the "fitness" of life increases or decreases using various parameters selected by the user. More information can be found at the website <a href="http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net/" target=_top>http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net/</a> . According to Dr. Larry Vardiman: "When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection. The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness." [red emphasis added] The model is available at <a href="http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/mendelsaccount" target=_top>http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/mendelsaccount</a> and <a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Miscellaneous/Mendel-s-Accountant.shtml" target=_top>http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Miscellaneous/ Mendel-s-Accountant.shtml</a>, and may be downloaded to run locally or run on the server. It is free for personal and classroom use. A "Teachers Guide" is also being developed that should be available in 2009. More information may be found on the project site or in Dr. Vardiman's full article The "Fatal Flaws" of Darwinian Theory. (here). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/NewsletterArchive/2008.08.16.htm" target=_top>http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/NewsletterAr chive/2008.08.16.htm</a>

neal · 03-19-09 7:44 pm

Bob This is court testimony. Sworn under oath. Until you have read it ....

neal · 03-19-09 7:46 pm

As far as the program you are speaking of- I think I went into detail about this maybe 1 or 2 years ago, ie, my software developers can write any kind of code to tell me whatever I want it to tell me. That's not how nature works.

bob_2 · 03-20-09 7:03 pm

Well, maybe you need to reeducate us dumbies, because as I understand, Mendel's accountant shows reduced fitness of mutations rather than improved fitness to progress from micro to macroevolution. I would say to you, due to unproven evolutionary theory, that that's not the way nature works, macroevolution. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Consider the remarkable species Canis familiaris, which includes nearly 150 varieties of dogs recognized by the American Kennel Club. Dogs as different as a 125 pound St. Bernard and a 3 pound Chihuahua are all the same species of animal! Still, there are limits to what can be achieved by dog breeders. They can breed for long legs and short legs (within limits), but they can't breed for a flying dog with wings. The reason for this is simple: there are no genes in the entire gene pool of the species Canis familiaris that would produce wings, or any of the other countless specializations necessary for flight. For this, the evolutionist must look to mutations, their most ludicrous mechanism of all. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro08.html" target=_top>http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro08.html</a>

neal · 03-20-09 7:16 pm

due to unproven evolutionary theory The only reason that a person would say it is unproven is if: 1. They have a religious belief that makes it uncomfortable to accept the FACT of evolution or 2. Somebody with said religious belief has told them its unproven.

neal · 03-20-09 7:21 pm

Bob... Have you read the court testimony at the link from the top of this thread?

bob_2 · 03-20-09 11:40 pm

Neal, it is clear that another round will take place about ID. This Judge went the way he did but another judge might very well have gone a different direction. A judge's ruling doesn't prove evolutionary theory or disprove it. It just determines if it gets taughtat at schools or not. Origins is not talked about in this matter, but evolution. ID is not in enough peer journals so it is not accepted. But what does the Bible say: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote: Romans 1:18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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 men are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> My point has always been that even 1 billion shaking of the evolutionary dice could never produce you or me or any complex being. You like my Signature quote, I do!!!!

neal · 03-22-09 10:02 am

Neal, it is clear that another round will take place about ID. I agree. It is common for frivolous lawsuits to be filed in the United States. This Judge went the way he did but another judge might very well have gone a different direction. Do you think the verdict was incorrect? If so, why. A judge's ruling doesn't prove evolutionary theory or disprove it. Evolution was not on trial in this case. Maybe you are thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial from 80 years ago in Tennessee. It just determines if it gets taught at at schools or not. Evolution IS taught at public schools. It is scientific. Again, evolution was not on trial in this case. Origins is not talked about in this matter, but evolution. The origin of life is not studied in evolution. That is a common mis-perception of believers. ID is not in enough peer journals so it is not accepted. Voodoo is not in enough peer reviewed journals either. But what does the Bible say: Paul thought the earth was flat. That his tribe's god lived a few miles above the flat earth. That there were several levels of heaven. That the earth was created by the father of his tribal deity a few thousand years before. Paul proclaimed that the Gospel had been spread to every creature on earth. Paul was as ignorant as the rest so appealing to Paul as an authority on the workings of nature is fallacious. My point has always been that even 1 billion shaking of the evolutionary dice could never produce you or me or any complex being. So prove your theory then. Just saying that somebody else's theory is wrong does not prove your theory to be correct. We KNOW for an indisputable FACT that the theory put forth in Genesis is wrong. So, what is Bob's theory?

neal · 03-22-09 10:10 am

You like my Signature quote, I do!!!!<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper, Science Philosopher<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> This is classic Bob quote mining. Lets look at your quote: When was it made? 1976.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:According to philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Popper (1976, 151) said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme." Source: Kranz, Russell. n.d. Karl Popper's challenge. <a href="http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm" target=_top>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Did Popper die the next day? NO.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978): <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html" target=_top>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html</a> Bob.... This is known as Lying4Jesus. And, you are not even very good at it.

bob_2 · 03-22-09 2:32 pm

Keep us up to date with your heroes, Neal.

bob_2 · 03-22-09 2:35 pm

Truth is accepting micro does not accept macro by definition. Lots of microevolution is going on that Creationists agree with. Mendel's Accountant shows why Macro Evolution will never be proved, whether you like the model or not. Mutations are a loss not a gain in evolution and that is what common ancestry is based on.

neal · 03-22-09 7:38 pm

Keep us up to date with your heroes, Neal. My heroes? You are using a quote from Popper as your byline when he recanted that quote long ago.

neal · 03-22-09 7:43 pm

Truth is accepting micro does not accept macro by definition. That is false. Evolution is the whole thing. It is not subdivided except for the scale of study. That's why the court testimony was important IMO. I assume by your ridiculous comments you have still not read it. Micro/Macro is defined by scientists one way but is set up as a straw man with a false definition by creationists. They HAVE to accept evolution because it is proven, so they make their own definition for large-scale studies and call it something else. It was shown very clearly in the testimony. Read the cross examination and show me where the ID-iots debunked that point. Hint: You won't find it because they did not do it. The only thing that won't ever be proved is the Theory of Goat Herder Myths.

bob_2 · 03-22-09 9:18 pm

Scientists can say what their classes are like, and what they accept and don't but that is not proof. If no transitional fossils, no macroevolution. Neal, you may have to direct me to the exact spot in the cross examination you are talking about. It might help. Insults to a minimum would help also, or I may result to name calling also. Thanks. Just the facts, Ma'am, Just the facts. I know its hard but consider it a growth experience.

john8verse32 · 03-22-09 11:42 pm

Just the facts, Ma'am, Just the facts. ...Jack Webb, I presume? so now that you have been apprised by Neal of the fact that Popper recanted the motto you are still using, are you going to try another motto? or as usual stick with what has already been disproven?

bob_2 · 03-23-09 9:38 am

I believe he was right the first time. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 03-23-09 9:42 am

In fact, Neal, I accept Popper's statement over Neal's any day: Bottom line, accepting micro means you accept macro by definition. That is false. No scientist will truthfully say that Neal's statement true or for that matter if "honest" that Popper was incorrect with his statement.

neal · 03-23-09 2:22 pm

That is false. On what evidence do you claim that it is false? Your word? Hah! You need to back up your claim with some evidence. I realize that accepting evidence is not your strong suit, but in order to make the claim that my statement is false you need some evidence. The way you have worded the qualifier all you have to do is claim that every scientist which does not give the answer you are looking for is lying. Only problem is its the ID-ers that have incentive to lie, not the true scientists.<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:To my knowledge, I don't know of any challenge to evolution that's ever come from a non-religious person. Personally I've never experienced one. The vast majority, certainly 99 percent or more, of all challenges to evolution come from religious people who are creationists—some Muslims, but mostly Christians. --snip-- What do you think about the idea of teaching the debate, that there are two sides to this issue and that both should be represented in the classroom? I don't agree with that. The other side doesn't have any credibility. It's not that we have two theories here, both of which have good reasons to explain the data. It's that one of them has explained the data, and the other was ruled out a hundred years ago.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an-interview-with-jerry-coyne" target=_top>http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/an- interview-with-jerry-coyne</a> <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Jerry Coyne Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation, ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly if they involve Drosophila.[1] Academic work Coyne was valedictorian of his class (1971) at the College of William & Mary and received a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University, an NIH postdoc in genetics at UC Davis, and a 1989 Guggenheim fellowship. At Harvard, Coyne studied under Richard Lewontin, who sponsored his doctoral degree. He has served as Vice President of the Society for the Study of Evolution (1996) and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985-1988; 1994-2000) and The American Naturalist (1990-1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing. His work is widely published, not only in scientific journals, but also in such mainstream venues as The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement, and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition. Coyne is a critic of creationism[2], and its intelligent design (ID) variants, calling it "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[3]<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne</a> I agree with Jerry Coyne.

neal · 03-23-09 2:27 pm

Neal, you may have to direct me to the exact spot in the cross examination you are talking about. It might help. Do you suffer from ADD? If so, then I will assist you. If not, read the thing. Its not that long.

neal · 03-23-09 2:28 pm

so now that you have been apprised by Neal of the fact that Popper recanted the motto you are still using, are you going to try another motto? Liars4Jesus do not recant.

bob_2 · 03-23-09 6:09 pm

This is an interesting comment by Jerry Coyne Evolutionist Professor: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:I'm interested in how you teach this in your classroom. You mentioned that in the past the theory was taught without going through the evidence for it. How do you approach it? I teach two classes on the straight evidence for evolution. Two hours—I wish I could do more. I start off by saying, "In physics we don't start off with how we know that atoms exist. In chemistry we don't start off with the evidence for chemical bonds. But evolution is different, because the evidence is so cool and not a lot of people know it, but also because I want you to go out into the world knowing that it's important that this is a fact, it's a true fact about where we came from." I don't really hammer on religion too much, but I have to talk a little about it because that was the going theory when Darwin wrote his book. When the Origin came out there was his theory and there was the creationist theory, and they were equally viable at that time. And so when I teach the stuff I teach it as sort of an object lesson in how to adjudicate between competing theories in science. And that's the way I wrote the book, too. I'm constantly asking the reader, "How does creationism explain this observation? It can't." So it's more than teaching the evidence; it's teaching them how to discriminate between good science and bad science, and that's a good lesson for students too.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> So Jerry Coyne is the moderator of whether creationists have an answer to his questions in class. INTERESTING. I've never heard of him and I'm sure most creationist haven't either, so how can he say that his propostions have no creationist answer???? Either he's arrogant or you are gullible. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

neal · 03-23-09 7:00 pm

How is this interesting other than the fact that it is a fact?

bob_2 · 03-23-09 8:41 pm

A fact, how? I don't see facts.

bob_2 · 03-23-09 8:52 pm

To say creationists don't have the answer when he doesn't have those facts from the creationists, is being false with the students. Let the Creationists speak for themselves. Also, Neal because an evolutionist says something under oath that he claims to believe, doesn't then make it fact, it makes it his fact as an expert witness, but not necessarily truth.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 03-19-09 2:34 pm

Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#2 03-19-09 7:30 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#3 03-19-09 7:44 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#4 03-19-09 7:46 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#5 03-20-09 7:03 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#6 03-20-09 7:16 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#7 03-20-09 7:21 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#8 03-20-09 11:40 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#9 03-22-09 10:02 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#10 03-22-09 10:10 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#11 03-22-09 2:32 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#12 03-22-09 2:35 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#13 03-22-09 7:38 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#14 03-22-09 7:43 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#15 03-22-09 9:18 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#16 03-22-09 11:42 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#17 03-23-09 9:38 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#18 03-23-09 9:42 am

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#19 03-23-09 2:22 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#20 03-23-09 2:27 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#21 03-23-09 2:28 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#22 03-23-09 6:09 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#23 03-23-09 7:00 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#24 03-23-09 8:41 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

#25 03-23-09 8:52 pm

Re: Micro-Macro Evolution: Same Process, Diff Scale

Board footer