Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    This reminds me of Dory's attempt to claim Tyre had never been rebuilt even after being shown satellite and street-map images of the hotels, restaurants and apartment buildings where the ancient city had been.
    My claim is that the ancient city of Tyre is underwater.

    "In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean, in the same subsidence that submerged the port of Caesarea that Herod had built up with such expense and care. All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia B.C., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander's causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander's terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel's time, were duly fulfilled to the letter--first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." ("Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties")

    Here's Google Maps for the ancient site. Note the nearby roads and buildings, including mosques, petrol stations and shopping centres.
    But the city itself, has it been rebuilt?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      My claim is that the ancient city of Tyre is underwater.

      "In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean, in the same subsidence that submerged the port of Caesarea that Herod had built up with such expense and care. All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre, which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia B.C., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander's causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander's terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel's time, were duly fulfilled to the letter--first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." ("Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties")


      But the city itself, has it been rebuilt?

      Blessings,
      Lee
      Wiggle, wiggle, and ah wiggle off topic. The city of Tyre was never abandoned and remained occupied and standing on the Island. Only part of the island city was ever underwater. The importance of the city is not the issue in the prophecy.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        But not in the case of the cilium, or the flagellum.
        WRONG.

        Just because you appear to have the memory span of a goldfish does not mean it hasn't been demonstrated multiple times.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment



        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Well, three examples, HIV, E. Coli and malaria, but is his logic correct? Is the question.


          Again, he summarizes his reasoning in extrapolating from these examples, that is what we need to investigate.
          His logic is not correct, which we can get into. But first i want to call your attention to this:
          ​​​​​
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          His approach has indeed been different, to look at what evolution did when it had the most opportunities, including whole genome duplication, in HIV, in E. Coli
          Where you explicitly say that Behe has looked at instances of whole genome duplications. He did not. You've now acknowledged he's only looked at HIV, E. coli, and malarial parasites, none of which are known to undergo whole genome duplications, and certainly none of which have during the periods that Behe's interested in.

          In other words, you made a false statement. I won't accuse you of lying, because i think you just get so enthused about making an argument - any argument, regardless of quality - that you get sloppy and careless. What i'd like this to be is a warning against your sloppiness. It's led you into falsehoods. Is that what you want your reputation here to be?

          Be more careful. And it would be nice to see you take responsibility for false statements by acknowledging them and apologizing.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            What Behe then needs to demonstrate is that a number of unselected steps are required, which I believe he has done.
            How? Where has he clearly demonstrated that any steps in the evolution of any system were not and could not have been selected for?

            Here's a hint: he hasn't. He hasn't even tried in anything i've read from him. And you certainly haven't mentioned any instances where he's tried.

            I'll remind you again, that doing so would require that he demonstrate that selection isn't just unidentified, but it could not have possibly been involved. Which is proving a negative. So, even if he tried, he'd have failed.


            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            And if it's been designated a World Heritage Site, I don't think they're building shopping malls within the city limits.
            Which is exactly my point. We're now onto issues of zoning, border definition, international law, etc. These are not issues of science. Therefore, this is not a scientific question.

            As an aside, i think it's comical that you seem to believe you know how the ancient Babylonians defined their city limits.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              But I don't think Behe is accepting every proposed instance of speciation, it depends on whether and how many unselected steps are involved.
              Behe accepts speciation. Period. He allows that mutation and natural selection can explain species -- as well as even genus-level diversification -- although erroneously declaring that it is the result of a degradation of genes.

              Therefore, by accepting speciation as a fact, Behe, perhaps unwittingly, has also, by definition, accepted macroevolutionary change.

              And the "number of steps" is irrelevant and a red herring. It matter not a whit if it is just a single small change in a gene or if it was through several steps or factors such as geologic isolation for instance. Does not matter.

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I did click on the link, and I think I know what Bill Dembski meant. But science can properly evaluate whether a result is probably due to natural processes, or not.
              As you discovered, even William Dembski and Jonathan Wells understand that evoking miracles is a science ender and that supernatural explanations are not properly a part of science. This is exactly what the Christian "natural philosophers" (scientists) of earlier centuries understood when they established the scientific method and methodological naturalism.

              To again turn to historian of science Ronald Numbers and his .Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian beliefs,

              By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320-82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us." Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."


              Numbers also notes that

              Endorsed by such publicly religious natural philosophers as Boyle and Newton, the search for natural laws and mechanical explanations became a veritable Christian vocation, especially in Protestant countries...


              The simple indisputable fact is that science just does not deal with supernatural causes and explanations -- but that does not mean that the latter do not exist. Rather, science is simply not equipped to deal with the supernatural and therefore has no authority on the issue.

              As acclaimed geoscientist Arthur Newell Strahler explains

              [S]upernatural forces, if they can be said to exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science -- that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up "from nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore the claims of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of evaluating and processing information will collapse.


              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I'm glad for your cousin, by the way. But you did not answer my pointed question, do you believe the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are detected miracles?

              Blessings,
              Lee
              Thanks. I've noted several times in the past that things like God bestowing upon us our unique souls and the Resurrection (you can add Virgin Birth) are examples of God intervening with His creation -- but I realize that these would be impossible for me to prove scientifically. Science just does not work with miracles.


              ETA: I'm assuming that you finally accepted that scientists have a good understanding just how the rain cycle operates -- what mechanisms and processes are employed -- in spite of the Bible describing God as controlling it.


              Last edited by rogue06; 04-24-2021, 07:47 AM.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


                To again turn to historian of science Ronald Numbers and his .Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian beliefs,

                By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320-82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us." Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her."
                As an aside Numbers also briefly explains how this approach spread from just the early "natural philosophers" into other areas

                For the ordinary folk the most compelling instances of supernaturalism giving way to naturalism occurred not in physics or chemistry but in such areas as meteorology and medicine. In explanations of epidemics, eclipses, and earthquakes. Already by the sixteenth century, supernatural explanations of diseases had largely disappeared from medical literature except in discussions of epidemics and insanity, which remained etiological mysteries, and venereal diseases, the wages of sin. In writing about the common afflictions of humanity -- fractures, tumors, endemic diseases, and such -- physicians seldom mentioned God or the devil. Even discussing the plague, the most dreaded disease of all, they tended merely to acknowledge its supernatural origin before passing quickly to its more mundane aspects. The great French surgeon Ambroise Pare (1510-90), for example, explicitly confined himself to 'the natural causes of the plague,' saying that he would let the divines deal with its ultimate causes. Priests and theologians may have placed greater emphasis on supernatural causes and cures, but in general they too easily accommodated new medical knowledge by maintaining that God usually effected His will through natural agencies rather than by direct intervention. Theological interests thus seldom preclude searching for natural causes or using natural therapies.








                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  WRONG.

                  Just because you appear to have the memory span of a goldfish does not mean it hasn't been demonstrated multiple times.
                  What was lacking was the demonstration of selectable steps, which is what would refute Behe.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee

                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    Therefore, by accepting speciation as a fact, Behe, perhaps unwittingly, has also, by definition, accepted macroevolutionary change.
                    Well, fine, if you want to define macroevolutionary change that way.

                    And the "number of steps" is irrelevant and a red herring. It matter not a whit if it is just a single small change in a gene or if it was through several steps or factors such as geologic isolation for instance. Does not matter.
                    It matters a lot, since each unselected, sequential step makes it exponentially more unlikely for it to happen by natural processes.

                    As you discovered, even William Dembski and Jonathan Wells understand that evoking miracles is a science ender and that supernatural explanations are not properly a part of science. This is exactly what the Christian "natural philosophers" (scientists) of earlier centuries understood when they established the scientific method and methodological naturalism.
                    You must know by now that I disagree with that assessment.

                    Source: Stephen Meyer, the Return of the God Hypothesis

                    As one of my supervisors put it to me, “If you miss Newton’s theism, you’ve missed everything.” Newton not only had a profoundly theistic philosophy of nature, but he also developed several compelling (at least, at the time) arguments for natural theology—that is, arguments for the existence of God based upon observations of complex systems in the natural world.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    The simple indisputable fact is that science just does not deal with supernatural causes and explanations -- but that does not mean that the latter do not exist. Rather, science is simply not equipped to deal with the supernatural and therefore has no authority on the issue.
                    Which would be why people don't try and take pictures of ghosts. Or count the baskets-full of food after a feeding of 5,000.

                    I've noted several times in the past that things like God bestowing upon us our unique souls and the Resurrection (you can add Virgin Birth) are examples of God intervening with His creation -- but I realize that these would be impossible for me to prove scientifically. Science just does not work with miracles.
                    "After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive." (Acts 1:3)

                    Scientific observation and verification!

                    "He said to them, 'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, 'Do you have anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence." (Luke 24:38-43)

                    I'm assuming that you finally accepted that scientists have a good understanding just how the rain cycle operates -- what mechanisms and processes are employed -- in spite of the Bible describing God as controlling it.
                    Certainly, but God is intimately involved in the world, in control of everything.

                    "When a trumpet sounds in a city,
                    do not the people tremble?
                    When disaster comes to a city,
                    has not the LORD caused it?" (Amos 3:6)

                    So this is a mystery, known to the Biblical writers, even, but nonetheless the truth.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Where you explicitly say that Behe has looked at instances of whole genome duplications. He did not. You've now acknowledged he's only looked at HIV, E. coli, and malarial parasites, none of which are known to undergo whole genome duplications, and certainly none of which have during the periods that Behe's interested in.
                      No, I said Behe examined what evolution had done, where evolution had the opportunity of the full range of mutations at its disposal, including gene duplications.

                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      How? Where has he clearly demonstrated that any steps in the evolution of any system were not and could not have been selected for?
                      In the instance of chloroquine resistance, where the probability (based on the rate of occurrence) is 1 in 1020, as opposed to 1 in 1012 for atovaquone resistance. Thus chloroquine resistance requires two unselected steps, since the probability is roughly the product of the probability of one step.

                      I'll remind you again, that doing so would require that he demonstrate that selection isn't just unidentified, but it could not have possibly been involved. Which is proving a negative. So, even if he tried, he'd have failed.
                      Source: The Edge of Evolution

                      The very many copies of HIV in the world would be expected to contain almost every imaginable kind of mutation. As one study put it, “Each and every possible single-point mutation occurs between 104 and 105 times per day in an HIV-infected individual.” Every double point mutation, where two amino acids are changed simultaneously, would occur in each person once each day. (This means a chloroquine-type resistance mutation—where two particular amino acids had to appear before there was a net beneficial effect—would occur in each AIDS patient every day. Now that’s mutational firepower!) In fact, just about every possible combination of up to six point mutations would be expected to have occurred in an HIV particle somewhere in the world in the past several decades—double the number that could occur in the slower-mutating P. falciparum. In addition to all those point mutations, enormous numbers of insertions, deletions, duplications, and other sorts of mutations would occur as well.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      So with this many mutations, we can conclude that all combinations of interest have been tried in HIV.

                      Which is exactly my point. We're now onto issues of zoning, border definition, international law, etc. These are not issues of science. Therefore, this is not a scientific question.
                      It certainly is, any attempt to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon is a trial, an experiment if you will, to test the presence of God in the world.

                      As an aside, i think it's comical that you seem to believe you know how the ancient Babylonians defined their city limits.
                      Well, they had a wall around the city.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • I'm only going to reply in this in part right now. Dinner is in the oven and I doubt want to get into long dismembering responses after dinner so it'll either be late tonight or early tomorrow before I get back to the rest.

                        But this I didn't want to wait on and is rather long so...

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Well, fine, if you want to define macroevolutionary change that way.
                        No need for churlishness.

                        It isn't how I want to define it but the way that it is defined. And by definition macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the species level.

                        Biology Online:
                        Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.


                        About.com: Macroevolution:
                        The most important component of macroevolution is the concept of speciation. As adaptations accumulate within a species, eventually individuals will no longer be able to interbreed and therefore are considered a different, but related, species. Macroevolution is the process by which speciation happens for several related species over long periods of time.


                        Wikipedia:
                        Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.


                        Becoming Human Glossary:
                        Macroevolution: Changes produced over many generations, including the appearance of new species.


                        Macroevolution and the History of Life:
                        Evolution at or above the species level is macroevolution.


                        Online Biology Dictionary;
                        The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species.


                        Evolution Textbook: Glossary:
                        Evolutionary change at or above the species level.


                        Dictionary.com:
                        major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.


                        The Free Dictionary:
                        Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.


                        Merriam-Webster;
                        evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)


                        American Heritage Dictionary:
                        Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.


                        Your Dictionary:
                        The term "macroevolution" refers to a change of an evolutionary nature in a species. A species that splits into two, or a species that changes into another species over a given time are examples of macroevolution.


                        Definitions.net:
                        major evolutionary change of species and taxa.


                        ThinkQuest:
                        Traditionally, microevolution is defined as evolution within a species. That is microevolution involves small changes that do not create new species. On the other hand, macroevolution creates new species.


                        Talk Origins:
                        Macroevolution: Evolution at or above the species level.


                        Vocabulary.com:
                        Macroevolution: (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms


                        Infoplease:
                        mac•ro•ev•o•lu•tion: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.


                        Kathleen Miranda at California State University Bakersfield, Evolution: Macroevolution/Speciation:
                        Macroevolution is the occurrence of large-scale changes in the characteristics (traits) of life -- in effect, the evolution of species and higher taxa


                        Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence, edited by Emanuele Serrelli, Nathalie Gontier, 2015]:
                        1 Introduction

                        Macroevolution is typically defined as evolutionary change at or above the species level. Thus, speciation, the process by which new species evolve, could be considered a cornerstone of macroevolutionary theory.


                        The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, edited by Peter Machamer, Michael Silberstein, 2008:
                        Chapter 11, Evolution by Roberta L. Millstein

                        For example, philosophers have explored issues surrounding macroevolution (large-scale evolutionary changes at or above the species level)...


                        Shane Killian, How Evolution Is Scientific, 2009]:
                        When a scientist uses the term "macroevolution," he's referring specifically to evolution at or above the species barrier.


                        Supratim Choudhuri, Bioinformatics for Beginners: Genes, Genomes, Molecular Evolution, Databases and Analytical Tools, 2014:
                        A small-scale change within a population below the species level, such as a change in allele frequencies, is called microevolution. Microevolution can be observed over a short period of time, such as across a few generations (e.g. development of resistance). In contrast, large-scale changes and evolution at or above the species level and over a long period of time are called macroevolution.


                        Greg Krukonis and Tracy Barr, Evolution For Dummies, 2008:
                        Macroevolution, as it is usually described, is concerned with evolution on the grand scale, with the branching out of new species and larger groups, like families and species


                        AP Biology For Dummies also uses the same definition


                        Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM): Evolution Terminology: (not a group friendly toward evolutionary theory)
                        Macroevolution: large scale change in organisms resulting in new species, genera, families, etc.



                        Seems fairly consistent there don't you think? Although I have found a couple of sources that incorrectly stated that it is "above the species level" rather than the correct "AT or above the species level." This may be due to how some like the biologist Sean B. Carroll have said that "‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species." I really don't know why he calls "the formation of species" (i.e., speciation) as being above the species level but in any case he still is saying that speciation is a form of macroevolution.

                        Further, some sources aren't real clear and mention things like "formation of new taxonomic groups," "results in the formation of new taxonomic groups" and "the evolution of whole taxonomic groups" but it should be understood that forming a new species (speciation) is forming a new taxonomic group.

                        So now that we can clearly see that macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level then, by definition, speciation is a form of macroevolution. Speciation is when a biological lineage divides into two or more genetically distinct species. This is something that has been repeatedly observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Further, the major YEC organizations and their mouth pieces don't deny that speciation takes place.

                        So now that we can clearly see that macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level then, by definition, speciation is a form of macroevolution. Speciation is when a biological lineage divides into two or more distinct species. This is something as I previously noted has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post

                          Well, they had a wall around the city.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          Couldn't pass this one up.

                          Old city walls are not a great indicator for a city boundary. The remains of the city walls in Nuremberg, which including the old (1557) southwestern gate, the Spittlertorturm, can be pretty much at the core of the modern city of Nuremberg.

                          If something catastrophic were to happen to the city one could still rebuild on the site of the city without building within these ancient walls.

                          Likewise with the remains of this Roman wall in London (or Londinium)


                          london_wall_roman.jpglondon_wall_tower-london-behind.jpg
                          The second image shows the Tower of London behind it.
                          Apparently only a portion of the tower is actually in London

                          Again one could rebuild London without rebuilding the comparatively tiny area that was inside the Roman walls and still have rebuilt London.


                          DTma2BzW4AAg5FK.jpg
                          It really is a tiny section.

                          Further, in a number of old cities the walls cordon of the oldest part of town. Like this portion of the Croatian town of Dubrovnik


                          160630140647-croatia-dubrovnik-full-169.jpg



                          Although this one in the Indian city of Srinagar which
                          marks the entrance to the market is more typical
                          a-city-wall-and-entrance-leading-to-a-market-inside-the-old-town-of-srinagar-2D98H93.jpg


                          The point is that walls only mark the boundaries of a city at a particular moment in time. Like a snapshot. And even after they were first constructed did they rarely encircle everything. No need to spend that sort of money (walls weren't cheap) protecting the poorest parts of town.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            No, I said Behe examined what evolution had done, where evolution had the opportunity of the full range of mutations at its disposal, including gene duplications.
                            You said genome duplications. I quoted you saying it. And now, in response to that quote, you're denying you said it.

                            Seriously, when will the dishonesty stop?
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              You said genome duplications. I quoted you saying it. And now, in response to that quote, you're denying you said it.
                              No, I meant Behe examined what evolution had done, where evolution had the opportunity of the full range of mutations at its disposal, including the opportunity for gene duplications.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee

                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                No, I meant Behe examined what evolution had done, where evolution had the opportunity of the full range of mutations at its disposal, including the opportunity for gene duplications.

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                The Lurch is correct Behe only selectively and unethically used references to support his agenda, and no full range was considered.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X