tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post431064604896486241..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Jonathan Park and the Mind Pathetically Misled: a rantUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85107516544705669532009-07-16T10:48:52.983-05:002009-07-16T10:48:52.983-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1325443954157438042009-07-16T10:45:42.205-05:002009-07-16T10:45:42.205-05:00Martin -- I appreciate your candor. In a nutshell,...Martin -- I appreciate your candor. In a nutshell, your point is that no one knows how it all started. And without true certainity, both the atheist and the theologian must rely on faith. Interesting...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837504416836203473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68948474381162885292009-07-15T18:31:19.500-05:002009-07-15T18:31:19.500-05:00hmorrisiv, as I'm not a physicist or astronome...hmorrisiv, as I'm not a physicist or astronomer, I'm not the best person to answer those questions, and at best could give you a layman's reply explaining how suns are big nuclear reactors, and they produce all of these elements, and when they explode, the remnants form nebulae some of which condense into new star systems, and all of that. But if you are sincere in your questions, I'd say you'd be better off reading books and sites dealing with the subject written by experts. <br /><br />Or, if you wanted, we could keep playing this game where you keep replying "Well, where did <i>that</i> come from?" to every answer I give, until you get to God, or to the point where you go, "Ah ha, you don't <i>know</i>? Then it must have come from God!" Because that is where you're going with this, right? I'm just asking, because if it is, we can just skip to the part where I cut to the chase and ask you "So where did God come from?" and you give me special pleading fallacies like "God didn't come from anywhere, he always existed, etc."Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59188242802383941842009-07-15T10:37:25.549-05:002009-07-15T10:37:25.549-05:00Martin - yes, I am familiar with the concept. But...Martin - yes, I am familiar with the concept. But, you did not answer my question. Where did the actual "material" come from (gas, plasma, chemical elements, etc.)that led to the original supernovae event?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837504416836203473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39389052868496661332009-07-14T20:36:57.691-05:002009-07-14T20:36:57.691-05:00Nebulae originate as the after-effect of supernova...Nebulae originate as the after-effect of supernovae. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula" rel="nofollow">More info.</a>Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75300440713010381652009-07-14T19:42:35.118-05:002009-07-14T19:42:35.118-05:00Martin said..."scientists explain the formati...Martin said..."scientists explain the formation of the world as following from known laws of physics. That an accretion disc of dust and nebular materials condensed around a young hot star and formed our solar system using such tried-and-true methods as gravity, and electrostatic and centrifugal forces. Sure, prior to all this going on, the original solar nebula may have been a somewhat chaotic glob of matter. But we wouldn't have gotten a solar system out of it had physics not taken a role."<br /><br />Where did the original solar nebula material come from?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837504416836203473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-41025724514737171202009-07-08T15:01:57.237-05:002009-07-08T15:01:57.237-05:00And I was so looking forward to his science that h...And I was so looking forward to his science that he had for us.BathTubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198295395639562763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12418895450125583982009-07-08T14:05:15.257-05:002009-07-08T14:05:15.257-05:00Observation: this thread has gone extinct. The Pa...Observation: this thread has gone extinct. The Pat Roy population that once inhabited the isle of Atheist Experience died out, unable to pass on it's memes to descendants. It is speculated that the extinction was due to an unusual abundance of predators.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60208021240402734932009-07-05T22:21:34.080-05:002009-07-05T22:21:34.080-05:00Sorry Mr Roy
No choice but to award you a big ol&...Sorry Mr Roy<br /><br />No choice but to award you a big ol' FAIL badge. You had your weekend - now a whole week - to respond to, well, anyone here, and there's nothing happening here but a bunch of atheists yakking amongst themselves.<br /><br />It's a shame. I was looking forward to seeing what new material you might bring to the table. Unfortunately though it seems you've merely conformed to a very normal & tiresome creationist mode of response - to not respond at all. And I wasn't even nasty!<br /><br />Disappointed,<br />M.<br />(Hank)hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71345851647154844902009-07-02T22:01:49.358-05:002009-07-02T22:01:49.358-05:00@March Hare
2 words "Home schooling"
f...@March Hare<br /><br />2 words "Home schooling"<br /><br />for those that do public/non-crazy private school I'm guessing they use the teasing and the like as conformation of their belief. Being persecuted and all, just like the bible says. I'm sure Ensign and Sandford are being fed that reasoning back at The Family compound right now; assuming the whole calvinistic freaks havn't thrown them under the bus already. <br /><br />Really you have to just stand back and admire the meme for its survival. It's gottan a sure fire defense mechanism "if someone disagrees that means you're right" If people agree then we're a christian nation. If they disagree than the Christians are being persecuted. It's not unlike the nudabranch(sic? Honestly don't know spell check has no clue) sea slug; ingesting that which should be toxic to it and assimilating it as it's own defense mechanism.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66512524927710095492009-07-02T21:28:39.759-05:002009-07-02T21:28:39.759-05:00Cipher's right. This is looking like a colossa...Cipher's right. This is looking like a colossal waste of time.<br /><br />C'mon Pat, prove me wrong. Hell, I'm a science-y nerd, I LIKE being proven wrong!hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44913745863442027612009-07-02T06:58:26.124-05:002009-07-02T06:58:26.124-05:00Pat, I will ignore your attributing my comments to...Pat, I will ignore your attributing my comments to other posters :)<br /><br />I had a post all typed out about speciation, flight and other nonsense, but I have a more pertinent question for the US people on here:<br /><br />Kids are supposed to be rebellious, questioning, skeptical and sulky, how did US kids become such blank slates for parents to imprint their Bible nonsense on them? (Ritalin, anti-depressants?)<br /><br />A recent study showed only 30% of kids in the UK had any truck with religion, while they may return to it it is healthy for them to ignore the indoctrination while they are malleable. Why are US kids so different?<br /><br />In the UK if a kid is overtly religious they are picked on in school, in the US if a kid is agnostic/atheist they are picked on in school. While picking on kids is bad I would suggest picking on someone for having a questioning mind is the antithesis of what school should be about.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30598349329975233192009-07-01T23:29:08.217-05:002009-07-01T23:29:08.217-05:00On a related note, if anyone is interested I can t...On a related note, if anyone is interested I can try to track down the notes from by biochem class on abiogenesis. It was a very enlightening two part lecture that goes into the mechanisms and hypothesis and the like that are not well known outside the field. A very convincing case is made for multiple "genesis" events and of the argument on which came first DNA or RNA.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47316060318123466852009-07-01T21:03:52.843-05:002009-07-01T21:03:52.843-05:00I'll leave fossils and such to someone else mo...I'll leave fossils and such to someone else more knowledgeable than myself, suffice it to say that palaeontological & geological evidence gels with biological evidence.<br /><br />A question to conclude: if species did not diverge and develop, what of the countless species that have become extinct over the last four billion years? When each species died out, is it logical to assume that someone or something simply created a brand new but ever-so-slightly different species to replace it? Is it reasonable to claim that no new species have ever arisen on this planet and that all current species of animal, plant, fungus, bacteria, virus and everything else are merely slight “micro-evolved” variations of the original, finite number of species that were designed and placed on the Earth by an immortal being a few millennia ago? <br /><br />I submit that it’s a lot more reasonable to surmise through observation that species do indeed diverge over time and eventually give rise to new & unique species. Further I believe it’s more reasonable, given four billion years of random mutations and selective pressures from environment, climate, predators and numerous other natural factors, to surmise from the evidence we have gathered in support of evolution that speciation – so-called “macro evolution” – is a biological fact.<br /><br />Do you really think changes at a molecular level, combined with selective pressure on a macro level, cannot give rise to new and distinct species? <br /><br />Is it indeed possible in your world that a match can’t start a bushfire?<br /><br />Apologies for the length everyone!hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-2695465510845011652009-07-01T21:03:26.535-05:002009-07-01T21:03:26.535-05:00continued...
But evolution isn’t just about the m...continued...<br /><br />But evolution isn’t just about the minutiae of molecular biology, it’s a big picture theory which encompasses a whole raft of different disciplines and cross-confirmatory lines of evidence. As I mentioned, Darwin had no clear idea about the precise molecular mechanism of how change arose in the first place. Such knowledge was a century away. When it did arrive, though, it confirmed Darwin’s idea in a way that would have blown his mind. <br /><br />Natural selection<br />Selective pressure on random mutations causing modifications in a population is a core element of evolutionary theory. For example, a slight mutation in fur colour may give a monkey better camouflage or it may make it more visible to predators – it will depend among other things on the monkey’s surroundings. A slight change in fin length may make a fish more manoeuvrable, but it may also make it slower in a straight line. If it lives in an open environment it may get eaten more easily, but if it’s a reef fish its newfound agility may enable it to escape and potentially produce more offspring with the same trait. Or it might not!<br /><br />Speciation<br />This occurs when a subset of a population is, just as one example, separated in some fashion from the main population. It can happen for numerous reasons: the population achieves a size which is unsustainable unless they spread out over other, perhaps different territory; a climatic or seismic event separates a subset from the parent population or alters resource levels necessitating behavioural change; predatory invasions cause a similar split or inititate changes in behaviour necessary for survival. However a subset is separated, given sufficient time without contact & reproduction with a parent population, mutations and selective pressures may give rise to a population with new or modified traits which is no longer able to breed with that parent population. When a new or modified population is no longer able to breed with its original population, that is regarded as the point at which speciation occurs. Given sufficient time and selective pressures, the two now separate species may diverge significantly, give rise to other subsets which in turn experience speciation and so on and so forth.<br /><br />Artificial selection<br />When humans interbreed, cross-breed and hybridise animals and plants to give rise to new breeds or species, we are essentially employing a purposeful and sped-up version of natural selection. The difference, of course, is that we actively select which mutations we wish to be preserved whereas natural selection is passive, undirected and relative to an individual or population’s overall fitness, not just the value or detriment brought about by a single mutation. It is for this reason that so many purebred varieties carry with them hereditary diseases peculiar to their breed: when you select for something like musculature or ear length or colour it is an inexact process and will carry with it other traits which may not be ultimately desirable, but which aren’t sufficiently detrimental to spell the end of the breed. <br /><br />cont...hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-89062010180184164982009-07-01T20:59:24.241-05:002009-07-01T20:59:24.241-05:00I agree it's a colossal waste of time but cons...I agree it's a colossal waste of time but consider how the PR-like creationists hijacked the school boards in Kansas, Texas and Dover,Pa. Consider the damage done and the years of effort required to undo it.<br /><br />PR did address the global flood question I posed to him on the TFN thread, but he could only manage a depth of 60 feet and that was with raising and lowering ocean basins, creating mountain ranges after the flood and moving continents thousands of kilometers according to Baumgardner's model.<br /><br />I pointed out with links that Baumgardner abandoned his model in 1990. I was surprised that PR is not only ignorant about science but he's equally if not more ignorant about creation "science."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921039513056888571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-91640736411458063632009-07-01T20:55:44.908-05:002009-07-01T20:55:44.908-05:00Pat, some basics.
Very, very basic basics. Hopefu...Pat, some basics.<br /><br />Very, very basic basics. Hopefully if I've made any glaring errors, some kind soul around here can correct me.<br /><br />DNA<br />DNA, while not the whole story by a long shot, is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence of evolutionary theory and confirms Darwin’s core idea that slight changes in a population can and do manifest themselves as speciation events, given the right conditions and sufficient time. This shows Darwin’s foresight & observation as he could not possibly have comprehended exactly how correct his basic outline was. DNA confirms that all living organisms are indeed limbs on one ‘tree’ of life. Were the ‘tree’ actually an ‘orchard’ we would not expect to find any genetic similarities between any animal, plant, fungus or otherwise. Instead, we find similarities between all organisms at the molecular level.<br /><br />Mutation<br />Basically, mutations happen all the time but rarely in an immediately obvious way (the “X-Men” or “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” model of mutation is as far removed from reality as possible). A random, undirected “imperfection” or alteration in recombination of DNA during cell replication, a mutation can cause either a slight change or major change in an organism. Most mutations in and of themselves are neither beneficial nor detrimental (eg skin colour, beak length) but are completely relative. Depending on how the mutation affects the organism’s interaction with its environment, that mutation may be a blessing or a curse or something more or less neutral. For example, our inability to manufacture vitamin C (an inability we share with our chimp cousins) is the result of a mutation in a common ancestor. No big deal, we both adapted to this by supplementing our diets with fruit or other foods high in vitamin C (or: did an already high intake of such food mean that when we lost the ability to manufacture vitamin C we didn’t even notice? Did we just get lucky?). This vitamin C mutation has been passed down through both our divergent lineages but not because it in itself gave us any clear benefit (indeed, scurvy is a serious illness caused by deficiency in vitiman C); it has merely come along for the ride with all the other traits that enabled our species to develop. Of course, one mutation doesn’t necessarily make or break an organism, population or species; the sum total of any and all mutations and their effect (if any) on the organism’s ability to survive in its environment and reproduce must be taken into account. <br /><br />Another point: mutations don’t necessarily “add new genetic information”. They don’t have to. All that needs to occur is a modification of existing DNA during recombination, not some insertion of new genes. Changing an html tag from “< I >< /I >” to “< b >< /b >” – from italic text to bold - doesn’t require any new code to be written, all it takes is an adjustment of existing code. It may make no real difference to the tone of the piece of text being affected and be largely cosmetic, but it may also change the tone significantly. Similarly, a minor change in an organism’s appearance, behaviour or structure (or something unnoticeable like the rate of glucose absorption or resistance to certain diseases) may make no significant difference, but it may also mean the difference between life and death or reproductive success or failure for that organism.<br /><br />continued...hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34004953172809443642009-07-01T20:23:29.449-05:002009-07-01T20:23:29.449-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13545816667461958912009-07-01T17:13:19.914-05:002009-07-01T17:13:19.914-05:00(Continued)
"Therefore the burden of proof i...(Continued)<br /><br />"Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that there is another mechanism to add all the new information to turn a simple organism into humans. With all of the researchers working on this for more than 150 years it should be absolutely no sweat for you to clearly document just one major change from one species into a completely different one. So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?"<br /><br />No. No Pat. Saying "YOU'RE WRONG" does not move the burden of proof to us. Saddly you still need evidence. You have genetic evidence (clearly not your strong suit) and fossil evidence against your happy orchard. You have physiological and anatomical evidence against you. You have a long road ahead of you. <br /><br />"So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?""<br /><br />Honest answer, yes. And we have. The mechanism is evolution. The mechanism is what you dub micro-evolution. Genetic drift+mutation==speciation. This is science 101 Pat. Furthermore, if you want to know how "new information is added" Insertion, deletion, and replacement. We've seen it. We've done it ourselves in simple models, it is not a question. You only think that some new mechanism is needed because you can't tell a DNA helix from Felix the Cat.<br /><br />I challenge you to do some homework. Define these terms in your own words. Until you do this you are BARRED from talking about genetics at all.<br /><br />Promoter sequence<br />Tata box<br />hedgehog sequence<br />sonic hedgehogs<br />Repressor sequence<br />upstream<br />down stream<br />okazaki fragment<br />inducer sequence<br />frame shift<br />deletion<br />insertion<br />neutral mutation<br />termination sequence.<br />Tiktaalik<br />Mitochondria<br />RNA<br />DNA<br />B loop<br />Double helix<br />Protein<br />Enzyme<br />monomer<br />Crossing over<br />Cruciform<br />Methylization (of nucleotides)<br /><br />You really need to be familar with these concepts if you're going to talk genetics and how they work. <br /><br />And now I get nasty, Furthermore, YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER A SINGLE CHALLENGE POSED TO YOU!<br /><br />You answered the one thing on your talking points script, but ignored everything else that your propaganda doesn't cover. Crystallization, ignored. Detailed questions on genetics and physiology and how your model addresses them, ignored. BASIC PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS THAT IF LEFT UNADDRESSED PROVE YOUR MODEL AS IMPOSSIBLE: IGNORED. <br />Oh and THEN you have the nerve to issue a challenge. A challenge that is so elementary it's covered in genetics for non-majors. Sir, what DO you study? You may be a smart man but you have NO foreseeable knowledge of biology or chemistry.<br /><br />Look...I don't barge in and demand to write your bible to fit in with LOTR, don't try to rewrite science when you have no clue what you're talking about. You're embarassing yourself, annoying people who actually like scientists, and making your religion look like a load of backwater crystal gazing hohocky.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45945778425402563072009-07-01T17:11:50.018-05:002009-07-01T17:11:50.018-05:00"Evolutionists must now go one step further s..."Evolutionists must now go one step further since their model starts with the single tree trunk. Aside from genetic reshuffling, you must now add in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism. To get from the original simple organism to complex humans, you must add a VAST amount of new information."<br /><br />Ok...and I'm resisting nasty comments now.<br /><br />You're totally wrong. Your grasp of genetics is down right...*twitch* look. Genetics does not work the way you're saying it does. I can't even address what you have said because, quite simply, you've said nothing that reflects reality. <br /><br />I have taken genetics, I have done the experiments in genetics lab. I have taken biochemistry I have studied the structure of DNA and RNA. I know how and why new information arises, how changes occur. <br /><br />Genetic and fossil evidence both show the single trunk to be more or less correct (I will get to the less part later). We start with a low diversity of species and increase. Example. There were no eukaryote in earliest life. much of life's history has been the reign of the bacteria. When the symbiotic fusion allowed eukaryote to arise, we started with very few. Gradually more eukaryote arose. The unique model of the eukaryote allowed for more complex physiology. T<br /><br />Genetics diversity doesn't have to do with "shuffling" as you say. You do not understand the rise of mutant traits vs wild traits. A genome isn't a train that needs more track put down if it wants to do something different.<br /><br />You have a profound misunderstanding of genetics and allel frequency. <br /><br />There is a set number of body plans, and all species that are related via genetic drift have modified versions of the body blue print. Furthermore, all of what the layman dubs the "higher organisms" have body plans derived from the fish and before that the worm. <br /><br />Suggested reading: your inner fish, spells out very simply for the scientifically illiterate how evidence in genetics and fossils shows body plans altering over the course of many eons to cause greatly different organisms. <br /><br />Everything you said about the genetic shuffling versus new information is pure techno babble. You are using words that sound big and impressive but mean NOTHING in the context. You are not using terms as they should be used.<br /><br />Your use of shuffling implies that allele just change or are moved around. That...isn't even CLOSE. <br /><br /><br /><br />It's clear you haven't actually bothered to learn the chemistry or biology involved. It's...it's just laughably frustrating. Here you are trying to teach people not to trust science when you are damn near ignorant on the actual subject manner.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16295069441880001002009-07-01T11:26:03.004-05:002009-07-01T11:26:03.004-05:00I am currently trying to post on two BLOGS, and it...I am currently trying to post on two BLOGS, and it is more than I can keep up with.<br /><br />Could I invite you guys to our disscusion at: http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/disproving-popular-darwinist-myths/#comment-4632?<br /><br />I will duplicate the same post I just made over there, so if you want to pick up on the conversation, I'll see you there!Pat Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06168396339588777978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63382990357279916782009-07-01T11:06:17.969-05:002009-07-01T11:06:17.969-05:00I didn’t mean to be a whiner… just wanted to stay ...I didn’t mean to be a whiner… just wanted to stay on topic, instead of on personal accusations. I get your point – no whining, and say something! Got it!<br /><br />Mandrellian, great point when you said: "Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution." That makes total sense, and unfortunately that is what many creationists do say. I’ve heard them say micro-evolution is just a bunch of small changes, but they don’t add up to big evolutionary change.” We are in agreement, that’s not logical. Over a long period of time, small changes would add up to big ones -- it would eventually become macro-evolution.<br /><br />So do I believe that small evolutionary changes are happening? No. Let’s take a simple look at the difference between our two views:<br /><br />Evolution: As Darwin first portrayed it, evolution is a tree. We start with a simple organism at the trunk and then it branches out into all the species that we see today. This is a model that DOES explain all the variety we see around us today.<br /><br />Creation: This model can be portrayed as an orchard. From the start there was the appearance of all the created kinds (individual trees). Each kind has (as we still see today) a huge variety of genetic information. Each of these trees in the orchard expresses a huge amount of variation and adaptation through different reshuffling of this original genetic information. However, since it can only vary and adapt based on the original genetic information, it reaches a limit – and then stops. This model also provides an explanation of all the variety we see around us today.<br /><br />So here is the classic scenario in the evolution/creation debate:<br /><br />- We both make the same observation (in this case, all the varieties)<br />- We can both make theories to explain our observation (in this case a tree or an orchard)<br /><br />So what next? Then we need to place both theories under investigation to see which best holds up to what we observe. We see adaptation and variation happening all the time. We breed different dogs to create all kinds of different ones by reshuffling their genetic code. As we specialize, we loose some of that original genetic information – and we can even get to the point of loosing the ability for breeding (as March Hare points out above). We also see example after example of organisms that adapt to their environment. So adaptation and variation are accepted concepts that we can scientifically confirm. So whose model does that fit with best? BOTH!<br /><br />Okay, now here’s the rub: Creationists believe that this genetic reshuffling (variation and adaptation) is sufficient to describe all the variety we see today (based on those original orchard trees). So my model fits scientific principles on which we both agree (referring to the adaptation and variation – not the orchard)!<br /><br />Evolutionists must now go one step further since their model starts with the single tree trunk. Aside from genetic reshuffling, you must now add in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT mechanism. To get from the original simple organism to complex humans, you must add a VAST amount of new information. <br /><br />So back to: "Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution."<br /><br />In the end we see that “micro-evolution” really wasn’t even the same mechanism as “macro-evolution”. “Micro-evolution” (as used by creationists) is adaptation and variation (via genetic reshuffling). “Macro-evolution” is a separate mechanism that adds new information to the existing genetic information. So now we can see the real equation: Genetic Reshuffling cannot equal Macro-evolution<br /><br />Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that there is another mechanism to add all the new information to turn a simple organism into humans. With all of the researchers working on this for more than 150 years it should be absolutely no sweat for you to clearly document just one major change from one species into a completely different one. So therein is my challenge, can you clearly document the specific mechanism that added the needed new information when one species become another?<br /><br />Hope you all have a great day! I’ll check back when I can!Pat Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06168396339588777978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8354574647848490552009-07-01T06:03:14.091-05:002009-07-01T06:03:14.091-05:00"Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution."..."Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution." <br /><br />Whenever I hear the "micro-evolution" trope from a creationist I ask them this: do you believe a match can't start a bushfire?<br /><br />I do hope Pat will return. Maybe a creationist will finally surprise me with a new angle I haven't already seen presented ad nauseam.<br /><br />And maybe humans rode vegetarian velociraptors to work.hank_sayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18406469261027721291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59013862415554510722009-07-01T05:44:06.221-05:002009-07-01T05:44:06.221-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77759275335567163602009-07-01T05:29:30.467-05:002009-07-01T05:29:30.467-05:00How can someone look at the amazing variety of com...How can someone look at the amazing variety of common dogs, or pigeons, that have been 'created' by selective breeding from a very small number of similar individuals and not imagine that, given a little time, these different breeds will become non-interbreedable? Once that happens they are different species.<br /><br />And how they can say "oh, that's simply micro-evolution" is beyond me. Micro-evolution+time = macro-evolution.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.com