Jump to content


Photo

Defining "transitional"


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 07 February 2017 - 11:34 AM

the evidence exists, others have reviewed it.a creationist scientist calls this evidence impressive. are you saying that you never assume things?a very simple example:your friend asks you to pick them up somewhere.you leave so you can get there exactly at the time they want you there.you have just made at least 2 assumptions:1. your friend will be there when you get there.2, since you left "just in time" you are assuming you won't have any car trouble.


"the evidence exists, others have reviewed it."


Yes, just like the game of 3 card monte, the pea is alwasy under the other card.. "I didnt see it but so and so A has it", so and so A says "I havent seen it but so and so B assures me that it exists" So we ask so and so B and he says "It has to exist becasue so and so C says it does and he is an expert" so we ask so and so C and he says, I have seen the evidence and it is overwhelming" Ask so and so D he knows", so we ask so and so D and he says, Well I saw it when so ans so E presented it to me, Go ask him" So we go ask so and so E ans he says, "Are you guys stupid or something?" any 11th grade biology textbook has plenty of evidence in it and besides, 99% of Scientists cant he wrong..

And the evasive Dog and Pony show about the naked emperor passing the buck goes on and on....

#42 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 February 2017 - 01:38 PM

"the evidence exists, others have reviewed it."


Yes, just like the game of 3 card monte, the pea is alwasy under the other card.. "I didnt see it but so and so A has it", so and so A says "I havent seen it but so and so B assures me that it exists" So we ask so and so B and he says "It has to exist becasue so and so C says it does and he is an expert" so we ask so and so C and he says, I have seen the evidence and it is overwhelming" Ask so and so D he knows", so we ask so and so D and he says, Well I saw it when so ans so E presented it to me, Go ask him" So we go ask so and so E ans he says, "Are you guys stupid or something?" any 11th grade biology textbook has plenty of evidence in it and besides, 99% of Scientists cant he wrong..

And the evasive Dog and Pony show about the naked emperor passing the buck goes on and on....

let's see what a creationist scientist* has to say:
I can understand why those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by that theory; there is an impressive quantity and insightfulness to the work.

But even with that evidence supporting common descent, others find common descent insufficient to explain some parts of the data.
For example, humans have ~20,000 protein-coding genes, which is only ~1.5% of DNA in the entire human genome, and it is within that 1.5% that common descent studies are primarily (though not exclusively) focused.
. . .
ENCODE, seeks to determine the roll of the remaining 98.5% of the genome that was formerly poorly called “junk DNA,” but better called “intergenic regions.” There is ENCODE evidence that part or even much of the intergenic regions have regulatory elements that can affect gene transcription.
. . .
Still others are dismissive of the relevancy of ENCODE and orphan genes research in the context of common descent evaluations. For example, they say that for decades biologists have realized that intergenic regions have regulatory functions.
. . .
Thus the same data is viewed very differently depending upon the evaluator’s perspective. As a synthetic chemist, I am unable to render an opinion. I cannot suggest a victor in this contest.
- www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

* james tour is a scientist that happens to believe in god, but he doesn't let that stand in the way of his profession.
just like he points out on his website, god is a concept that he cannot prove using the tools of science, the very same tools he, and other scientists, are bound.

#43 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 February 2017 - 12:09 AM

let's see what a creationist scientist* has to say:
I can understand why those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by that theory; there is an impressive quantity and insightfulness to the work.

But even with that evidence supporting common descent, others find common descent insufficient to explain some parts of the data.
For example, humans have ~20,000 protein-coding genes, which is only ~1.5% of DNA in the entire human genome, and it is within that 1.5% that common descent studies are primarily (though not exclusively) focused.
. . .
ENCODE, seeks to determine the roll of the remaining 98.5% of the genome that was formerly poorly called “junk DNA,” but better called “intergenic regions.” There is ENCODE evidence that part or even much of the intergenic regions have regulatory elements that can affect gene transcription.
. . .
Still others are dismissive of the relevancy of ENCODE and orphan genes research in the context of common descent evaluations. For example, they say that for decades biologists have realized that intergenic regions have regulatory functions.
. . .
Thus the same data is viewed very differently depending upon the evaluator’s perspective. As a synthetic chemist, I am unable to render an opinion. I cannot suggest a victor in this contest.
- www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

* james tour is a scientist that happens to believe in god, but he doesn't let that stand in the way of his profession.
just like he points out on his website, god is a concept that he cannot prove using the tools of science, the very same tools he, and other scientists, are bound.

 

"let's see what a creationist scientist* has to say:
I can understand why those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by that theory; there is an impressive quantity and insightfulness to the work."

 

 

No, We ALREADY Know why SOME OF those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by the theory. Because they have a strong emotional Attachment or have been brainwashed and indoctrinated that "Evolution" is SOMEHOW true even though NOBODY ever provides evidence to support UCA for all flora and fauna that conforms to the Scientific Method EVER and the "Fossil Record" Shows Instant Complexity and diversity followed by complete Stasis..

 

By the way, Just in case you were unaware, there are LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people "Fluent in the field of genetics" Who have SERIOUS DOUBTS about TOE To say the least.

 

 

 

"But even with that evidence supporting common descent, others find common descent insufficient to explain some parts of the data."

 

Ummm.. Not to beat a dead horse or anything but... :icon_deadhorse:  WHAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING COMMON DESCENT!!!!!??????

 

 

"ENCODE, seeks to determine the roll of the remaining 98.5% of the genome that was formerly poorly called “junk DNA,” but better called “intergenic regions.” There is ENCODE evidence that part or even much of the intergenic regions have regulatory elements that can affect gene transcription.
. . .
Still others are dismissive of the relevancy of ENCODE and orphan genes research in the context of common descent evaluations. For example, they say that for decades biologists have realized that intergenic regions have regulatory functions.
. . .
Thus the same data is viewed very differently depending upon the evaluator’s perspective. As a synthetic chemist, I am unable to render an opinion. I cannot suggest a victor in this contest.
- www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

* james tour is a scientist that happens to believe in god, but he doesn't let that stand in the way of his profession.
just like he points out on his website, god is a concept that he cannot prove using the tools of science, the very same tools he, and other scientists, are bound. :think:   :snapoutofit:



#44 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 February 2017 - 02:21 PM

"let's see what a creationist scientist* has to say:
I can understand why those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by that theory; there is an impressive quantity and insightfulness to the work."
 
 
No, We ALREADY Know why SOME OF those fluent in the field of genetics would be convinced by the theory. Because they have a strong emotional Attachment or have been brainwashed and indoctrinated that "Evolution" is SOMEHOW true even though NOBODY ever provides evidence to support UCA for all flora and fauna that conforms to the Scientific Method EVER and the "Fossil Record" Shows Instant Complexity and diversity followed by complete Stasis..

this is exactly why i specifically used a "creationist" source.
tour points out that the evidence is impressive and insightful, and understands why most would be taken in by it.
he also makes the point of scientists are in disagreement on what the evidence actually means.
IOW, there is no "conclusion" in regards to common ancestry

By the way, Just in case you were unaware, there are LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people "Fluent in the field of genetics" Who have SERIOUS DOUBTS about TOE To say the least.

the evidence is pretty much "evolution happens".
the real questions are about common ancestry and abiogenesis.

"But even with that evidence supporting common descent, others find common descent insufficient to explain some parts of the data."
 
Ummm.. Not to beat a dead horse or anything but... :icon_deadhorse:  WHAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING COMMON DESCENT!!!!!??????

the commonality of DNA to all life for starters.
this is pretty strong evidence that all life came from the same source.
this is why the question of abiogenesis must be answered.
once this is answered, the fate of god, for or against, will be sealed.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 09 May 2017 - 06:49 PM

Defining a transitional

What are some of the characteristics a transitional needs?

For example:
1.) Must be upwardly compatible to transfer "evolved" genetic material to the evolving body type.

2.) It would seem that there be some consistancy in direction.

Feel free to add or crticize.

 

Hey Mike :)

 

I'd add

 

-that there needs to be a "line of transition" demonstrating the changes from one organism to the other, (this would necessarily require many stages)

 

- the fossils of all the trillions of failed "attempts" by evolution.



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 09 May 2017 - 07:50 PM

 Gilbo ! ! ! !

 

Welcome back.

 

LTNS.



#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 10 May 2017 - 04:27 AM

 Gilbo ! ! ! !

 

Welcome back.

 

LTNS.

 

Thanks Piasan.

I've been away for too long.

 

Its great to be back again.


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#48 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 May 2017 - 07:31 AM

I've missed the Gilbological insights.

 

I miss Calypsis too. This is a mean spirited game of silence they play with me, I thought they were Jesus-babas.

 

;)


  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#49 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 15 May 2017 - 06:24 AM

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]I miss Calypsis too.

calypsis still visits the board, they have liked a couple of my posts.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 15 May 2017 - 10:02 PM

I've missed the Gilbological insights.

 

I miss Calypsis too. This is a mean spirited game of silence they play with me, I thought they were Jesus-babas.

 

;)

 

Sorry Mike, I'll try and provide some more insights for you :)


  • Calypsis4 and mike the wiz like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users