First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible

First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible · Continuing with J7b Second · Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment

Creation Myth: No "Macroevolution"
July 11th 2020 | Creation Myths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6i5NimYsH8

I

1:20 A few things not found in microevolution:

• new cell types (you know like bone cell, liver cell, etc)
• new functional genes
• probably also new chromosome pairs in placental mammals, except possibly the red viscacha rat and one more.

II

4:55 How big changes were done to the genes? How many base pairs? How many mutations would it take for those base pairs to change from scale to feather in nature?

In a lab, you could change ten base pairs if you like ... in nature, one at a time is changed, and the change survives or doesn't to the next change. How do the intermediate expressions look in the lab, is there any one of them that would be dysfunctional in real life?

III

5:31 Both CMI and AiG avoid citing speciation in macroevolution because we (I agree with them) think the level "kind" corresponds to more usually "family" or "subfamily" (at least within mammals - hedgehogs are for instance a kind and they are also a subfamily, with the other subfamily gymnures being characterisable as "hedgehogs with soft spikes looking like thick hairs").

SIV > HIV - it's still a virus, it's still a retrovirus, it still attacks the immune system.

6:47 CMI and AiG would validate your example ... except as to considering this proves evolution.

7:59 There is a new hybrid species of finch?

Wait a second, shows that the previous speciation events between finches weren't completely isolating them, were they?

Btw, CMI and AiG do accept the Galapagos finches as resulting from descent from a common finch ancestral population.

IV

9:01 Mitochondriae and chloroplasts have not been observed in real time as evolving by originally just endosymbiosis.

9:37 Showing how a process is supposed to have worked in the far past is not like observing it in real time.

10:32 In 2010, Shaun Doyle on CMI made a paper on sea slugs and kleptoplasty.

He enumerated a few differences between kleptoplasty and supposed original endosymbiosis.

With these differences in mind, he entitled his paper Photosynthetic sea slugs: an evolutionary enigma.

It's in
Journal of Creation 24(3):10–12, December 2010 and also online on their site.

Overall on this one : you observe various intermediates between endosymbiosis and organelles. You then presume they reflect different stages in a process. But you haven't shown there is a process.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl do you believe in magic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I do not know exactly what sense of the phrase "believe in magic" you are asking about, and suppose you are not even quite aware of the differences yourself. Hence, I will give three answers.

• Yes, I believe magic occurs. Beside the point in the context, God condemning a wizard to Hell for witchcraft is eschatology, not origins;
• No, I don't follow any cult of magicians, I do not confide my life to magic;
• Yes, I believe in the kind of divine omnipotence that Atheists like to label "magic".

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you a deist or is your magical entity one of the bronze age tribal ones?
Does it have a name, can you communicate with it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I am a Catholic.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you do follow a cult of magicians.
Your tribe has crazy rituals, magic spells, believes in demons and witches too!!

And let's not forget the awesome hats!! If I was going to join a tribe then your hats are a major plus. Did jesus wear a big hat? Who decided they were important?

What evidence led you to believe your god isn't imaginary? Was it simply childhood indoctrination or perhaps the collection of myths and stories? Or - and I know its a long shot - did you find any actual evidence that places your god in reality?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I'll actually go with the long shot.

Yes, history - like the OT books, the Gospels, Church history - show a vast array of miracles. You know, some things don't happen if there is no omnipotent God to work them, so if they still happened, He exists.

Plus, as mentioned above: Mitochondriae and chloroplasts have not been observed in real time as evolving by originally just endosymbiosis. Similar observations could be made on your pretentions for abiogenesis from non-living chemicals and emergence of mind from non-human beasts - with even stronger presumptions of dealing with the impossible, the self-contradictory.

Childhood indoctrination? Up to a little before 9 years, it was mainly secularist and evolutionist.

"Who decided [the hats] were important?"

Byzantines and Latin Medievals had a taste for showing rank or profession by diversified clothing. As they contributed to Catholic and Orthodox culture (even if the faith was already in place) the hats you find a plus came to add to the minor attractions of Catholicism.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so again, did you find any evidence for your god? Something in reality rather than imagination.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second Yes, mitochondriae and chloroplasts and how history is really done.

Stamping a document as "imagination" or "fiction" each time you find a miracle in it short circuits decent epistemology in a Humeish bad manner (and he wasn't by far a historian, it was easier for him).

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl that isn't evidence FOR your god, at best it's a lack of understanding.

So again, what evidence do you have that your god isn't imaginary?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second It so happens, you are not the judge of what is good evidence.

You believe mitochondriae and chloroplasts originated by endosymbiosis, and a few other impossibilities, meaning one should wonder whether YOU believe in magic - as long as it has no magician.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so do you have any positive evidence for your primitive tribal god?
Especially something which grounds it in reality.

God of the gaps isn't evidence sir

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second The non-explanation of abiogenesis, chloroplasts, mitochondriae and a few more are not just gaps in the present knowledge, they are problems and major ones for what you suppose to be knowledge.

So, what you call "God of the gaps" certainly is evidence, and so is history, which you seem even more weak on than cell biology.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you say history, can you present any historical evidence for your god, something non imaginary and preferably something other than the collection of myths and writings in your bible.

Yes it's god of the gaps, what else can explain lightning if not zues? What is thunder without thor? What on earth can explain a rainbow? You see throughout history magic has been proposed as the answer, but time and again when we learn, study and understand we never, not once, found magic WAS the answer. So I'd suggest to hang your hat or god on the peg of ignorance isn't going to bear fruit, rather you should find some positive evidence FOR your god.

If and when science answers those questions- what then? Accept there is no god or find another gap to keep the idea alive - be honest, are these questions really important to your belief, or just something that makes you feel less silly for believing in primitive superstition?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "you say history, can you present any historical evidence for your god, something non imaginary and preferably something other than the collection of myths and writings in your bible."

The basic fact you miss is that many books of the Bible are ostensibly historiography and were accepted as such by earliest known public.

The word "myth" is obviously rather vague in meaning. If you mean things like the Theogony, not witnessed by human observers, the historical books of the Bible have verses 1 through 26 in chapter 1 and verses 3 to 6 in chapter 2 of Genesis, while the rest purportedly happens before human observers. Now, that is obviously also true of Homer's two epics (caution with what Ulysses tells Nausicaa, he was only surviving witness to events and he has been known to tell a lie on occasion), so if you meant this kind of thing, your argument becomes clearer. As for me, I'd call that legend with a strong presumption of legend preserving facts even in merely human legends, without divine inerancy attached in any way in a fairly accurate way.

"Yes it's god of the gaps, what else can explain lightning if not zues? What is thunder without thor? What on earth can explain a rainbow? You see throughout history magic has been proposed as the answer, but time and again when we learn, study and understand we never, not once, found magic WAS the answer."

Your history of ideas is as inaccurate as your general view of how history is done. Lightning with its thunder may have purely corporeal efficient causes as to why they occur, but they may even so have spiritual or as you could prefer "magical" causes as to exactly when and where they occur. Could this cloud have been discharged a bit earlier? A bit later? Perhaps. If so, spirits will explain why it was discharged exactly then and there. Both Zeus and Thor are by the way younger than Genesis - worshipping such spirits arguably came into fashion first millennium BC. After Moses. And by the way, while God is ultimately in control, it is not He who does such tasks.

"less silly for believing in primitive superstition?"

I'd prefer believing in primitive superstition over believing in a modern one!
And you did a fine show of avoiding the arguments given FOR God.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl still no positive evidence FOR god I notice.

So we have an explanation for the rainbow, we understand how the light retracts and reflects through the water droplet. Primitive minds attributed this unknown phenomenon to magical entities, are you saying that although we understand the process its still reasonable to add a layer of supernatural magic into the process?

That sounds desperate, almost as if you've given yourself an unfalsifiable position regardless of evidence - so the question is - why are you here and why do you ask questions? It is irrelevant to your position or belief system, so desperately in need of the comfort blanket you've surrounded yourself with.

Does it matter that genesis was written before the norse myths? You realise genesis isn't an original work, nor is it the earliest, you have a fairly confused position.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still waiting for your positive evidence.
Can I take it you just don't have any?

Also you missed the 'why do you bother' question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second The second comment was just a reminder of previous one, so I'll take that one:

"still no positive evidence FOR god I notice."

Mitochondriae are not negative evidence but positive. In order to rule out your evolutionary scenario this negative evidence needs to be added to the positive one. Namely : no positive evidence for mitochondriae or chloroplasts starting with endosymbiosis, positive evidence against Miller Urey conditions leading anywhere near to a living cell.

"So we have an explanation for the rainbow, we understand how the light retracts and reflects through the water droplet. Primitive minds attributed this unknown phenomenon to magical entities, are you saying that although we understand the process its still reasonable to add a layer of supernatural magic into the process?"

There is no such thing as "primitive minds" that is a colonial and rather racist (the things need not go together) position to say there is.

Yes, it is reasonable, the process you describe cannot accurately predict who will see a rainbow from where and when this will happen.

"That sounds desperate, almost as if you've given yourself an unfalsifiable position regardless of evidence"

I am not trying to falsify supernatural entities with natural explanations, since these don't cover all.

"so the question is - why are you here and why do you ask questions? It is irrelevant to your position or belief system, so desperately in need of the comfort blanket you've surrounded yourself with."

I bother because I am an apologist.

"Does it matter that genesis was written before the norse myths?"

Not just before Norse Thor, not just before Greek Zeus, but even before Hittite Teshub and before Canaanean Baal-Hadad. In other words, Genesis ows nothing to any known cult adoring the lightning-thrower as supreme or clse to supreme god.

"You realise genesis isn't an original work, nor is it the earliest, you have a fairly confused position."

And in Sumerian polytheism, where you find things possibly written before Genesis, Ishkur was about as much as a side-kick as lightning-throwers are in scholasticism, that was my point.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so no positive evidence for your god, just a tired god of the gaps, but then you're not interested in the 'gap'- regardless of learning or progress you will add magic to any scientific explanation.

Genesis copied and/or was heavily influenced by the mesopotamian creation myths.
We have the originals, or rather we've always had the originals but we can read them now.

Do you think the global flood described in your version of the myth really happened?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eustace Clarence Scrubb, sorry, @J7b Second (the "mistake" refers to the tone you take)

"so no positive evidence for your god, just a tired god of the gaps,"

Pretending to be tired is a great way to deal with evidence that you have no answer to. Any thing appearing to exist, and biological life qualifies, can have only four explanations. We agree it is not illusory and we agree it is not eternal without ever having had to begin. This means, any evidence against it emerging from other states is evidence for it's being made.

"but then you're not interested in the 'gap'- regardless of learning or progress you will add magic to any scientific explanation."

The scientific explanation in fact doesn't explain exactly where it will happen or exactly when it will happen. The options are blind chance, necessities of the process, or some intentional guide. Nothing has disproven this.

"Genesis copied and/or was heavily influenced by the mesopotamian creation myths."

Not in Adam and Eve (couple, fall into sin, seeing two sons in a killing strife) and not in Babel getting languages confused. For Genesis 5, it would seem some Mesopotamian rounded patriarchs Seth to Lamech's lifetimes to nearest multiple of five and then multiplied it by 60, if you go to Sumerian Kinglist for Pre-Flood kings. And 8 kings would match Adam to the Cainite Lamech, in some kind of Nodian nostalgia.

"We have the originals, or rather we've always had the originals but we can read them now."

If it was buried in non-excavated sites, no, you didn't always have them.

If they are the originals, why does Genesis 1 to 11 give detail they leave out?

"Do you think the global flood described in your version of the myth really happened?"

It so happens, I do. It also so happens, the Mesopotamian version depends on a vessel that could not have floated under the conditions.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so still no positive evidence for your god?
I wonder if you'd been born a few hundred years ago you'd hide your god in lightning or gravity, where do you think you'll hide it as science progresses.
It's already an impossible concept, 'outside time and space = imaginary nonesense lol

So you think the global flood really happened, the cognitive dissonance is strong with you, that early indoctrination really ruined your critical thinking abilities huh.
Now is your chance to put forward some positive evidence and weigh it against the counter arguments.
What's the best evidence you have for your flood myth? Let's examine it together, perhaps I can help you.

And the creation narrative is mesopotamian, the differences in detail are just story evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second Still no grasp of logic?

4 thinkable alternatives, two rejected by both and evidence against one of the two remaining = evidence for the other of the two remaining.

No, the Mesopotamian version glosses over important parts, for reasons that they would be against Mesopotamian ideologies.

1) Mesopotamian ideology was deeply collectivist, therefore has mankind created in organised societies, not in a primeval couple;
2) Nimrod, involved in the Babel débacle, was under diverse names (arguably both Gilgamesh and Enmerker, possibly also Sargon of Akkad) a hero with the Mesopotamians.

Flood really happened, as recorded : 1) Bible, 2) Mesopotamian story, 3) Greek story, 4) Norse story (which places Flood before creation of earth and of man, and has a giant population targetted) ... 50) Altai version, ... 100) Peruvian version.

Flood really happened, as traced : 1) fossils all over earth, 2) démise of Neanderthals, démise of Denisovans, 3) possibility of modelling a carbon 14 rise since Flood level, 4) possibility of modelling rise of high mountains within the time available (5000 years, fastest part of softest sediment in earliest centuries), 5) possibility of explaining K-Ar dates exclusive of recent as lava solidifying during Flood, with many eruptions going on then.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl is one of your alternatives - "There is a perfectly sound natural explanation as yet undiscovered"?

Yes I have a grasp of logic, and can see fallacious reasoning - argument from ignorance/ argument from incredulity both sum up your position. But you could prove me wrong by setting out some positive evidence for your magical beliefs.

The differences between the original ANE creation myths and your far more recent genesis myth are not only small but easily explained with natural story evolution. I think Dr Josh had an interesting interview where he discussed this not so long ago, I could dig out a link if you're interested.

That's great if you have actual evidence for the global flood, what do you think is your strongest point? That list looks pretty weak to be honest, pick your best and let's see if we can help you understand the science a little better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second //is one of your alternatives - "There is a perfectly sound natural explanation as yet undiscovered"?//

That would be an argument against my dismissing the alternative "emerged". It's not a fifth alternative.

It would therefore be one of the four alternatives in its defense mode, and that defense you just made is "evolution of the gaps".

So, it is a refuted alternative because with all the research that has gone on to prove an alternative to God, the difficulties for a "natural" explanations are mounting by the day.

"But you could prove me wrong by setting out some positive evidence for your magical beliefs."

Challenge once again met, as per above.

"The differences between the original ANE creation myths and your far more recent genesis myth are not only small but easily explained with natural story evolution."

There is no such thing as a "natural story evolution" and the differences are not small.

As to "far more recent" the earliest carbon date associated with a tablet (you know, while the clay cannot be dated, it is or at least was often packed into a cover of wool, which can be so) is, as I recall, 1800's BC. As per my carbon buildup scenario, this would be a few decades before Moses wrote Genesis, as his birth period in 1590 BC, gets a carbon date for 1800's.

"I think Dr Josh had an interesting interview where he discussed this not so long ago, I could dig out a link if you're interested"

I'd love to refute it in more detail and with less of your superiority complex interfering.

"and let's see if we can help you understand the science a little better."

Who is "we"?

As you mentioned science, I'll not pick my best, I'll pick the one most concerned with it. AND concerned with relative dates of ANE tablets and Genesis. Namely : possibility of modelling a carbon 14 rise since Flood level.

On to: Continuing with J7b Second