Rapid Adaptation

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Oh definitely. When asked 1) how you would tell which populations share a common ancestry and which didn't, and 2) by what mechanism do populations descend from common ancestors, URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4348789&postcount=75"]you said[/URL] you had no idea.That's creationism for you.

Meanwhile, the challenge remains unanswered.

If you're scared, feel free to say so. :chuckle:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian on Stipe's "invisible challenge" game:
Oh, yeah. He does that. He'll pretend that he made a "challenge" you never answered, and then when you ask him what it was, he'll never tell you, but continue to insist he made it and you never answered it. It's an important part of the playbook some creationists use. They agree with Luther than it's O.K. to lie for a good cause. It's like watching a little kid trying to fool you. He doesn't realize that he's being so obvious.

(Stipe confirms Barbarian's statement)
Right here in this thread, in fact.

And he actually believes people are fooled. That's the funny part. Stipe's been burned by science too often to come out and give a "challenge." He just pretends he did.

It's why he gets so upset with me reminding him that he never showed us his "math that refutes evolution." He got upset and blurted out a testable claim without thinking.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barbarian on Stipe's "invisible challenge" game:Oh, yeah. He does that. He'll pretend that he made a "challenge" you never answered, and then when you ask him what it was, he'll never tell you, but continue to insist he made it and you never answered it. It's an important part of the playbook some creationists use. They agree with Luther than it's O.K. to lie for a good cause. It's like watching a little kid trying to fool you. He doesn't realize that he's being so obvious.(Stipe confirms Barbarian's statement)And he actually believes people are fooled. That's the funny part. Stipe's been burned by science too often to come out and give a "challenge." He just pretends he did. It's why he gets so upset with me reminding him that he never showed us his "math that refutes evolution." He got upset and blurted out a testable claim without thinking.

Here it is again, for those who want to remain blind:

Species is a vague and malleable term; it's next to useless in a scientific context. Kind has a rock-solid definition. With the creationist term, the disagreement between the two camps can be expressed clearly: Evolutionism demands that there only be one kind, while the YEC side says there will be many kinds.

The challenge is to look at the evidence and see which case is more well supported.

Let's see if the Darwinists have what it takes, or will they continue with their dissembling and nonsense.
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
6days said:
They aren't equally valid.

And how do we tell the difference between a valid and an invalid interpretation of the same data?


Invalid contradicts the eye witness account ...God's Word.

JoseFly said:
6days said:
That's why some evolutionists are looking for new explanations... a new theory of evolutionism. Their old tired Darwinism does not have the explanatory power of Biblical Creation

Yet you can't name a single thing creationism has contributed to science in the last half century. Funny how reality doesn't match your rhetoric.


How do you manage to type when you have a blindfold on and hands over ears. You have been answered. And...your comment has nothing to do with how some evolutionists are finding the explanatory power of Darwinism to be lacking.*


JoseFly said:
6days said:
Philip Ball wrote an article in Nature titled 'Celebrate the Unknowns' . He discusses how some of the old evolutionary ideas about DNA are simplistic to the point of being misleading. He also discusses how most evolutionists are unwilling to face up to the reality of what science is discovering.*
I think he essentially admits that evolutionists are afraid to back down from their belief system, even though science proves them wrong, because creationists will pounce on this as a victory.*
("There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it")
He is correct, although there is no illusion that evolutionists will follow the evidence where it truly leads.
I'm reading it right now,
Great.... we are almost like twins, aren't we?

JoseFly said:
and I see things like...

Although it remains beyond serious doubt that Darwinian natural selection drives much, perhaps most, evolutionary change, it is often unclear at which phenotypic level selection operates, and particularly how it plays out at the molecular level.

But then, your history of misrepresenting the work of scientists is well known here

And I see things like....

* I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. .

Some geneticists and evolutionary biologists say that all this extra transcription may simply be noise, irrelevant to function and evolution. But, drawing on the fact that regulatory roles have been pinned to some of the non-coding RNA transcripts discovered in pilot projects, the ENCODE team argues that at least some of this transcription could provide a reservoir of molecules with regulatory functions — in other words, a pool of potentially 'useful' variation. ENCODE researchers even propose, to the consternation of some, that the transcript should be considered the basic unit of inheritance, with 'gene' denoting not a piece of DNA but a higher-order concept pertaining to all the transcripts that contribute to a given phenotypic trait

Researchers are also still not agreed on whether natural selection is the dominant driver of genetic change at the molecular level. Evolutionary geneticist Michael Lynch of Indiana University Bloomington has shown through modelling that random genetic drift can play a major part in the evolution of genomic features, for example the scattering of non-coding sections, called introns, through protein-coding sequences. He has also shown that rather than enhancing fitness, natural selection can generate a redundant accumulation of molecular 'defences', such as systems that detect folding problems in proteins. At best, this is burdensome. At worst, it can be catastrophic.

In short, the current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess.
That should not be a criticism, but rather a vote of confidence in the healthy, dynamic state of molecular and evolutionary biology.

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
And you have no idea how to tell what organisms share a common ancestry, or by what mechanism it happened.
Observational science would be a good start wouldn't it?

Beyond that, we are inferring conclusions based on evidence.
 

6days

New member
:up::up:
So you think that the lizards landed on the island, had a whole lot of babies among which a long sequence of random mutations lined up allowing for a beneficial trait that propagated throughout the population so that the novel feature became the norm -- all in about 30 years (at most).

:chuckle:

This is why evolutionists are laughed at.

:devil::banana::thumb:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And that's not to mention the challenge of OP, in which evolution is eliminated as a factor in changes that are repeatable and predictable.

It's just good chemistry.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Invalid contradicts the eye witness account ...God's Word.

Nice to see you admit that your vision for science is "collect data, check with the Bible to interpret it".

How do you manage to type when you have a blindfold on and hands over ears. You have been answered.

There is something fundamentally wrong with you. You have been absolutely unable to name a single thing creationism has contributed to science in the last half century, and now you act like you did name something, showing yet again that it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

And I see things like....

* I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. .

Some geneticists and evolutionary biologists say that all this extra transcription may simply be noise, irrelevant to function and evolution. But, drawing on the fact that regulatory roles have been pinned to some of the non-coding RNA transcripts discovered in pilot projects, the ENCODE team argues that at least some of this transcription could provide a reservoir of molecules with regulatory functions — in other words, a pool of potentially 'useful' variation. ENCODE researchers even propose, to the consternation of some, that the transcript should be considered the basic unit of inheritance, with 'gene' denoting not a piece of DNA but a higher-order concept pertaining to all the transcripts that contribute to a given phenotypic trait

Researchers are also still not agreed on whether natural selection is the dominant driver of genetic change at the molecular level. Evolutionary geneticist Michael Lynch of Indiana University Bloomington has shown through modelling that random genetic drift can play a major part in the evolution of genomic features, for example the scattering of non-coding sections, called introns, through protein-coding sequences. He has also shown that rather than enhancing fitness, natural selection can generate a redundant accumulation of molecular 'defences', such as systems that detect folding problems in proteins. At best, this is burdensome. At worst, it can be catastrophic.

In short, the current picture of how and where evolution operates, and how this shapes genomes, is something of a mess.
That should not be a criticism, but rather a vote of confidence in the healthy, dynamic state of molecular and evolutionary biology.

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative 'age of the genome' with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.

Yep. Biologists are still figuring out how evolution works. What's not in question, as stated in the article, is that evolution happens.

Surely you're not trying to argue that since we don't know everything about how evolution happens, that means it doesn't happen, are you?

Observational science would be a good start wouldn't it?

Beyond that, we are inferring conclusions based on evidence.

Maybe you and Stripe can get together and figure this out.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Maybe you and Stripe can get together and figure this out.

Between us we've issued two challenges, neither of which you have even admitted exist.

Maybe one day you'll work up the courage. :chuckle:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.

You are dishonest.

As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

There's no point in you denying it. That's just how it is. The point is that the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationism. And that's been known from the start. Darwin noted the difficulty in defining any such term, and noted that it was a consequence of species evolving.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Oh, and the "challenge?" Based on a rather simplistic misunderstanding of what words mean in science:

Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation.
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 May 7;279(1734):1847-56
Abstract
Adaptive radiations have helped shape how we view animal speciation, particularly classic examples such as Darwin's finches, Hawaiian fruitflies and African Great Lakes cichlids. These 'island' radiations are comparatively recent, making them particularly interesting because the mechanisms that caused diversification are still in motion. Here, we identify a new case of a recent bird radiation within a continentally distributed species group; the capuchino seedeaters comprise 11 Sporophila species originally described on the basis of differences in plumage colour and pattern in adult males. We use molecular data together with analyses of male plumage and vocalizations to understand species limits of the group. We find marked phenotypic variation despite lack of mitochondrial DNA monophyly and few differences in other putatively neutral nuclear markers. This finding is consistent with the group having undergone a recent radiation beginning in the Pleistocene, leaving genetic signatures of incomplete lineage sorting, introgressive hybridization and demographic expansions. We argue that this apparent uncoupling between neutral DNA homogeneity and phenotypic diversity is expected for a recent group within the framework of coalescent theory. Finally, we discuss how the ecology of open habitats in South America during the Pleistocene could have helped promote this unique and ongoing radiation.


Here's 6days' rather odd take on it:
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

Notice that the abstract says that the genetic differences provide evidence for the way this species group evolved. As so often happens, our creationist confused mDNA with the nuclear genome, which has evolved over time.

Because mDNA is so much smaller than nuclear DNA, it will over the same period of time, have fewer changes than nuclear DNA.

These birds split into various groups but were still somewhat interfertile, and so there was considerable mixing. Nevertheless, genetic data did show differences.

6days just got it garbled again.

So much for that one. Oh, and the notion that rapid evolution is a new idea for evolutionary theory? Complete horsefeathers. Darwin's friend, Huxley proposed just that, and differed with Darwin as to how the theory was consistent with rapid evolution. Darwin himself pointed out that fitness to environment would affect pacing, and there has been no overall agreement among Darwinians as to precisely how pacing might vary.

That part of the "challenge" is just another creationist fairy tale.
 

Jose Fly

New member
So wait....the challenge Stripe's been harping on is about this?

Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation.

But Stripe sez no population evolves and speciation never happens. So what exactly is the challenge to us? To try and get Stripe to acknowledge reality?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
So wait....the challenge Stripe's been harping on is about this?

I think so. Stipe tries to stay as vague as he can, to avoid having to face debunking. I doubt if he'll ever come clean with you about what he meant, if he meant anything at all.
 

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
Yep. Biologists are still figuring out how evolution works. What's not in question, as stated in the article, is that evolution happens.

Yes... we ALL agree that organisms change and adapt. See the OP.

JoseFly said:
Surely you're not trying to argue that since we don't know everything about how evolution happens, that means it doesn't happen, are you?
See the OP... The changes we witness fit the Biblical creation model.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Yes... we ALL agree that organisms change and adapt. See the OP

Right, they evolve as the paper you cited in the OP states: Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation

Populations evolving and speciating...two things Stripe insists don't happen. Guess you proved him wrong. Well done. :thumb:

See the OP... The changes we witness fit the Biblical creation model.

Not according to Stripe. But then, you've shown that he's wrong, so I guess we're done.
 

everready

New member
The Deception of Evolution

The Deception of Evolution

Barbarian observes:
If creationism were true, it would be easy, since each species was supposed to be created separately.



As the history of evolutionary thought developed from the 18th century on, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic religions and Genesis with biology and other sciences developed in Western culture.[5] Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1857) were generally called "advocates of creation" but were also called "creationists," as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

There's no point in you denying it. That's just how it is. The point is that the difficulty in defining "species" is a major problem for creationism. And that's been known from the start. Darwin noted the difficulty in defining any such term, and noted that it was a consequence of species evolving.

I'm amazed to see how this evolution deception is spreading throughout the churches today. Man in his quest to gain worldly knowledge is casting away the plain truth of God's Word and a "thus saith the Lord" in favor of worldly wisdom so I suppose this kind of thing can be expected, as the Bible says:

2 Timothy 4:3 ...'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.'

And what is sound doctrine? ....

Hebrews 4:3 ...'the works were finished from the foundation of the world.'

Genesis 2:1-2 ...'Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.'

Exodus 20:11 ...'For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.'

We get two clear truths from the above verses. 1. If you believe in evolution, then you have to believe that this world CONTINUES to evolve throughout it's life. And yet God clearly states above that this world was FINISHED from the very foundation of creation. Therefore, if it was finished, then there can be no evolution. The physical and biological laws that govern the natural world were also finished.

http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/the-deception-of-evolution.html


everready
 
Top