Do you believe in macroevolution?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Does macroevolution occur?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 15.8%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • Total voters
    114
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow this thread got interesting again. Good to see some of my favourite gents getting stuck into it too.
There are so many things to argue here. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, the biggest thing that proponents of irreducible complexity seem to overlook is that complex components of a complex system don't just evolve separately and then come together one day by magic. The point of evolution is that a simple component can become complex through natural selection and as long as there is an advantage (or at least no obvious disadvantage) at each stage/mutation these complex components can build up and become incredibly complex systems.
The other obvious oversight is that for something to create such complexity, the creator must itself be complex. So where did it come from?

The whole probability argument is flawed too in that for us to be here discussing this, we have to be on one of (the only one maybe?) the places that this did actually happen. By definition is would be impossible for us to exist on a planet in which it was impossible for life to occur
 
Last edited:

The eye used to be used, parts of the clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum and of course the mouse trap. Also just because we can't think of a useful function for a precursor doesn't mean one didn't exsist and evolution can also work to simply a system to make it appear to be irreducibly complex such as the stone bridge example.
 
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."
"Creationists love Sir Fred Hoyle's vivid metaphor for his own misunderstanding of natural selection. It is as if a hurricane, blowing through a junkyard, had the good fortune to assemble a Boeing 747. Hoyle's point is about statistical improbability. Our answer, yours and mine and Stephen Jay Gould's, is that natural selection is cumulative. There is a ratchet, such that small gains are saved. The hurricane doesn't spontaneously assemble the airliner in one go. Small improvements are added bit by bit. To change the metaphor, however daunting the sheer cliffs that the adaptive mountain first presents, graded ramps can be found the other side and the peak eventually scaled. Adaptive evolution must be gradual and cumulative, not because the evidence supports it (though it does) but because nothing except gradual accumulation could, in principle, do the job of solving the 747 riddle. Even divine creation wouldn't help. Quite the contrary, since any entity complicated and intelligent enough to perform the creative role would itself be the ultimate 747. And for exactly the same reason the evolution of complex, many-parted adaptations must be progressive. Later descendants will have accumulated a larger number of components towards the adaptive combination than earlier ancestors."


(Richard Dawkins, A Devil's Chaplain, pp. 248-249)
 
Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points.

Clearly you dont care :lol:
Well a court of law concluding irreducible complexity is not a Scientific position, is about as damning as it gets for IC and ID and really the highest level of recognition it has ever received. This is down to the cold hard fact neither is a Scientific theory, if it was Science it could be published in a credible Science journal.

Do i even know what it is ? It was even the topic of one of my biology lectures. irreducible complexity is nothing more than a laughing point in Biology. You might as well tell a climate scientist lightening is just too amazing to be natural.. must be Thor!!

As for your wall of copy & paste from the www.darwinismrefuted.com :lol: If thats the kind of research you do, you wont learn anything.
The only analogy i can think of is going to a Ford dealer ship to get information on a Holden. Or asking Tony Abbott for non bias assessment of the Prime Minister.. etc

Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.

Perhaps i wasn't concise.. I don't for a second deny that debate and arguments take place on Evolution or Science in general.

Science wouldn't be what it is today. If it wasnt for debate and scrutiny. But like i said find me person pushing I.C thats not doing so from a position of religion.

Would you mind stating your position on the worlds age ? If you believe its 6,000-10,000 thousands years old..well this conversation is over.
 
Do all creationists believe the world is under 10,000 years old?

Or do some creationists pick and choose what part of their ideals they'll use.

Was it the great floods that separated our lands? And Noah (did he have a wife?) and all the paired animals then went on to spawn happily to the very day. However Noah dropped off Tasmanian Tigers in the wrong place.

I'm just going to read the site you posted Australis - the www.darwinisrefuted.com and - as I am an impartial observer, because I could care less about evolution or any biology for that matter (other than sexual reproduction), I will see how fair and non-pseudoscience it is.

Because even the opening line is claiming Darwin's theory is pseudoscience... So I better look closely.

BRB

Damn - the website doesn't work - is it a fake??? I'll google another....

Unfortunately I just ended up watching a video.... But it seems to be very well written and well spoken and well drawn...

Can you refute this 9 minute video?

[video=youtube;nh1R-gyY7es]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nh1R-gyY7es[/video]

PS - I love this guy... Can be funny! Can be serious (I said that in a deep voice).

427686_380875511923221_275373239140116_1472280_31694937_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Who cares what a court of law says...
I do. ID proponents had their chance to embed their hypothesis into the American classroom but only one proponent was brave enough to support it under oath. Of course his statements was demolished.
I suggest you watch
[video=youtube;4O-vsq48ZoU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-vsq48ZoU[/video].
Its fairly long, scientific, educational and has some big words but if you need any help just ask. Also notice the burning of murals and the piles of lies upon lies from the IC crowd and look out for the evolution of the book "Of Pandas and People".
do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..
Irreducible complexity(IC) is the ridiculous proposal by Michael J. Behe of the Discovery Institute. Behes own definition is

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution

This definition assumes that
a/ A biological structure can only evolve by adding parts
b/ A biological structure can only have one use

To support IC Behes favourite example was the flagellum of E.coli. In his view it consists of 40 proteins and the removal of any one would render the entire useless. Unfortunately for this proposal only 23 are common to to bacterium flagellum. This implies that 17 of the proteins are not required. It turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

Behes second simpler example is the mouse trap. Again it is not well thought out disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap - YouTube


Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart.
...
One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell.
I don't know if you are aware of the fact that the theory of evolution is over 150 years old. I also don't know if you are aware that there has been a few scientific discoveries since then. Actually there has been hundreds of thousands scientific discoveries since then. I also don't know if are aware that from day one evolution has been attacked and attacked and attacked. So far no one has disproved evolution, rather they have re-enforced it. Molecular Biology had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it. Mendelian Genetics had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it. HECK - chemical pest control had a chance to disprove evolution but has instead reinforced it.


The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.
...

The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.
Ahh - the Argument From Incredibly, a creationist favourite fall back. Basically it states "It is inconceivable that X could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.". It is also know as the argument from ignorance. In this example an incredibly huge number is pulled out from an unnamed orifice, regarded as gospel(sic) and presented as proof. Can the OP tell me how they arrived at this number? I very much doubt it.

However there is hope for creationists Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax
 
[video=youtube;VxEkwUMyDUc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxEkwUMyDUc[/video]

[video=youtube;7R6aFsxalM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8[/video]
 
Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:

Source 1: Amount of carbon on earth (in total, by mass) is 0.003% of Earth's total mass - Reasons To Believe : Planet Formation: Problems with Water, Carbon, and Air (just to prove I am not anti creationists, I took this figure direct from Dr Hugh Ross, who, seems to be a happy creationist. Here's a Dr Hugh Ross profile for you creationists so you know I am not lying. Reasons To Believe : About : Who We Are : Hugh Ross

Source 2: Total mass of Earth 5.9736 x 10^24 kg (Earth Fact Sheet ) (I have no reason to disbelieve NASA).

Therefore the total mass of Carbon on Earth is 0.003% * 5.9736 x 10^24 kg = 179,208,000,000,000,000,000 kg of carbon (that is 1.79 x 10^20 kg).

That's quite a lot! (Earth is really heavy... Wonder what Jupiter would be like?)

Before you go blowing me up and saying I have way too much time on my hands - how are you spending your Sunday? It's raining here (not flooding like the Sunshine Coast), my GF is back in Australia till April, my dog is asleep and I am trying to work out how much carbon there is in the world to see what the probability of 1 atom of C-14 spontaneously decaying to N-14.

My science might not be perfect, because I've only had a couple of hours to find this out. If I had a lifetime I'd probably still come up with something similar.

Ok.... Back to the facts!

Of all carbon on earth, only 1 part per trillion is a C-14 atom! Ok... So that is 0.000,000,000,1% C-14 in the world....

So what is the mass of C-14 on Earth?

179,208,000 (one hundred and seventy nine million, two hundred and eight thousand) kg of C-14 on Earth (1.79 x 10^8 kg).

So how many individual C-14 atoms are there?

The atomic mass of C-14 is close enough to 14g per mole (1 mole of a substance = 6.022 x 10^23 atoms).

(phew, this is fun so far...)

So there is...
179,208,000 kg of C-14 on Earth (give or take a few)

We need this in grams (so multiply kg by 1,000)

179,208,000,000 g of C-14 on Earth (or thereabouts)

There is 14g per mole (approx - again, I rounded down not up because these numbers are going to get ridiculous soon and I don't need RSI (or what ever the name of it is this year) for this week of work).

so how many moles in 179,208,000,000 g of C-14?

There are 12,800,571,428 (12 billion 800 million 571 thousand 428 moles of C-14)

1 mole of C-14 contains 6.022 x 10^23 atoms....

7.709 x 10^33 atoms!!!

Yep... That's my calculation... (wow, that's a LOT of C-14 at any one stage).

(I'm now annoyed that after all my calculations I couldn't get x 10^50) but I will still go on....

(here goes)

In 5730 years half of that bulk lot of C-14 would have radioactively decayed into its daughter nucleus - N-14.

So 1 in 7.709 x 10^33 C-14 atoms will spontaneously decay... At some stage... Maybe it could be one of the half that will do it in the next 5730 years, or it could be in the next half after that... Or the next half after that!

Now think of it - C-14 isn't limited to Earth - so if we look at universal C-14 that number all of a sudden becomes MUCH MUCH larger! Well over 10^50 - where physics apparently suggests the probability of that nucleus decaying to N-14 is non existent - but it will happen!!! So it does happen! So where a physicist has said the probability is too low... Maybe I'd like to see that in an everyday reaction such as radioactive decay!

Just as a side - for those that can't comprehend how large these numbers are... If I had 7.8 x 10^33 jelly beans - how far would that stretch?

Let's make jelly beans square to start with - and we'll just look at area (not volume). So a jelly bean (for arguments sake) is 1cm x 2cm.

So if I laid them say.... 25m wide (so we could make a jelly bean highway) there would be 2,500cm wide (using the narrow end of the jelly bean) we'd need 2,500 jelly beans for one row.

So just 10 rows of jelly beans (spanning a total of 20cm) would need 25,000 jelly beans.

so 10 = 25,000 JBs

100 = 250,000 JBs (just multiplying by 10) (now we've only gone 2 metres in our 25m wide jelly bean highway and we've already used 250,000 jelly beans. Haven't got far yet).

If we had 1 million JBs we'd have travelled just 8 metres!!!

10 million JBs would take us 80 metres down this 25m wide jelly bean highway.

100 million JBs would take us 800 metres (you could have an Olympic running race on our 25m wide jelly bean highway).

1 billion JBs would take us 8km (not that far really)

100 billion JBs would now take us 800 km (from Cairns to Rockhampton approx).

1 trillion (just a thousand billion) would take us 8,000km (you could drive from Cairns to Perth to Sydney on this highway of jelly beans - you only need a trillion of them)

(get to the point damn it).

7.8 x 10^33 JBs would take you 61,668,032,914,285,714,285,714,285 km (I don't know how to translate that number but I think that would be 61,700 yotta metres).

This is a 25m wide highway of jelly beans!

Basically that would mean your highway (25m wide of jelly beans) would stretch from here, around the sun, around Pluto and back again.... And probably a little further too....

Needless to say I've now wasted enough time to go and cook me some lunch!
 
Last edited:
Whooah Slim6y... What is the probability of a creationist understanding that?

7.8 x 10^33:1 or worse i would think.
 
Ok... I want to do a little on probability - I could be wasting my time here - as creationists will be creationists, so I am preaching already to the converted. But, if just one creationist reads this, I can link them to where I got my sources:
Now think of it - C-14 isn't limited to Earth - so if we look at universal C-14 that number all of a sudden becomes MUCH MUCH larger! Well over 10^50 - where physics apparently suggests the probability of that nucleus decaying to N-14 is non existent - but it will happen!!! So it does happen! So where a physicist has said the probability is too low... Maybe I'd like to see that in an everyday reaction such as radioactive decay!
Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another
10^650 =
If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it


There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.

Whooah Slim6y... What is the probability of a creationist understanding that?

7.8 x 10^33:1 or worse i would think.
and yes we are all very simple folk here in creation land, come and have some lemonade I squeezed it fresh chucks....hey mahhh get off the damn roof.......haha You obviously didnt understand it otherwise you would have picked up on the flaws of his argument ;)
 
Last edited:
Do all creationists believe the world is under 10,000 years old?

Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.

Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.
 
Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.

Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.

Actually, every creationist I've spoken to has taken the seven days literally to mean 7 Earth days. Can't accuse them of being logical though, can ya?
 
Actually, every creationist I've spoken to has taken the seven days literally to mean 7 Earth days. Can't accuse them of being logical though, can ya?

I can accuse them of not paying much attention to the one book they base their life on.
The same people believe in hell, celebrate a high amount of pagan traditions and devote them selves to symbols... Just because the pastor said so?

Sigh.
 
Hey slimey, yes you do have far too much time on your hands. Your year 10 maths is quite fine however your logic is all wrong??? C-14 is an unstable isotope and WILL break down to N-14 in time , no one is disputing this. The more C14 you have the more will break down.....How you are equating the number of C-14 atoms in the universe to a probability eludes me???? That is like equating " I have $100" to "I have a 1 in a 100 chance of winning" Same value of integer yet completely unrelated and irrelevant????? But I do like the analogies of the sheer size of these numbers. Here's another
10^650 =
If you were to view these as coins that came flying past you on a conveyor belt at 100 per second, it would take you a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion 31710 years to count it


There are far too many people against me on this with far too many comments to counter in the short spaces of time that I have so I will have to respectfully bow and step back as much as I enjoy these debates. I will never convert anyone this way anyway, everyone has their own views and is fiercely resistant to change. I love you all, but I have to get back to my other more meaningful endeavours, goodbye.
Much as I disagree with almost everything you've said here...I agree on this. I think he may have forgotten to add the point of all those numbers.
 
I notice all creationist are being put in one shelf... just like D3pro said everyone has there own beliefs. im a creationist believe in god but dont believe in hell, or even christmas and i read back a couple pages something about the world being flat... the bible actually points out that it is spherical in shape and they have dated that back before colombuses world trip :) amazing stuff.
 
I notice all creationist are being put in one shelf... just like D3pro said everyone has there own beliefs. im a creationist believe in god but dont believe in hell, or even christmas and i read back a couple pages something about the world being flat... the bible actually points out that it is spherical in shape and they have dated that back before colombuses world trip :) amazing stuff.
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Yep...sounds like they really think it's a sphere.
 
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Yep...sounds like they really think it's a sphere.

Those are symbolic phrases... "From all corners of the globe" is still being used... geeeees
 
Thats a myth. The 7 days of creation aren't a literate 7 days, but 7 stages depicted as days for the writer of Genesis, Moses. (Else he would have had the biggest vision of all time)
7 Being a holy number, can be any amount of time. This use of symbolic numbers is common in the bible, often being 7s, 12s, and 14s.

Any Christian thinking 7 days is literal I would suggest you doing some research.

I'm glad this has been pointed out. The bible has been mistranslated so many times which has lead to so many arguments and Christians believing in their one bible leading them to pagan values etc, jut like whats been pointed out :) we can thank the introduction of the Old English language for all that confusion and hate :) anything before the king James is more accurate to the original writings. Simple mistranslated words such as 'era,' and 'eternity,' and 'hell,' has lead modern Christians to be, well, what people hate about modern Christians I guess :) anyway, continue haha
 
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Yep...sounds like they really think it's a sphere.


“There is One [God] who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa. 40:22)
the hebrew word for circle in the original text meant spherical
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top