Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
707 replies to this topic

#701 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:01 AM

it appears as if DNA is regulated (like in a group of valves), instead of being read like a book.
although it's most likely a combination.

an interesting read, and some links at the bottom:
https://www.quora.co...nome-to-another

it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see.
neither of which is a gradual accumulation.

#702 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:36 PM

it appears as if DNA is regulated (like in a group of valves), instead of being read like a book.although it's most likely a combination.an interesting read, and some links at the bottom:https://www.quora.co...nome-to-anotherit seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see.neither of which is a gradual accumulation.


"it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see."


Oh really? Just what is this so called and asserted "Evolution we see"? Are you still trying to pretend that Dog variation, Finches beaks, moth colors and bear coats are "Evolution" when they are nothing of the sort? Rememeber, those are ONLY Examples of Adaptation, Variation and Speciation inherent in each and every DNA genome of the created kinds from the beginning...


Dont you remember? "Micro" Evolution is merely a bait and switch marketing ploy in order to convince gullible 14 year old biology students into believing the Fairy Tale of Darwin.... Do you remember the name of this website that you are on?

Here is a good Video that explains EXACTLY what happened..


https://www.google.c...n5EeGbN4VUIJjTA

#703 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:36 PM

"it seems clear to me that transposons and epigenetics account for over 90% of the evolution we see."


Oh really? Just what is this so called and asserted "Evolution we see"? Are you still trying to pretend that Dog variation, Finches beaks, moth colors and bear coats are "Evolution" when they are nothing of the sort? Rememeber, those are ONLY Examples of Adaptation, Variation and Speciation inherent in each and every DNA genome of the created kinds from the beginning...


Dont you remember? "Micro" Evolution is merely a bait and switch marketing ploy in order to convince gullible 14 year old biology students into believing the Fairy Tale of Darwin.... Do you remember the name of this website that you are on?

Here is a good Video that explains EXACTLY what happened..


https://www.google.c...n5EeGbN4VUIJjTA

i think koonin pretty well makes it plain.
animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed, doesn't seem to fit the tree pattern, with no detectable intermediates
if they were fully formed, then little to no evolution has happened since.

i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from.

#704 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:20 AM

i think koonin pretty well makes it plain.
animal phyla arrived on the scene fully formed, doesn't seem to fit the tree pattern, with no detectable intermediates
if they were fully formed, then little to no evolution has happened since.

i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from.

 

"i have no idea where these "transitionals" are coming from"

 

Good Point, and Well Stated!... They seem to come from the ever so fertil imaginations of Evolutionists, Other than that, it seems to be a dog and pony show for the masses..

 

Even their own evolutionary prominent expert paleontologists openly admit as such...  How much longer will the Dangerous Fraud of "Evolution" be perpetrated. on mankind?

 

Have you ever heard of Colin Patterson or S.J Gould?

 

 

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following statement which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument.

 


On November 5, 1981, the late  Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:

One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”
 



#705 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 February 2017 - 09:55 AM

(1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

googling this source return material from "creationist" sites.
it would be nice if i could get this from a "respected" site, such as ncbi
this is what makes koonins excerpt so powerful, the page comes from a respected site, AND koonin happens to be the lead investigator of ncbi, nlm, and nih.
he has well over 600 papers under his belt, and heads the evolutionary genomics research group.
you cannot possibly say this man doesn't know what he is talking about, nor can you ignore the fact it comes from a respected site.

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

well, i cannot say i'm "anti evolution", nor can i say evolution produces anti science.

i think it's telling that fame and a nobel awaits the person that solves abiogenesis, but yet no one has stepped up to claim it.
what's even more telling is that science has a functional specimen to work with.

most will read this stuff and think, no, there must be a mistake somewhere.
well, keep digging, you might eventually find that mistake . . . maybe.

#706 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 10:07 AM

"What If" CMI are a respected source, because they usually allow come backs, and usually will include what the evolutionists are saying. If you're implying that any creationist source is immediately not respected then ultimately you are committing argumentum ad hominem.

 

Here in this following link you will see that the creation scientist allows an explanation from Patterson, in what he was trying to say in regards to the fossils.

 

Patterson came back with this reply;

 

 

 

‘The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’

 

As you can see, it is a creationist source (CMI), that are investigating what he specifically meant, so there is no need for you to assume creationist sources are immediately faulty through some bias you have left over from your evolution days. :P

 

This is the article;

 

http://creation.com/...itional-fossils

 

It seems Patterson did make some tacit admissions but when they are confronted usually they tend to back-track because they don't want to be associated with creationists.

 

It's a case of, "yes I said it.....but what, you now say Hitler says the same thing? Well in that case I don't say it any more! Or if I did say chocolate cake tastes nice, I didn't mean it in the context of cakes tasting nice, I meant it in some other way, so basically I am not saying what I am saying because Hitler said it."

 

Be careful to avoid the ad Hitlerum fallacy, "Hitler said chocolate cake is tasty therefore it can't be tasty because Hitler said so."



#707 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 February 2017 - 10:36 AM

"What If" CMI are a respected source, because they usually allow come backs, and usually will include what the evolutionists are saying. If you're implying that any creationist source is immediately not respected then ultimately you are committing argumentum ad hominem.

i meant no disrespect.
i prefer "respected" science sites because it's very hard for an evolutionist to scream "CREATIONIST ! !"
the only other adjectives they can use is "misrepresentation" or "misinterpretation".
goku has already tried both.
i'm still waiting for his input about ayala, and where he got the idea that gould doesn't like being quoted.
 

It seems Patterson did make some tacit admissions but when they are confronted usually they tend to back-track because they don't want to be associated with creationists.
 
It's a case of, "yes I said it.....but what, you now say Hitler says the same thing? Well in that case I don't say it any more! Or if I did say chocolate cake tastes nice, I didn't mean it in the context of cakes tasting nice, I meant it in some other way, so basically I am not saying what I am saying because Hitler said it."
 
Be careful to avoid the ad Hitlerum fallacy, "Hitler said chocolate cake is tasty therefore it can't be tasty because Hitler said so."

this is probably pretty close to the truth.
it's probably how arrowsmith coerced a "retraction" from ayala.
arrowsmith apparently never anticipated the letters that were written to science concerning said article.
not a single one of them mentioned ayala and his quote, not one.
if "every biologist would disagree with it" (as goku implied), then why wasn't it mentioned.
most of those letters were scathing, hateful letters condemning both lewin and science for "giving creationists a field day", but none of them mentions ayala.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#708 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,584 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 10:38 AM

In regards to evolutionists criticising evolution theory but never allowing those criticisms to favour creation, I think an analogy is required;

 

Imagine there was a person with a high IQ, that was HATED by a group of people, and basically those people agreed with one another that everything this person said was stupid. Now let us pretend that one of their number creates an argument we shall call P. Now let us pretend they were not aware that the person they hated had also formulated argument P, and when the person finds out he argued P he says, "only our group can argue P, when you argue P it is incorrect but it is okay for us to argue P".

 

In other words, evolutionists CAN argue that 2 add 2 is 4, but if we use that to show that we also argue 2 add 2 is 4 as creationists, basically their response will be this; "no, 2 add 2 is only 4 within science, it is not 4 outside of science".

 

Let's think how silly this is for a moment. Basically they won't admit that if the bible is true and kinds exist, that we wouldn't expect any transitionals but because creation isn't science then you can only admit to a lack of transitionals WITHIN a scientific context.

 

In reality bifurcation allows us to say in many instances, that evidence P either does favour creation or it does not. But the evolutionists are saying that it either doesn't favour it or it doesn't because it's outside of science. (LOL)

 

That is the same as saying that males should be paid wages but for the same type of work, females shouldn't be. (a double standard fallacy).

 

If evidence favours creation, then it favours it.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    what if