Jump to content


Photo

Decimation Of This Evolution Fairy Tale


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#21 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 March 2012 - 02:57 AM

1- Did you re-read the forum rules (i.e. the rules you agreed to prior to being allowed to join this forum) prior to re-posting here?
2- Are you "Complaining about the moderating" here?


I would just like to know why posting about evolution is edited? Either this is a forum to talk about evolution, or it isn't. I would just like to know which it is.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:35 AM

sorry, but that is a big part of my argument,,,
that there are soooo many holes in this ridiculous theory,,,
with the chinks in their armor,
it is like a they are wearing a screen door



Dude "hurling elephants" is not an "argument"


I don't agree with evolution but bombarding people with questions is not a good way to begin a debate

#23 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:41 AM

Dude "hurling elephants" is not an "argument"


I don't agree with evolution but bombarding people with questions is not a good way to begin a debate


I agree, in your opening statement your made arguments on abiogenisis, evolution, cosmology, particle physics, scripture and a lot of arguments from emotion. I was knackered just reading it :)

Pick one subject, maybe two and make a good case for it. As the topic is evolution, I suggest you stick to that. I would start by defining evolution so we all know what you are talking about.

Hope this helps.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:29 AM

1. It was a prediction. The test was that if we had all evolved sharing a common ancestor, reptiles (snakes for example) would share the same common ancestor as all Primates as we would have split at the same time. What predictions has the ID theory made?




2.Nope, some of the non-coding DNA has a function as you pointed out, you just missed the bit about MOST of the non-coding DNA having absolutely NO biological function what so ever. I suggest you also do the research without stopping after the first sentence.



3. Because Embryolgy is not based on Haekel's drawings. His theory was recapitulation which has been disproven by modern Biology. Embryology is about the split between the entire animal kingdom and how they develop as an early embryo.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Embryology
http://en.wikipedia....tulation_theory


***************************************************************************************************************************
**POST EDITED FOR ERRONIOUS AND MISLEADING CONTENT**
If you are going to answer or rebut any posts, you need to do so from an honest and factual standpoint OR admit it is simply presupposed.

Your first reaction to this edit is to read the forum rules, then come back and make an informed and responsible reply/rebuttal. Any other “Misleading” statements, “Equivocations”, “Trolling” type responses (i.e. for nothing more than to cause a spectacle) will result in a permanent ban.

***************************************************************************************************************************



4. People are weird :)



5. How we apply it through medicine however, is completely reliant on Evolution. We cannot give diseases such as cancer to humans, but we can give cancer to mice and then attempt to cure it. If we do cure it, we need to know our relation to mice in order to interpret that cure.

Here are a couple of articles for you.

http://www.plosbiolo...al.pbio.0050112

http://www-personal....volMed-2007.PDF



6. Please explain why you think it is based on your statement that without understanding one area of science, we can not hope to understand another.



7. I never claimed they weren't mistakes, I said that I was answering a more broad question that included natural selection, which isn't a mistake. Please don't strawman me when I explained what I meant.




8. Mutations need to happen in order for natural selection to act upon.


9. Sometimes they aren't expressed in the carrier but can be passed on and expressed in the offspring. Natural selection doesn't act on the carrier, it only acts on the offspring, and again not every single offspring. I mean at the moment I am explaing heredity, do you really need to explain heredity and how dominant and recessive genes work? I will if you want, but I think you know why genetic diseases persist.



10. Up to you if you want to answer it, my question still stands, if you say genetic disease is a failure of natural selection, then I say it is a failure of a designer.



1. Common ancestry is assumed on the back of evolution hence your "evidence" is circular reasoning....


2. Ah so first it was that non-coding had no purpose now there is some purpose... You do realise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because people haven't yet found a purpose for 100% of the non-coding DNA doesn't mean that it won't happen... Yet right now it is a big thing in genetics and something people are researching heavily- how do I know this? My genetics lecturer had given some lectures on this... Perhaps research snoRNA, siRNA, rRNA etc since these come from non-coding regions since RNA is not a protein.

Furthermore how does "junk" DNA have anything to do with proving evolution correct?


3. And? Again I ask... How does this advocate evolution?


4. And? How does your response rebut the claim and evidence that Religion doesn't need a supernatural deity... Therefore naturalism, (taken to the extreme... like Dawkins), IS a Religion.


5. Ah so first it was Germ theory now it is medicine... You're doing alot of back-tracking for someone so confident....

I am sure we could give cancer to people, just that it is unethical to do so. Furthermore your response has done nothing to claim that medicine is based on evolution. If it were we would only ever use chimps... (not mice) as test subjects... Consider the fact that pigs are also used since their internal biology is very much similar to humans...

Your articles focus on variation... (something which has nothing to do with evolution)... Variation within a kind / species is not being debated here... The idea that something can slowly change into something else over time... fish to amphibians etc is what is being debated. Hence your articles attempt to blur the line between evolution and variation, (this is called equivocation).


6. It is a false analogy since the question you ask was if there was a beginning to the particle, this is self evident since it exists. The same is said for DNA... I assume you are a naturalist in that you believe that only material things exist... Therefore how would a naturalist explain the beginning of a particle or the beginning of DNA... Both are unanswerable to the naturalist. This is where evolution breaks down since evolution is the naturalists idea on how life's variety came about... IF there is no naturalist explanation for the beginning then why on Earth would anyone believe the naturalist explanations that follow.

Furthermore if you look at Darwin's book it is claimed the ORIGIN of the species... Not the variation of the species. Hence the topic of ORIGINS certainly is valid in a discussion on evolution, whether you disagree or not.


7. Lol the claim you were responding to was saying that evolution made improvements from millions of little mistakes, (implying millions of little mutations)... You then said that evolution is nothing but a mistake... Hence either you are claiming that mutations are not mistakes or you just didn't understand what was being said.


8. Yes and mutations only occur in DNA... Hence the origin of DNA is a big issue since if you cannot explain where DNA came from... then you have no evolution since there is no DNA with which to select for mutations...


9. I do know those concepts.. But as I said natural selection SHOULD still select against these things... If it cannot select against diseases that cause a significant decrease in fitness then how can you claim it to select for slight changes that give an extremely slight increase in fitness.... Can you see that it makes no sense.


10. As I said how do you know what a designer would and wouldn't do hence your claim is nonsensical... Yet my claim is logical since we already know what natural selection is claimed to do hence we should be able to see it demonstrated in life, refer to point 9 to see how this is not so.

#25 joe_born_again

joe_born_again

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:03 PM

can anybody comment on
and debate me on the info that I show to the group here,,,
or,,,
is this too advanced for this crowd


Well we'll see.

I cant believe that evolutionists have no defence
for these points that I make here
is this truly the destruction of the evolution fairy tale
maybe you should call in some of the big guns
and have them try to answer to my arguments


I'm no "big gun", but I shall certainly have a try.
JOE= thanks for writing me back, it’s apreciated
JOE= sorry for the length of this


<<<<< the words that have stumped the evolutionists >>>>>

I have a way of destroying evolution


Well, you haven't presented an argument yet, you have only flexed ya muscles :)
JOE= yes ,,,,lol

Ok, lets do this systematic
- Where everything is logged and categorized
-- Following the whole evolutionary trail
--- Of what it is based on
---- Why + how they came up with this theory
----- To show the population just what they say they are in on
------ To see if they will choose to stay believing
------- This total farce
-------- Concocted by only a few
--------- To fool the masses


Well, the theory of evolution was fairly well known before Darwins time, in fact, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote about evolution.
JOE= yes, I think man was coming up with some excuses
JOE= right from the very bigining,,,
JOE=,trying to side step the Authority of God
JOE= not wanting to admit that there was Someone watching
JOE= over everyone, seeing everything, that was going to
JOE= hold them accountable in the end
JOE= now do you see why man has always been hoping that
JOE= there was no one to answer to
JOE= for all of the bad deeds that they have committed


The problem was, there was no mechanism to drive evolution. All Darwin did was provide that mechanism, Natural Selection.
JOE= so,,, as soon as someone came up with a somewhat
JOE= believable concoction,,, all the rest of you hopped on it
JOE= for the ride


The rest of this argument is just emotional so I won't comment.
JOE= ok,,, just where did I go off on an emotional tangen


It was because of fossils that the first evolutionist came into being
- It is fossils that is their evidence of evolution
-- It supposedly PROVES evolution is a reality
--- That is,,, if you believe how they were all formed
---- Over billions and billions of years
----- Instead of one humongous flood
------ Like the Geneses description
------- of the Bible


First off, it's Genesis. NOT Geneses, just in case that wasn't a typo.
JOE= yes,,, and this is such an important detail,
JOE= that you had to point it out
JOE= sorry,,, but I was here to discuss facts, theories
JOE= and beliefs, not to quivil about spelling + grammer


Secondly, Evolution, well the theory of, came about because of Phylogeny, not the fossil record. Fossils are nice, we like them because they give us snap shots of the past, but even if we had NO fossils whatsoever, we could still show beyong a shadow of a doubt, that evolution had occured.
JOE= yes, I would like to see that
JOE= based on what,,,,,,,,
JOE= phsycics saying that they regressed a person back
JOE= to an ape,,,, lol.
JOE= The scariest part of it might be, that you may believe


Through DNA, Phylogenetics, Embryology, Developmental Evolutionary Biology, Genetic similarities and not to mention actually watching evolution take place, like we have done with Bacteria many times over. Not to mention dogs evolving from one pack of grey wolves and pigeons, these are just a couple of examples, there are many.
JOE= ya sure,,,
JOE= and I have sone swampland in florida
JOE= bring on all the technical jargun you want
JOE= based on simple depth chances
JOE = or the lack of a change in depth in the fossil layers
JOE = will prove that not local flood or avalanche ever happened
JOE = in any of the fossil sites


You see, It must be billions and billions of years
- To give enough time for countless microscopic changes to take place
-- For people to be able to even consider this ridiculous solution
--- Of a "simple" bacteria being able to
---- Change into man
- But,,, it was only about 6 000 years
-- And all the many layers were laid down by the floor of Geneses
--- In a very short time = forty days and forty nights
---- And we can prove this very easily and very quickly
----- It is just that,,, they do not want to prove it
------ Because they do not want there to be a real God


The Earth is certainly not 6000 years old. Even dendrochronology shows us it is AT LEAST 12,000 years old. Cosmology, and radiometric dating tells us the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old. The Universe is 13.72 Billion years old.
JOE= ok, and how many ways are there to date a rock
JOE= I here that one of them predicts about 6 000 years age
JOE= but evolutionist seem to be in control of methods used
JOE= I will give more on that later if required

--- That sees all + knows all
-------- To judge them for their deeds in the end
- This can be easily proved


Okay, prove it.
JOE= the Holy Bible proves its own worthyniess
JOE= because of it having such historical accuracy
JOE= because of all the proven fulfilled Bible prophecy
JOE= because of the Bible Code prophetic accuracy
JOE= it shows that the Bible is truly the Word of God
JOE= because this prophetic info cannot be found
JOE= until things happen, and then the important words
JOE= are found together when put through the Code software
JOE= who knows how much of HIStory is recorded in there

Because if fossils happened the way that they have devised
--- Then there would be a layer depth change (small or large)
---- In the spot where the fossil was found
----- To represent the local flood or avalanche deposits
------ But there are no depth change in the area
------- as it is the same depth as everywhere else
-------- because all fossils were formed at one particular time during the flood
--------- And they will just ignore this discrepancy
---------- For there own gain
----------- So they hide this


Ok, find me a Rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian and we'll talk. Again, I won't answer your emotional claims because I find them irrelevant
JOE= I have heard of human footprints
JOE= that were found inside rocks
JOE= allong with dinasour footprints
JOE= but humanists seem to have the final say
JOE= on what gets published, and what is left out

- Why do they let this false fabrication stand
-- And want our children taught this hidden humanist religious doctrine
--- Because most of them don't know any better
---- And think they let this "one" discrepancy pass
----- Not knowing of the deep goings on of the deception
------ That Satan has pulled over on us
------- That destroys our children
-------- Keeping them from knowing
--------- our God + Saviour
---------- and getting the chance to get into heaven


Humanism isn't a religion, in the way that it makes no claims about the Supernatural. And Humanism also has nothing to do with Evolution, which is the back bone of Modern Biology.
JOE= “Humanism is an ideological, political, and religious belief
JOE= that denies the existence of God. Atheists are humanist, as are new-agers,
JOE= The theory of evolution was developed by humanists
JOE= to create a world devoid of God.
JOE= taken from http://www.contenderministries.org/humanism.php
JOE= I know that this is only one opinion
JOE= but it seems to be a reacuring theme

- it could be soooooooooooo simple to prove wrong
-- by making sure there is a measurable depth difference
--- at any of the fossil sites
---- if not only in one site
----- I bet that they cannot show a difference in depth
------ In any fossil dig sites
------- they are all the same depth, in all areas
-------- because the fossils were not laid down
---------- as a result of a local flood or avalanche
----------- but they were all laid down at the same time
------------- in the Geneses flood


A lot of emotional claims for a post that is supposedly about science. Anyway, if you can disprove all the overlapping areas of Science then you would win the Nobel Prize and be haled as a genius, when you're ready.
JOE= yes, I became emotional about anyone or anything
JOE= that wants to deny the existance of my God
JOE= but what I state here, is about how facts are on the side of the Creationist

would have to say,
-- that I may have just screamed out a loud alarm call
---- To this whole godless world
------ that we have all had the wool pulled over our eyes
-------- by a very few religious humanists
---------- with the very tall fairy tale called evolution


Once again, Humanism isn't a religion and it has nothing to do with the fact of Evolution. Please understand that.
JOE= “If you think public schools are not religious, consider the following quotations:
JOE= "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public”
JOE= school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role
JOE= as proselytizers of a new faith...
JOE= (that will replace) the rotting corpse of Christianity."
JOE= John J. Dunphy, The Humanist, Jan. 1983 p.26
JOE= http://www.icdc.com/~dnice/evolution.html

We need revival now
---- While the age of grace is still here


http://whydoweinsultgod.yolasite.com/

decimation of this evolution fairy tale

Well, so far, you haven't made ONE clear scientific argument. Hopefully the second half will be better.
JOE= for giants + human footprints in fossils http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
JOE= + http://s8int.com/phile/page56.html
JOE= + http://coupmedia.org/archaeology/time-travelers-footprints-throughout-history-0909
JOE= + http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1040676-new-fossil-human-footprint-dinosaur-footprint.html

------------------------------------------------
I don't know why we insult God + even our own intelligence
- Nor why we allow our governments to teach this junk to our children
--- And not only do they teach it as the only theory to how His-tory began
----- But they even talk about it as law
------- Calling it as undisputable
--------- Denying the whole religious part to it
----------- trying to show it as fact


Nope, clearly not, more emotional nonsense.

we are trying to fool ourselves, (and our upcoming children)
-- into believing this crazy theory
---- that we came from the dust of the earth
------ (without the Hand of God forming us)
-------- starting out as bacteria and then the result of billions of genetic mistakes
---------- becoming a man


Evolution has nothing to do with the origins, you are talking about Abiogenisis which you are correct, has no solid theory yet. Evolution however, explains the diversity of life on Earth, which is a solid and proven theory.

Ok, do you even know how complex our genetic makeup is?
-- There is enough complexity in the simplest cell in our body
---- (as in, there are enough letters in the genetic code)
------ here is a quote from the:
-------- Center for Scientific Creation


"there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over"


The first correct statement so far, well done, although it was a quote.

NOW,,, how can any sane person, reasonably think that
- all of this just simply fell into place
-- billions + billions of little mistakes


Sorry? By mistake, I'm afraid you're making up your own science now. Evolution and the process of natural selection is anything but "mistakes", it's about survival, which trates survive and which ones don't. I suggest you read about evolution before you set out to "disprove" it.

--- that all turned out to be for the better
---- THEN,,, no one can explain where all of these innumerable atoms came from
- they are what everything is made of


Well, the elements that make up me and you were formed in stars, and also, very possibly, the atoms that are in your left hand were formed in a different star to the atoms in your right hand. Cool huh?

yet they are too small to see or even measure
--- we are still not sure of how they are made
---- let alone, be able to make one ourselves
· notice I say "made", as in formed
-- as in, purposely created
--- because of their amazing complexity
---- it seems ridiculous to believe they all came from a great explosion
- we only know that they hold massive amounts of energy in them
-- we found this out by crudely breaking one
--- which took the smartest minds on the planet
· to smash only a few them
-- creating sooo much crude explosive power
--- that they even worried about igniting the upper atmosphere
- we also know that all matter,(atoms) has a limited life expectancy
-- as it can only exist for a limited time
--- and all of everything will eventually disintegrate
· running out of energy
-- complex forms of energy
---- will eventually dissolve into chaos


Sorry, is this still evolution? You seem to have gone a bit off track. Anyway. We have a very good understanding of the make up of Atoms, it's not perfect, of course not, the technology is only just beginning to catch up with the mathematics. We're incredibly close to finding out if the Higgs Boson is an actual particle, if it is, that explains where atoms get the mass. Amazing eh?

HOW CAN WE LET THESE HUMANISTS=(A RELIGEON) DECIEVE OUR CHILDREN

Sorry, weren't you debunking evolution?

I believe that God has given me great wisdom
,
Well, he certainly didn't give you wisdom about evolution.

along with the willingness and ability to be taught all things,

Again, clearly not the ability to learn about evolution.

I believe that He has given me the ability to explain
He shows me how to score off the charts in most all IQ tests,


I find this pretty hard to believe, but please, do go on.

That should get them to stand up and take notice,
I think that God would show me how to surpass all IQ ratings
and even look into all of societies paper walls,
pointing out to me the flaws in their armour,


I think you've only mentioned evolution once by the way, and that was right at the start. Anything else you have to say on the topic?

Then there is matter,,,
What everything is made up of,
If it is extremely rare, and against all odds,


In a Universe this big, the odds match up.

To have a planet be the right size = mass,

I'm pretty sure it could be a bit bigger or smaller.

And the exact right distance from the sun,

We could actually survive 10,000 Km closer or further away from the Sun.

To be in a regular stable orbit,

That's gravity for ya.

Then think of all the atoms in the universe,
Which all have multiple electrons,
All of which are in perfect orbits,


That's not how electrons act, they don't orbit. They act according the laws of Quantum Mechanics, which I am sure you are very familiar with.

What kind of explosion,
Formed these complex atoms,


A big one, although the big bang didn't create these atoms, the atoms were part of the big bang. It's like saying "shards of dynamite were created in the explosion"

And how long will they continue to exist,

The atoms will never cease to exist. What will happen to life? Well, all life in our Solar System will certainly end in 5 billion years time when the Sun implodes, that's if the Andromeda Galaxy hasn't collided with our Milky Way by then.

So, in short, you have said absolutely NOTHING about evolution, at all, apart from one sentence, and even that was more to do with Palaeontology.

Care for another try? Make sure you stay on topic though this time and try not to argue from emotions



#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 March 2012 - 12:34 PM



To whoever is editing my posts, can you please inform me why talking about transitional fossils is called "misleading" or "erroneous". If you are going to block evidence then in no way is this a forum to discuss evolution, only your presupposed idea that there is no evidence. That is dishonest and blinkered and if there is any integrity to this forum then you will put back what I have said and let the members of this forum offer a rebuttal if they so wish. Censoring is never the answer.

Thank you.

1- Did you re-read the forum rules (i.e. the rules you agreed to prior to being allowed to join this forum) prior to re-posting here?
2- Are you "Complaining about the moderating" here?


I would just like to know why posting about evolution is edited? Either this is a forum to talk about evolution, or it isn't. I would just like to know which it is.


I will ask one last time:

1- Did you re-read the forum rules (i.e. the rules you agreed to prior to being allowed to join this forum) prior to re-posting here?
2- Are you "Complaining about the moderating" here?

#27 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 29 March 2012 - 01:13 PM

Greetings

1. Common ancestry is assumed on the back of evolution hence your "evidence" is circular reasoning....


Common ancestry isn't assumed. We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors. Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them, you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed". Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).

My question still remains unanswered, what predictions have been made by intelligent design?


2. Ah so first it was that non-coding had no purpose now there is some purpose... You do realise that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because people haven't yet found a purpose for 100% of the non-coding DNA doesn't mean that it won't happen... Yet right now it is a big thing in genetics and something people are researching heavily- how do I know this? My genetics lecturer had given some lectures on this... Perhaps research snoRNA, siRNA, rRNA etc since these come from non-coding regions since RNA is not a protein.

Furthermore how does "junk" DNA have anything to do with proving evolution correct?


No, some junk DNA does have function, most really don't. The most obvious one is GLO or L-gulono-y-lactone oxidase, an enzyme which is used to make vitamin C from glucose. Nearly the entire animal kingdom still produces this enzyme except for? You guessed it, primates, and also guinea pigs. Now, it turns out making vitamin C from glucose requires 4 steps, primates and guinea pigs have the right coding for the first 3 steps, however we don't have it for the 4th step. Now why would that be? Is it because our diets changed and we were able to get most of our vitamin C from the food we were eating? Or was it just so we would contract scurvy when we went on long boat trips?

Why is Junk DNA relative to evolution? I'm glad you asked. When certain phenotypes lost use or function in our ancestors, the genes don't disappear from the DNA, instead they are just inactivated. In other words, genes that are still there but are no longer expressed. This is what we would expect to find if evolution had taken place, and it's exactly what we do find. In Humans alone we have over 2,000 pseudogenes or non-coding DNA and as we have only 30,000 genes, that's a huge hunk of junk.

If we had been made from scratch it makes no sense to commit 15% of our genetic make-up to the scrap heap without even a fighting chance of having any use.



3. And? Again I ask... How does this advocate evolution?


Well, maybe not that sentence itself (as you can see so far, I'm trying not to answer by one sentence alone). Embryology and the development of a Human from single cell to new born is fascinating. It again has more evidence of our lowly origins (bit of a Darwin paraphrase there). For example, would you expect a human fetus to have a tail? No? Well it does. In the first few weeks the fetus has a tail which is about 1/6th of it's size, as the fetus grows it absorbs the tail but not always, sometimes a child is born with a tail. If we had been created, would any designer have bothered to give us a tail during our infant stages? I doubt it. If we had evolved from an ancestor that did have a tail would we still have the genetic coding for one? You bet your giddy aunt we would, and we do.

Another interesting thing to look at, (if like me your male) is the development of the testicles which originally form internally before dropping down a small canal called the inguinal canal after about 6 or 7 months of development. This canal is small and prone to hernias (painful ones I assume) so it would have been far better if the gonads would form externally, which is their destination after all. However, our fish-like ancestors developed and kept their gonads in the abdomen. This is an example of natural selection tinkering too. It would be better if our testicles formed externally, but natural selection has to act with what it's got, so we're stuck with it.


4. And? How does your response rebut the claim and evidence that Religion doesn't need a supernatural deity... Therefore naturalism, (taken to the extreme... like Dawkins), IS a Religion.


I suppose it's what definition of religion you go for. I would class it as number 1 (http://dictionary.re...browse/religion). How would you class Dawkins as religious?

5. Ah so first it was Germ theory now it is medicine... You're doing alot of back-tracking for someone so confident....

I am sure we could give cancer to people, just that it is unethical to do so. Furthermore your response has done nothing to claim that medicine is based on evolution. If it were we would only ever use chimps... (not mice) as test subjects... Consider the fact that pigs are also used since their internal biology is very much similar to humans...

Your articles focus on variation... (something which has nothing to do with evolution)... Variation within a kind / species is not being debated here... The idea that something can slowly change into something else over time... fish to amphibians etc is what is being debated. Hence your articles attempt to blur the line between evolution and variation, (this is called equivocation).


I admit I overstated Germ Theory (one of those things where I knew what I meant but there was no way for you to know unless I actually wrote it). I did mean that clearly you couldn't give cancer to humans for ethical reasons, I have no doubt that practically it can be done (well, cigarettes for one).

Ah, I see, (I'm on your second point). So it's speciation that is the problem here. Well geographical barriers between species can cause that. When species have different selection pressures acting on them they are forced to adapt of die. Those that die do not pass on those traits, those that survive do pass on those traits. If you have one group that due to, oh I don't know, let's say a heat wave lowered the river next to them and half of the group split off, their environment would be different. These different pressures would force different adaptations. Over time this once same group would have changed into two completely different species.

"but that's just a story, we can't actual see speciation" I hear you shout (I'm being light hearted)

Well, yes, we have http://www.csus.edu/..._expts_1993.pdf and it concludes that the major force of speciation is in fact geography.

I do have a question for you, if you accept that species vary in their kind and adapting to their environment, what mechanism do you know of that would stop this change continuing?


6. It is a false analogy since the question you ask was if there was a beginning to the particle, this is self evident since it exists. The same is said for DNA... I assume you are a naturalist in that you believe that only material things exist... Therefore how would a naturalist explain the beginning of a particle or the beginning of DNA... Both are unanswerable to the naturalist. This is where evolution breaks down since evolution is the naturalists idea on how life's variety came about... IF there is no naturalist explanation for the beginning then why on Earth would anyone believe the naturalist explanations that follow.


I disagree, you said because we didn't know how DNA originated we couldn't talk about evolution which has a lot to do with DNA, I said it was the same as not being able to conduct particle physics with knowing the origin of the particle

To your second point, I believe that without evidence we should not consider the supernatural, so by extension, yes, I believe in the natural order of things but I am open to evidence of all nature, even that of the supernatural.

The origin of particles is fascinating but I am not physicist so I won't comment too much on that. I have read some interesting ideas about virtual particles, quantum tunnelling and other such explanations, but like I said, I am no physicist.

I am also not a chemist, so I don't know the origin of DNA, what I have read has been fascinating, it probably started with a basic RNA, something that was both a replicator and a catalyst, but again, I'm not a chemist.

What evolution sets out to do, is answer the question on the variety of life since the first replicating molecule, how that molecule came about, again,we don't know yet, but we do know that evolution occurred, and we know the mechanism which drives it.

Furthermore if you look at Darwin's book it is claimed the ORIGIN of the species... Not the variation of the species. Hence the topic of ORIGINS certainly is valid in a discussion on evolution, whether you disagree or not.


No one who has read that book, or understands the definition of evolution could have made that statement.


7. Lol the claim you were responding to was saying that evolution made improvements from millions of little mistakes, (implying millions of little mutations)... You then said that evolution is nothing but a mistake... Hence either you are claiming that mutations are not mistakes or you just didn't understand what was being said.


I have explained this clearly, you are now being dishonest. I said genetic mutations are mistakes, natural selection is NOT a mistake. The original question was NOT only asking about genetic mutations, but evolution in more general terms. That being natural selection which, again, is not a mistake. Please do not make me comment on this point again.


8. Yes and mutations only occur in DNA... Hence the origin of DNA is a big issue since if you cannot explain where DNA came from... then you have no evolution since there is no DNA with which to select for mutations...


Do you have to know the origin to understand how it acts? Really? Is that what you are really suggesting? That is incredibly rediculous


9. I do know those concepts.. But as I said natural selection SHOULD still select against these things... If it cannot select against diseases that cause a significant decrease in fitness then how can you claim it to select for slight changes that give an extremely slight increase in fitness.... Can you see that it makes no sense

.
I knew you did! Right, please explain how natural selection can act on traits that are not expressed. If you can answer that then I shall withdraw my point.


10. As I said how do you know what a designer would and wouldn't do hence your claim is nonsensical... Yet my claim is logical since we already know what natural selection is claimed to do hence we should be able to see it demonstrated in life, refer to point 9 to see how this is not so.


If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his design should look like? Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her).

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:51 PM

Greetings



1. Common ancestry isn't assumed. We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors. Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them, you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed". Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).

2. My question still remains unanswered, what predictions have been made by intelligent design?




3. No, some junk DNA does have function, most really don't. The most obvious one is GLO or L-gulono-y-lactone oxidase, an enzyme which is used to make vitamin C from glucose. Nearly the entire animal kingdom still produces this enzyme except for? You guessed it, primates, and also guinea pigs. Now, it turns out making vitamin C from glucose requires 4 steps, primates and guinea pigs have the right coding for the first 3 steps, however we don't have it for the 4th step. Now why would that be? Is it because our diets changed and we were able to get most of our vitamin C from the food we were eating? Or was it just so we would contract scurvy when we went on long boat trips?

4. Why is Junk DNA relative to evolution? I'm glad you asked. When certain phenotypes lost use or function in our ancestors, the genes don't disappear from the DNA, instead they are just inactivated. In other words, genes that are still there but are no longer expressed. This is what we would expect to find if evolution had taken place, and it's exactly what we do find. In Humans alone we have over 2,000 pseudogenes or non-coding DNA and as we have only 30,000 genes, that's a huge hunk of junk.

5. If we had been made from scratch it makes no sense to commit 15% of our genetic make-up to the scrap heap without even a fighting chance of having any use.



6. Well, maybe not that sentence itself (as you can see so far, I'm trying not to answer by one sentence alone). Embryology and the development of a Human from single cell to new born is fascinating. It again has more evidence of our lowly origins (bit of a Darwin paraphrase there). For example, would you expect a human fetus to have a tail? No? Well it does. In the first few weeks the fetus has a tail which is about 1/6th of it's size, as the fetus grows it absorbs the tail but not always, sometimes a child is born with a tail. If we had been created, would any designer have bothered to give us a tail during our infant stages? I doubt it. If we had evolved from an ancestor that did have a tail would we still have the genetic coding for one? You bet your giddy aunt we would, and we do.

7. Another interesting thing to look at, (if like me your male) is the development of the testicles which originally form internally before dropping down a small canal called the inguinal canal after about 6 or 7 months of development. This canal is small and prone to hernias (painful ones I assume) so it would have been far better if the gonads would form externally, which is their destination after all. However, our fish-like ancestors developed and kept their gonads in the abdomen. This is an example of natural selection tinkering too. It would be better if our testicles formed externally, but natural selection has to act with what it's got, so we're stuck with it.




8. I suppose it's what definition of religion you go for. I would class it as number 1 (http://dictionary.re...browse/religion). How would you class Dawkins as religious?



9. I admit I overstated Germ Theory (one of those things where I knew what I meant but there was no way for you to know unless I actually wrote it). I did mean that clearly you couldn't give cancer to humans for ethical reasons, I have no doubt that practically it can be done (well, cigarettes for one).

10. Ah, I see, (I'm on your second point). So it's speciation that is the problem here. Well geographical barriers between species can cause that. When species have different selection pressures acting on them they are forced to adapt of die. Those that die do not pass on those traits, those that survive do pass on those traits. If you have one group that due to, oh I don't know, let's say a heat wave lowered the river next to them and half of the group split off, their environment would be different. These different pressures would force different adaptations. Over time this once same group would have changed into two completely different species.

"but that's just a story, we can't actual see speciation" I hear you shout (I'm being light hearted)

11. Well, yes, we have http://www.csus.edu/..._expts_1993.pdf and it concludes that the major force of speciation is in fact geography.

12. I do have a question for you, if you accept that species vary in their kind and adapting to their environment, what mechanism do you know of that would stop this change continuing?




I disagree, you said because we didn't know how DNA originated we couldn't talk about evolution which has a lot to do with DNA, I said it was the same as not being able to conduct particle physics with knowing the origin of the particle

To your second point, I believe that without evidence we should not consider the supernatural, so by extension, yes, I believe in the natural order of things but I am open to evidence of all nature, even that of the supernatural.

The origin of particles is fascinating but I am not physicist so I won't comment too much on that. I have read some interesting ideas about virtual particles, quantum tunnelling and other such explanations, but like I said, I am no physicist.

I am also not a chemist, so I don't know the origin of DNA, what I have read has been fascinating, it probably started with a basic RNA, something that was both a replicator and a catalyst, but again, I'm not a chemist.

What evolution sets out to do, is answer the question on the variety of life since the first replicating molecule, how that molecule came about, again,we don't know yet, but we do know that evolution occurred, and we know the mechanism which drives it.



No one who has read that book, or understands the definition of evolution could have made that statement.




I have explained this clearly, you are now being dishonest. I said genetic mutations are mistakes, natural selection is NOT a mistake. The original question was NOT only asking about genetic mutations, but evolution in more general terms. That being natural selection which, again, is not a mistake. Please do not make me comment on this point again.




Do you have to know the origin to understand how it acts? Really? Is that what you are really suggesting? That is incredibly rediculous



.
I knew you did! Right, please explain how natural selection can act on traits that are not expressed. If you can answer that then I shall withdraw my point.




If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his design should look like? Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her).




1. Again it is assumed from DNA "evidence"... There is no direct correlation hence it is assumed. Are assumptions scientific? No. Where is your empirical evidence to make this claim?


2. There are many predictions that have been successfully made via the creation model. However I am not that well versed in them, perhaps ask Ron or Jason777.


3. And? You're paragraph here has no relevance, since it has not put an argument forth nor does it support any argument.... Furthermore the MOST prominent would be the production of RNA, specifically rRNA since (according to my lecturer) there are hundreds of genes for the production of this type of RNA.

Also as I said you cannot claim that there is no function till you have PROVEN it has no function... Failure to do so means you are arguing from ignorance since there could be a function, except we haven't worked it out yet... Considering that we have already found many functions for non-coding DNA, this seems to be the case.

4. Now you are assuming that DNA with no function are remnants of old genes that were lost... Now you have 2 problems here.

Firstly this is an assumption, in other words you would need to demonstrate how these specific non-coding sequences are in fact remnants of old genes. This is nigh impossible to do so hence your claim here will be an unsupported idea... (are unsupported ideas science? No).

Secondly your claim here assumes that the ancestor of X had more genes than its predecessor and its predecessor lost information making those genes "junk"... Loss in information is the opposite to what evolution claims, (simple to complex, less information is undoubtedly more simple), hence your idea here actually goes against the tenets of evolution itself.


5. Who said it was 15%... where is your evidence for this amount? Further does it account for the "junk" that does have a purpose?


6. Firstly the "tail" is merely a lump of flesh, it has no movement, no purpose hence it by definition is not an actual tail. Again you are assuming that this somehow "proves" evolution. Next thing you're going to say is about the "gill slits" in the human fetus.... (which have been demonstrated to be mere flaps, not gill slits)


7. Lol your example actually disproves natural selection... If external formation is better, then why isn't it selected for? Again you are assuming that this somehow "proves" evolution... The links are tenuous at best, however all are lacking EMPIRICAL evidence which ties it to evolution.... Making a story for something, (no matter how elaborate or "logical" is still a story none the less).


8. Dawkins is religious in that his brand of atheism pervades everything he does, when something is weaved so thoroughly into someones life then it is a Religion since they are emotionally attached to that worldview. His claims for cultural genocide are just one example.


9. Thanks


10. You took the words out of my mouth... Yes it is a story, and you will need empirical evidence to back it up if you wish this story to be claimed as scientific. Now I know that ring species are an example of this, however under the creationist definition they are still the same kind. Hence I would prefer to deal with unequivocal evolution which would be demonstrated via the fish to amphibian or amphibian to reptile or reptile to mammal transitions.


11. If you wish to use papers, please quote the relevant parts I am not reading an entire paper since I have better things to do.


12. Glad you asked, the limits to change is observed in life itself. A farm I used to work at breed pigs and were suppliers of breeding stock to other farms... Now there were traits that were favoured and these would be systematically selected for, (with much more gusto than natural selection could ever have since natural selection do not prevent individuals from mating via concrete walls). Now increased muscle mass was a good trait, but this would be offset by leg problems (due to the weight) as well as decreased maternal ability, (since more of the body energy goes to muscle mass than milk), increased rib amount is also good, but this was offset by back problems later in life, (the spine starts to droop a bit in the middle)...

Hence the limiting factor of a trait are the physical properties of the trait itself.




I need to go to uni so will answer the rest later sorry

#29 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 29 March 2012 - 06:14 PM

Common ancestry isn't assumed. We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors.


So this "proof" in no way can support a common designer just as easily as a common ancestor? You are deluding yourself with circular reasoning, and this will continue to be exposed as long as you cling to it.

Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them,


Are you sure? More recent studies suggest otherwise:

Although we are frequently told that chimps and humans share between 98–99% of their DNA, a number of studies reveal a smaller percentage of similarity. A 2002 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed about one million DNA base pairs and discovered an approximately 95% similarity.3 The human genome is composed of about 3 billion base pairs, so this comparison involved less than 1% of the genome, but it was of sequences already considered to be common to chimps and humans (‘homologous’). A 2003 study, also in the PNAS, compared about 1.9 million base pairs in immunologically critical areas of the chimp and human genomes. This study took into account insertions and deletions (indels) and derived a low 86.7% similarity.4 When the chimpanzee genome was mapped in 2005, scientists announced a 96% similarity.5 Another study, in 2006, revealed a 94% genetic similarity.6 Obviously, these results are all considerably lower than the still widely touted 98–99% statistic. These different studies reveal that the degree of genetic similarity is highly dependent on the particular regions being analyzed, the amount of DNA being compared and the computational techniques used.

http://creation.com/...-dna-similarity


The 30% difference among human and chimp MSY regions was a shock. This amount of difference was expected between the autosomes of human and something like chicken (to use their example), and chicken is not even a mammal.

[...]

Now we have half of the chimpanzee Y chromosome and learn that it is only 70% identical to human. This is evidence that humans and chimpanzees are very different. http://creation.com/chimp-y-chromosome


What does this mean?

  • The chimp/human difference is actually 4%—much greater than the ‘only 1%’ commonly claimed in the past.
  • 29% of the protein-coding genes are the same; leaving ~70% that are different.
  • There are genes present in humans that are completely missing in chimps.
  • The differences include 35 million single letter ‘substitutions’; 40–45 million ‘insertions’ and a similar number of ‘deletions’. This adds up to some 120 million letters, which is 4% of the ~3 billion total number.
  • The differences represent at least 40 million separate mutation events, which is impossible for evolution even with an evolutionary timeframe of 300,000 generations (133 preserved mutations per generation, which means a vastly greater number, which is impossible without causing ‘error catastrophe’—extinction!). For more on this problem for evolutionists, see Haldane's Dilemma and the updated, in-depth paper by ReMine
http://creation.com/...the-differences


Furthermore, we are about 50% genetically similar to a banana...so what does this tell us?


you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed". Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).


Yes, and this is still circular reasoning. You predict that the genetic code is similar, but you overestimate how close and the goalpost keeps shifting to fit the evidence. Furthermore, this bias led to a dishonest percentage of similarity between us and chimps that has been propagated for decades.

My question still remains unanswered, what predictions have been made by intelligent design?


This is a red herring. There are many predictions made by intelligent design. Most of them are based on additional details revealed in various holy books (since intelligent design is ambiguous about a particular creator). Christian Creationists base their predictions based on objective historical revelation of God as recorded in the Bible. If you wish to discuss this further, please take that conversation here: http://www.evolution...l=polycarp&st=0 or for an answer to the above question, here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=5051



I knew you did! Right, please explain how natural selection can act on traits that are not expressed. If you can answer that then I shall withdraw my point.


Natural selection (random reproductive success of an organism) is based on whole organism (all of its traits) and some luck, not usually just based on one trait. Inevitably, explanations of "natural selection" are simplified and taken to extremes for "science class". It is said that the individual with a specific advantageous trait will tend to survive to pass on this trait, but even in individuals with highly advantageous traits, they could be hit by lightening, or chased off a cliff, or fall victim to a sneak attack. If the individual killed is a carrier, then that gene is not selected for based on the expression of that trait, you are correct, but regardless of whether or not the gene is being selected for based on its expression, this "natural selection" (random reproductive success) still plays a part in whether or not the trait will be passed on until the trait reaches fixation.

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:40 PM


Common ancestry isn't assumed.


I totally agree, the Bible gives reference to this in Genesis Chapter One with a retelling of a more detailed account in Chapter two Two. What is assumed is your attempt to promulgate macroevolution via the mistaken DNA correlation between man and Chimpanzees



We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors. Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them,


Ummm, no, your mistaken 98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect; it is actually 95% when insertions and deletions are included (see “Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.” Proceedings National Academy Science ~ Britten, R.J .)

A few other things to consider:

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.
2. At the end of each chromosome we find a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans, on the other hand, are unique different with considerably shorter telomeres (only 10 kilobases long). (see ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ ~ Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T.)
3. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 are different; the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. (see “Which of our genes make us human?” Science ~ Gibbons, A.)
4. The Y chromosome is different in size and has numerous markers that simply don’t line up between the human and chimpanzee. (see “Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.” Chromosoma ~ Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M.
5. During experimentation, a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map was prepared specifically for chromosome 21. Observed was ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ What was found was a number of regions that “might correspond to insertions” specific ONLY “to the human lineage.” (see “Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.” Science ~ Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y.

What gives you the erroneous 98.6 percentage, is that these types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity, because not doing so gives the evolutionists a higher percentage.

Further, we share approximately 50% of our DNA with a banana, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 70% of our Genes with sea sponges. But, may I also remind you that that we humans share one-hundred percent of our elements with rocks.

"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," and "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." ~ Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed".


And why not, YOU are assuming that you “MAY” have a monkey like creature as an uncle; unfortunately for you, you possess absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to prove such. But I can prove, with 100% certainty that all of my relatives are human.


Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).



Once again, you can make all the predictions you wish, but predictions mean absolutely nothing without the rigorous, inductive verification provided by the empirical scientific method. Without such, your “predictions” are nothing more than guesses and presupposed opinions.

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:07 AM

1. No one who has read that book, or understands the definition of evolution could have made that statement.


2. Do you have to know the origin to understand how it acts? Really? Is that what you are really suggesting? That is incredibly rediculous


3. I knew you did! Right, please explain how natural selection can act on traits that are not expressed. If you can answer that then I shall withdraw my point.



4. If we don't know anything about the designer,


5. how do we know what his design should look like?


6. Because I am told a lot that we are made in his image (always a him, never a her).




1. So you claim, yet it is quite clear what the word origin means...

2. No I am suggesting that the naturalists who promote evolution haven't got a leg to stand on because they cannot account for the first instance of life.. They claim that Intelligent design is based on faith yet they have even more faith since they do not even know where life came from... This speaks volumes of the double standards evolutionists like to employ.

3. Selection cannot work on traits that are expressed.... Therefore selection is limited even more so when you factor independent assortment which means that really "super-fit" trait is RANDOMLY chosen for each offspring. Therefore you have just demonstrated how selection cannot occur in the big picture since you will always get traits that are repressed, and stay with the organism.. Meaning the large changes evolutionists assume is impossible since these regressions can never be fully eliminated via selection.

The same is said with genetic diseases... If selection can lead to such changes then we should see the same occur with genetic diseases, (more so since genetic diseases give a larger fitness difference with which selection would act upon).


4. Did I say that? I said how can we know what a designer wants and doesn't want in his design... That is totally different.


5. Just as any person can see design in life... Look at a building and then look at a mountain which do you think looks designed.

Now look at DNA code and a jumble of letters, now which one is designed.


6. Being made in Gods image is not in a literal sense of physical dimensions. We are able to create, to think, to dream to experience life in the same way God does. This is what that passage means.

#32 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:30 AM

1. Again it is assumed from DNA "evidence"... There is no direct correlation hence it is assumed. Are assumptions scientific? No. Where is your empirical evidence to make this claim?


I think it’s a safe assumption because it matches up so well with the fossil record (overlapping evidence you see). For example Mitochondrial evidence suggests our recent common ancestor with Chimpanzees was between 5 and 7 million years ago, therefore we can make a prediction that we should find, in the fossil record between 4 and 5 million years, a species that will have some hominid like features but remain largely chimpanzee, and that’s exactly what we do find, Ardipithicus ramidus, a bipedal chimpanzee type species and as you know our bipedalism is what helped us begin our journey out of the trees.


2. There are many predictions that have been successfully made via the creation model. However I am not that well versed in them, perhaps ask Ron or Jason777.


I haven’t yet heard of any, but if Jason777 or Ron would care to expand on this point that would be great.


3. And? You're paragraph here has no relevance, since it has not put an argument forth nor does it support any argument.... Furthermore the MOST prominent would be the production of RNA, specifically rRNA since (according to my lecturer) there are hundreds of genes for the production of this type of RNA.


I’m not sure which bit you’re responding to hear as it doesn’t seem to match up with anything I said. Is it the speciation bit?

Also as I said you cannot claim that there is no function till you have PROVEN it has no function... Failure to do so means you are arguing from ignorance since there could be a function, except we haven't worked it out yet... Considering that we have already found many functions for non-coding DNA, this seems to be the case.


You should probably re read my statement about the GLO gene as it is obvious it has no function as a quarter of it is missing.

4. Now you are assuming that DNA with no function are remnants of old genes that were lost... Now you have 2 problems here.

Firstly this is an assumption, in other words you would need to demonstrate how these specific non-coding sequences are in fact remnants of old genes. This is nigh impossible to do so hence your claim here will be an unsupported idea... (are unsupported ideas science? No).


Again with the GLO gene, this answers your point as we know what it DID do, as it does it in the rest of the animal kingdom however it is no longer expressed in us. Saying “this is an assumption” doesn’t hold water.

Secondly your claim here assumes that the ancestor of X had more genes than its predecessor and its predecessor lost information making those genes "junk"... Loss in information is the opposite to what evolution claims, (simple to complex, less information is undoubtedly more simple), hence your idea here actually goes against the tenets of evolution itself.


Information can be added and removed, it’s not one or the other, I was giving one example and you took it to mean something COMPLETELY different. Seems a tad dishonest to me.


5. Who said it was 15%... where is your evidence for this amount? Further does it account for the "junk" that does have a purpose?


Simple mathematics, 2,000 out of 30,000 = 15%. It was Jerry Coyne, professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

6. Firstly the "tail" is merely a lump of flesh, it has no movement, no purpose hence it by definition is not an actual tail. Again you are assuming that this somehow "proves" evolution. Next thing you're going to say is about the "gill slits" in the human fetus.... (which have been demonstrated to be mere flaps, not gill slits)


OF COURSE THE TAIL IS A LUMP OF FLESH! WHAT ELSE IS A TAIL! Is that your argument? Really? I had hoped for much better. Let’s not forget the Coccyx which is of course, a vestigial tail.


7. Lol your example actually disproves natural selection... If external formation is better, then why isn't it selected for? Again you are assuming that this somehow "proves" evolution... The links are tenuous at best, however all are lacking EMPIRICAL evidence which ties it to evolution.... Making a story for something, (no matter how elaborate or "logical" is still a story none the less).


Again I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you are responding to. Apologies.


8. Dawkins is religious in that his brand of atheism pervades everything he does, when something is weaved so thoroughly into someones life then it is a Religion since they are emotionally attached to that worldview. His claims for cultural genocide are just one example.


I would claim Dawkins is anti religious or anti theist in the same way Mr Hitchens was. Atheism only means we lack belief in a god. I admit, Dawkins would be happier if religion didn’t exist and that is a world view. However, it doesn’t pervade everything he does, as a biologist, he is actually wonderful, it was he who got me on to science. However, I don’t always agree with his desire to rid the world of religion.


9. Thanks

Most welcome


10. You took the words out of my mouth... Yes it is a story, and you will need empirical evidence to back it up if you wish this story to be claimed as scientific. Now I know that ring species are an example of this, however under the creationist definition they are still the same kind. Hence I would prefer to deal with unequivocal evolution which would be demonstrated via the fish to amphibian or amphibian to reptile or reptile to mammal transitions.


Is that all you need? Really? Cool. Have you heard of Tiktaalik? Well, have a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktallik
http://www.cell-o.or.../ahlberg06a.pdf


11. If you wish to use papers, please quote the relevant parts I am not reading an entire paper since I have better things to do.


Ok, that’s fair. It is all pretty relevant but I shall have a comb through later and pick you bits out. It is about speciation observed in the lab over the last 40 years but it was a big paper.


12. Glad you asked, the limits to change is observed in life itself. A farm I used to work at breed pigs and were suppliers of breeding stock to other farms... Now there were traits that were favoured and these would be systematically selected for, (with much more gusto than natural selection could ever have since natural selection do not prevent individuals from mating via concrete walls). Now increased muscle mass was a good trait, but this would be offset by leg problems (due to the weight) as well as decreased maternal ability, (since more of the body energy goes to muscle mass than milk), increased rib amount is also good, but this was offset by back problems later in life, (the spine starts to droop a bit in the middle)...

Hence the limiting factor of a trait are the physical properties of the trait itself.


Sorry, this won’t do, this makes the basic assumption that natural selection works on only one part at a time, and it doesn’t. For ease it may be explained like that, I may talk about a giraffes neck and how it lengthened for fighting, but at the same time their shoulders and legs would get stronger to support this growing neck, if they didn’t the organism wouldn’t survive as, using the giraffe as an example, it’s body couldn’t support its neck and it would have limited mobility. So the traits for a longer neck would only survive hand in hand with stronger shoulders and legs, and the changes continue.


I need to go to uni so will answer the rest later sorry


Hope you have fun a uni.

#33 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 March 2012 - 03:53 AM

So this "proof" in no way can support a common designer just as easily as a common ancestor? You are deluding yourself with circular reasoning, and this will continue to be exposed as long as you cling to it.


I have answered already on how it matches up with the fossil record.



Are you sure? More recent studies suggest otherwise:


Yep, my mistake, I was reading a pre-report before everything had been sequenced. I forgot to read the title, sorry about that. It is actually 96%.

“The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today.”
“The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.”

http://www.genome.gov/15515096

What does this mean?


I means that whoever read the paper didn’t understand it, or was being willingly dishonest. Because we share 70% of the Y-chromosone with chimpanzees, that doesn’t mean it is the same for the whole genome. The genome is not made up entirely of Y-chromosomes. The person had literally subtracted 70 from a 100 and gotten 30. Wow.



Furthermore, we are about 50% genetically similar to a banana...so what does this tell us?


That we share an ancestor with Bananas. Is it 50%? It doesn’t matter if it is, I was just wondering.


Yes, and this is still circular reasoning. You predict that the genetic code is similar, but you overestimate how close and the goalpost keeps shifting to fit the evidence. Furthermore, this bias led to a dishonest percentage of similarity between us and chimps that has been propagated for decades.


Which dishonesty please? Have you actual read the paper?



This is a red herring. There are many predictions made by intelligent design. Most of them are based on additional details revealed in various holy books (since intelligent design is ambiguous about a particular creator). Christian Creationists base their predictions based on objective historical revelation of God as recorded in the Bible. If you wish to discuss this further, please take that conversation here: http://www.evolution...l=polycarp&st=0 or for an answer to the above question, here: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=5051


No, if Intelligent Design is a science, it needs to make predictions, that’s not a red herring, that’s science. As the bible can’t get anything right I would probably not use it too much in my science studies.


Natural selection (random reproductive success of an organism) is based on whole organism (all of its traits) and some luck, not usually just based on one trait. Inevitably, explanations of "natural selection" are simplified and taken to extremes for "science class". It is said that the individual with a specific advantageous trait will tend to survive to pass on this trait, but even in individuals with highly advantageous traits, they could be hit by lightening, or chased off a cliff, or fall victim to a sneak attack. If the individual killed is a carrier, then that gene is not selected for based on the expression of that trait, you are correct, but regardless of whether or not the gene is being selected for based on its expression, this "natural selection" (random reproductive success) still plays a part in whether or not the trait will be passed on until the trait reaches fixation.


I have already said it’s not based on one singular trait, it is sometimes just explained like that for ease of communication. But nothing you have said answers my point that natural selection cannot act on traits that are not expressed.

#34 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:48 AM

Okay, I'll give you one more chance at this...


Common ancestry isn't assumed.


I totally agree, the Bible gives reference to this in Genesis Chapter One with a retelling of a more detailed account in Chapter two Two. What is assumed is your attempt to promulgate macroevolution via the mistaken DNA correlation between man and Chimpanzees. Therefore Common ancestry is indeed assumed



We know from DNA evidence that we share ancestors. Take for instance our ancestry with Chimpanzees. We share 98.6% of our genetic code with them,


Ummm, no, your mistaken 98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect; it is actually 95% when insertions and deletions are included (see “Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.” Proceedings National Academy Science ~ Britten, R.J .)

A few other things to consider:

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.
2. At the end of each chromosome we find a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans, on the other hand, are unique different with considerably shorter telomeres (only 10 kilobases long). (see ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ ~ Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T.)
3. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 are different; the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. (see “Which of our genes make us human?” Science ~ Gibbons, A.)
4. The Y chromosome is different in size and has numerous markers that simply don’t line up between the human and chimpanzee. (see “Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.” Chromosoma ~ Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M.
5. During experimentation, a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map was prepared specifically for chromosome 21. Observed was ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ What was found was a number of regions that “might correspond to insertions” specific ONLY “to the human lineage.” (see “Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.” Science ~ Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y.

What gives you the erroneous 98.6 percentage, is that these types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity, because not doing so gives the evolutionists a higher percentage.

Further, we share approximately 50% of our DNA with a banana, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 70% of our Genes with sea sponges. But, may I also remind you that that we humans share one-hundred percent of our elements with rocks.

"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," and "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." ~ Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


you may say "this can be assumed if we were designed".


And why not, YOU are assuming that you “MAY” have a monkey like creature as an uncle; unfortunately for you, you possess absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to prove such. But I can prove, with 100% certainty that all of my relatives are human.


Well, fine, you can say that, although we can make predictions on how much of our genetic code we will share with other primates and by extension other mammals. We find the more distantly related we are to other species, the more our genetic similarities disappear. This is what we would assume to find if we were related based on heredity (traits being passed on down each line of decent).



Once again, you can make all the predictions you wish, but predictions mean absolutely nothing without the rigorous, inductive verification provided by the empirical scientific method. Without such, your “predictions” are nothing more than guesses and presupposed opinions.



#35 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 March 2012 - 05:57 AM

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24.


Wow! Really? http://en.wikipedia....osome_2_(human)


2. At the end of each chromosome we find a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans, on the other hand, are unique different with considerably shorter telomeres (only 10 kilobases long). (see ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ ~ Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T.)


We know there are differences, the article only suggests at what effects telomere has but even those suggestions are in line with what we know seperates humans and chimpanzees.

3. Chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 are different; the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. (see “Which of our genes make us human?” Science ~ Gibbons, A.)


You answer your own point when you quote “which of our genes make us human?”


4. The Y chromosome is different in size and has numerous markers that simply don’t line up between the human and chimpanzee. (see “Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.” Chromosoma ~ Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M.


The Y-Chomosome is indeed quite different and I have answered above about the Y-Chromosome.

5. During experimentation, a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map was prepared specifically for chromosome 21. Observed was ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ What was found was a number of regions that “might correspond to insertions” specific ONLY “to the human lineage.” (see “Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.” Science ~ Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y.


Quoting only the abstract of a paper is bad practice as you don’t get the full picture. You have missed out MANY details that explains what exactly the paper set out to look for, why it did and what it found. It’s like reading the last page of a book and trying to work out the whole story. When you have read the paper you will probably understand why what you claim it shows is not in line with what the paper suggests

http://chr21.molgen....re_27_05_04.pdf


What gives you the erroneous 98.6 percentage, is that these types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity, because not doing so gives the evolutionists a higher percentage.


I have already admitted my mistake on this, but the full mapping shows our genetic code to be 96% identical.

Further, we share approximately 50% of our DNA with a banana, 60% of our DNA with a fruit fly, and 70% of our Genes with sea sponges. But, may I also remind you that that we humans share one-hundred percent of our elements with rocks
.



I think you have gotten yourself confused there. Just on the sponge I found these quotes:

“The new study shows that, while the sponge genome contains most of the gene families found in humans, the number of genes in each family has changed significantly over the past 600 million years. By analyzing which gene families were enriched or depleted in different groups of animals, the authors identified groups of gene functions that are associated with morphological complexity.”
ScienceDaily

“This incredibly old ancestor possessed the same core building blocks for multicellular form and function that still sits at the heart of all living animals, including humans. It now appears that the evolution of these genes not only allowed the first animals to colonize the ancient oceans, but underpinned the evolution of the full biodiversity of animals we see today."
-Bernie Degnan, a professor of biology at the University of Queensland, Australia

”According to Degnan, essentially all the genomic innovations that we deem necessary for intricate modern animal life have their origins much further back in time that anyone anticipated, predating the Cambrian explosion by tens if not hundreds of millions of years.”
-ScienceDaily



"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," and "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts." ~ Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


Same as above, counterparts, similarities, what we would expect if we shared a common ancestor.

And why not, YOU are assuming that you “MAY” have a monkey like creature as an uncle; unfortunately for you, you possess absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence to prove such. But I can prove, with 100% certainty that all of my relatives are human.


I don’t assume anything.

Posted Image

Wow, you gave me nearly a few hours to answer 4 posts. Thanks for being generous and giving me so much time. Unlike you, I read the papers that you quoted and didn't take my understanding just from the title or abstract.

#36 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:13 AM

1. So you claim, yet it is quite clear what the word origin means...


Yes, in this case, it means the origin of the diversity of species as in why we have so many. Origin of the first replicating cell is something darwin made NO REFERENCE TO WHATSOEVER. And even if he did? What of it, Darwin was 150 years ago, science has kind of moved on since then.

2. No I am suggesting that the naturalists who promote evolution haven't got a leg to stand on because they cannot account for the first instance of life.. They claim that Intelligent design is based on faith yet they have even more faith since they do not even know where life came from... This speaks volumes of the double standards evolutionists like to employ.


Again, and for the last time, evolution explains the diversity of life after the first replicating cell...AFTER, get it? Good.

3. Selection cannot work on traits that are expressed.... Therefore selection is limited even more so when you factor independent assortment which means that really "super-fit" trait is RANDOMLY chosen for each offspring. Therefore you have just demonstrated how selection cannot occur in the big picture since you will always get traits that are repressed, and stay with the organism.. Meaning the large changes evolutionists assume is impossible since these regressions can never be fully eliminated via selection.


And that's when you get? Dun dun durrrrrr pseudogenes! I like that you're catching up (even if you don't know it yet)

The same is said with genetic diseases... If selection can lead to such changes then we should see the same occur with genetic diseases, (more so since genetic diseases give a larger fitness difference with which selection would act upon).


That's true, but genetic diseases die out and have done over our evolution, how do we know this? I'm glad you asked. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Retrovirus

4. Did I say that? I said how can we know what a designer wants and doesn't want in his design... That is totally different.


No you didn't, it was just a question, I wasn't quoting you.

5. Just as any person can see design in life... Look at a building and then look at a mountain which do you think looks designed.


What has architecture got to do with biology?

Now look at DNA code and a jumble of letters, now which one is designed.


Oh I see, it was a bad analogy. If I look at a jumble of 30,000 letters and our genome? Both are going to look pretty weird. Thanks for asking.

6. Being made in Gods image is not in a literal sense of physical dimensions. We are able to create, to think, to dream to experience life in the same way God does. This is what that passage means.


Ok, that's fine, that was a genuine question. Like it has been said before, I am not always going to know the proper interpretations so they are genuine questions. Thank you for clearing that up.

#37 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:44 AM

1. I think it’s a safe assumption


2. because it matches up so well with the fossil record (overlapping evidence you see).

3. For example Mitochondrial evidence suggests our recent common ancestor with Chimpanzees was between 5 and 7 million years ago, therefore we can make a prediction that we should find, in the fossil record between 4 and 5 million years, a species that will have some hominid like features but remain largely chimpanzee, and that’s exactly what we do find, Ardipithicus ramidus, a bipedal chimpanzee type species and as you know our bipedalism is what helped us begin our journey out of the trees.


4. I’m not sure which bit you’re responding to hear as it doesn’t seem to match up with anything I said. Is it the speciation bit?


5. You should probably re read my statement about the GLO gene as it is obvious it has no function as a quarter of it is missing.



6. Again with the GLO gene, this answers your point as we know what it DID do, as it does it in the rest of the animal kingdom however it is no longer expressed in us. Saying “this is an assumption” doesn’t hold water.

7. Information can be added and removed, it’s not one or the other, I was giving one example and you took it to mean something COMPLETELY different. Seems a tad dishonest to me.


8. Simple mathematics, 2,000 out of 30,000 = 15%. It was Jerry Coyne, professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

9. OF COURSE THE TAIL IS A LUMP OF FLESH! WHAT ELSE IS A TAIL! Is that your argument? Really? I had hoped for much better. Let’s not forget the Coccyx which is of course, a vestigial tail.

10. Again I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you are responding to. Apologies.

11.I would claim Dawkins is anti religious or anti theist in the same way Mr Hitchens was. Atheism only means we lack belief in a god. I admit, Dawkins would be happier if religion didn’t exist and that is a world view. However, it doesn’t pervade everything he does, as a biologist, he is actually wonderful, it was he who got me on to science. However, I don’t always agree with his desire to rid the world of religion.

12. Is that all you need? Really? Cool. Have you heard of Tiktaalik? Well, have a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktallik
http://www.cell-o.or.../ahlberg06a.pdf

13. Ok, that’s fair. It is all pretty relevant but I shall have a comb through later and pick you bits out. It is about speciation observed in the lab over the last 40 years but it was a big paper.

14. Sorry, this won’t do, this makes the basic assumption that natural selection works on only one part at a time, and it doesn’t.

15. For ease it may be explained like that, I may talk about a giraffes neck and how it lengthened for fighting, but at the same time their shoulders and legs would get stronger to support this growing neck, if they didn’t the organism wouldn’t survive as, using the giraffe as an example, it’s body couldn’t support its neck and it would have limited mobility. So the traits for a longer neck would only survive hand in hand with stronger shoulders and legs, and the changes continue.

Hope you have fun a uni.



1. No assumption is safe... Plus didn't you say this in post #35

"I don't assume anything"

Hmm sounds contradictory....

2. And? Fossil evidence is not empirical nor is DNA evidence hence under the scientific method they are not scientific... You may feel that drawing a comparison between the two is "logical" however you must admit that with no empirical evidence it is assumed and thus is not valid scientifically... as I asked is an assumption scientific?

3. What "evidence" is this... you do realise that mtDNA gives a totally different age of homind species than fossils do, also the Y chromosome gives a totally different age as well.... Safe assumption indeed...

Further what evidence is there that this chimp was bipedal? I've seen many depictions of "bidepal homnids" which have been made from scant fossil evidence and a truck load of imagination... Nebraska man was one, and that was made solely from a pig tooth... (Safe assumption indeed)

4. Of course you don't know because you totally ignored my point about different RNA from non-coding regions of DNA. As I suggested you should research rRNA, siRNA, snoRNA and RNAi... These are claimed to come from non-coding regions and thus disprove your claims that non-coding regions have little function. Furthermore as I said you need to PROVE that non-coding DNA has no function assuming it doesn't is an argument from ignorance, (a logical fallacy). The funny thing is that I pointed this logical fallacy out first thing, so your continued reliance on it means either you do not understand or you didn't read my post.

5. And? Wow ONE gene.... There are hundreds of genes for rRNA so the fact you've pointed out ONE gene is a bit redundant wouldn't you agree. Furthermore you are still assuming that the GLO gene doesn't have a function.... Which is an argument from ignorance. You will need to PROVE that the GLO gene doesn't have a function at all in order for your argument to "hold water".

6. Read point 5...

7. In the case of the GLO gene, from what you are saying only information is removed.. (hence loss of complexity). Is it dishonest to point out the illogical points of your claims?

As I said if you claim that junk DNA is like the GLO gene and thus are remnants of old genes you have the problems I have depicted. Whinging will not solve these problems for you.

8. ..... I think your simple "mathematics" is wrong... 2000 / 30000 = .0667 x100 = 6.67%

Also name dropping is an argument to authority.. (another logical fallacy)

9. A tail is more than a lump of flesh.. It has bones, and muscles which makes it useful like any other appendage. The "tail" you speak of is simply a mass of fatty tissue which just so happens to connect to the base of the spine. There are no muscles nor are there bones, it is useless.

The "tail bone" in humans is used for comfort while sitting or walking it is not vestigial

10. I know you don't know, that is why I am trying to educate you.

If you follow the number you should be able to see what I am responding to... This is why I number my responses so its VERY easy to see what paragraph I am responding to and where.. However just in case you cannot read the numbers. I am responding to your claim about the formation of the testis. IF external formation is better then why hasn't it been selected for?

11. You do realise that atheism, (when piously defended), is a religion too

12. I suggest more research is in order... Tiktaalik has been debunked for years. Footprints were found in Poland and were dated about 20 million years older than the Tiktaalik fossils. This completely invalidates it as an ancestor of amphibians since how can it be an ancestor of something that lived before it :D Furthermore the tracks showed steps that are more consistent with tetrapods hence according to evolution this transition must have occured a long time earlier. This not only invalidates Tiktaalik but the entire assumed progression since none can now fit in the timeline these footprints propose... (unless you just assume tiktaalik into the new timeline... but as we discussed assumptions are not scientific).

http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik
http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html

13. Please do

14. Yet that is how evolutionists describe it.... However how does what I have written assume that selection only works on one thing? All I have claimed is that for each "apparant" benefit there is also a trade off that also reduces the fitness of the organism. This may not apply to all but certainly to most. How is this doing anything you claim it does?

In relation to your giraffe example, extra valves in the arteries of the neck need to (somehow) "evolve" as well since the neck is so long the giraffe will not be able to pump blood to the head, also when it goes down to get a drink its head won't explode from the pile-up of blood caused via gravity. However despite this what you said was a story, are stories scientific?

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 March 2012 - 06:56 AM

1. Yes, in this case, it means the origin of the diversity of species as in why we have so many. Origin of the first replicating cell is something darwin made NO REFERENCE TO WHATSOEVER. And even if he did? What of it, Darwin was 150 years ago, science has kind of moved on since then.



2. Again, and for the last time, evolution explains the diversity of life after the first replicating cell...AFTER, get it? Good.



3. And that's when you get? Dun dun durrrrrr pseudogenes! I like that you're catching up (even if you don't know it yet)



4. That's true, but genetic diseases die out and have done over our evolution, how do we know this? I'm glad you asked. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Retrovirus



5. No you didn't, it was just a question, I wasn't quoting you.



6. If I look at a jumble of 30,000 letters and our genome? Both are going to look pretty weird. Thanks for asking.



7. Ok, that's fine, that was a genuine question. Like it has been said before, I am not always going to know the proper interpretations so they are genuine questions. Thank you for clearing that up.


1. Then perhaps he should have titled it "DIVERGENCE OF THE SPECIES".... Origin is the word he used hence it is the word we are abiding by... Where are the origins?

2. Oh I get it. Its just that as I said if you cannot explain that first cell then the explanation you have after doesn't really matter.

3. And how does this solve the problem I pointed out? Attempting to hide behind humour will not make the problems go away.

4. More information is required... A debate is about arguments, not posting a link and thats it.

5. Then where did you get the claim that we know nothing of the designer? OR is that just your own opinion?

6. Yet jumbled letters do nothing. Our genome codes for the development, and upkeep of a multicellular organism comprising of cells that are miniature factories... I consider this point closed.

7. No problem. I may be totally wrong however that was how it was explained to me back when I was a Christian.

#39 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:10 AM

JOE= thanks for writing me back, it’s apreciated
JOE= sorry for the length of this


Not a problem Joe, it’s not the length, it’s more the variety of arguments without much substance. But I shall have a go at trying to answer some of your points.
.

JOE= yes, I think man was coming up with some excuses
JOE= right from the very bigining,,,
JOE=,trying to side step the Authority of God
JOE= not wanting to admit that there was Someone watching
JOE= over everyone, seeing everything, that was going to
JOE= hold them accountable in the end
JOE= now do you see why man has always been hoping that
JOE= there was no one to answer to
JOE= for all of the bad deeds that they have committed


Like I have said, Darwin set out to prove Paley right, however the facts spoke for themselves. He hated his theory and the effects it would have on his family. His autobiography is actually quite upsetting and stresses this point.


JOE= so,,, as soon as someone came up with a somewhat
JOE= believable concoction,,, all the rest of you hopped on it
JOE= for the ride


Not at all, it was quite highly contested and natural selection is still not fully understood. That evolution occurred however, is just fact.


JOE= ok,,, just where did I go off on an emotional tangent


Your language just seems a bit poetic and aggressive, not scientific like you originally claimed it would be.


JOE= yes,,, and this is such an important detail,
JOE= that you had to point it out
JOE= sorry,,, but I was here to discuss facts, theories
JOE= and beliefs, not to quivil about spelling + grammer


Ha, yeah, I was being a bit silly there, sorry J


JOE= yes, I would like to see that


I have presented quite a lot of evidence in this thread but if there is anything more specific you would like I can either find it for you or explain it, evolution is quite a big topic you see.

JOE= based on what,,,,,,,,
JOE= phsycics saying that they regressed a person back
JOE= to an ape,,,, lol.
JOE= The scariest part of it might be, that you may believe


Nope, that a chimpanzee is our closest living relative and we shared an ancestor between 5 and 7 million years ago. This is supported in the sequencing of our DNA along with the fossil record. (I put up a nice picture above)


JOE= ya sure,,,
JOE= and I have sone swampland in florida
JOE= bring on all the technical jargun you want
JOE= based on simple depth chances
JOE = or the lack of a change in depth in the fossil layers
JOE = will prove that not local flood or avalanche ever happened
JOE = in any of the fossil sites


Science is tricky and technical jargon is difficult to understand, if you have a look at those terms, even just the wiki page you’ll see what I am on about. Again, anything you would like help on understanding I am here for you.


JOE= ok, and how many ways are there to date a rock
JOE= I here that one of them predicts about 6 000 years age
JOE= but evolutionist seem to be in control of methods used
JOE= I will give more on that later if required


There are many ways to age the earth. I suggest this video from potholer54 . You will have to find me the citation for a 6,000 year old earth because I don’t think that’s true. Even dendrochronology shows the earth to be at least 12,000 years old.


JOE= the Holy Bible proves its own worthyniess
JOE= because of it having such historical accuracy
JOE= because of all the proven fulfilled Bible prophecy
JOE= because of the Bible Code prophetic accuracy
JOE= it shows that the Bible is truly the Word of God
JOE= because this prophetic info cannot be found
JOE= until things happen, and then the important words
JOE= are found together when put through the Code software
JOE= who knows how much of HIStory is recorded in there


Please can you find me examples of historical accuracies from the bible.


JOE= I have heard of human footprints
JOE= that were found inside rocks
JOE= allong with dinasour footprints
JOE= but humanists seem to have the final say
JOE= on what gets published, and what is left out


Yeah….they were frauds http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=178


JOE= “Humanism is an ideological, political, and religious belief
JOE= that denies the existence of God. Atheists are humanist, as are new-agers,
JOE= The theory of evolution was developed by humanists
JOE= to create a world devoid of God.”
JOE= taken from http://www.contenderministries.org/humanism.php
JOE= I know that this is only one opinion
JOE= but it seems to be a reacuring theme


The theory of evolution was developed by scientists, not humanists, unless you are a humanist scientist, but that’s not a pre requisite.


JOE= yes, I became emotional about anyone or anything
JOE= that wants to deny the existance of my God
JOE= but what I state here, is about how facts are on the side of the Creationist


I understand that, but evolution and god can co-exist and a lot of people support this view.


JOE= “If you think public schools are not religious, consider the following quotations:
JOE= "The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public”
JOE= school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role
JOE= as proselytizers of a new faith...
JOE= (that will replace) the rotting corpse of Christianity."
JOE= John J. Dunphy, The Humanist, Jan. 1983 p.26
JOE= http://www.icdc.com/~dnice/evolution.html


I never mentioned anything about public schools.


JOE= for giants + human footprints in fossils http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
JOE= + http://s8int.com/phile/page56.html
JOE= + http://coupmedia.org/archaeology/time-travelers-footprints-throughout-history-0909
JOE= + http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/1040676-new-fossil-human-footprint-dinosaur-footprint.html


There is a good video on most of these points that I can't find at the moment, leave it with me and I shall get back to you about.

#40 kasper

kasper

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Germany

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:15 AM

2. And? Fossil evidence is not empirical nor is DNA evidence hence under the scientific method they are not scientific...

Please explain why you claim that fossil evidence and DNA are not "empirical" and "hence under the scientific method not scientific".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users