Jump to content


Photo

Decimation Of This Evolution Fairy Tale


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

#61 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 31 March 2012 - 01:50 PM

Indoctrination becomes a vicious cycle. This generation grows up thinking that evolution is a fact based on the illusion that they were shown, and then they create more propaganda for the next generation...

Now we have all kinds of animation sequences and ad hoc theories, equivocation, and circular reasoning propping up the ToE because without naturalistic origins, they have to accept God...


I totally agree, I just wish for once that people would just "come clean", in that people should be critical of their own ideas and evidence, (so that way you can identify faults and thus not be proven wrong), yet this doesn't seem the case. People now days would rather avoid problems, explain away tricky situations than face facts and admit that perhaps their interpretation or idea is wrong, either partially or fully, this doesn't just apply to evolution though. I see it occurring everywhere :(

"when my facts change I change my opinion, what do you do sir"- John Maynard Keyes

This is the epitome of what I rather people do, but then again I guess as the old saying goes, "ignorance is bliss" ;)

#62 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:03 AM

Sorry for my absense, I have been away all this weekend IRl (I've always wanted to use that acronym).

Anyway, there are far too many conversations with too many people for me to answer or refute properly so I would like to invite gilbo to a debate on whether the evidence supports evolution or creationism. I understand a lot of time and effort go into these debates so I will not claim if he refuses my invitation that he is "scared" or anything else so childish. I am offering this invitation to save me some time in answering many people so I understand fully if Gilbo cannot allow the time to take part.

If Gilbo is unable to then I am happy to debate anyone here on the question of whether the evidence supports evolution or creation, something like 2,000 words each and one week to reply?

This is a friendly invitation so something like an informal debate but with a couple of ground rules, like time to reply and number of words, but really this should just be fun as there is no way me or Gilbo (if he accepts) is going to change each others minds let alone anyone else who reads this forum, in that way it is just an expression of each others interpretations.

Anyway, I hope Gilbo does accept as he has been by far the most vocal on this and I think between us we could make give quite a good debate.

Over to you Gilbo.

#63 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:07 AM

No problem, but I'd change one thing in that it be about creation via an Intelligent Designer

#64 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:09 AM

No problem, but I'd change one thing in that it be about creation via an Intelligent Designer


Not a problem. Do we need a moderator to set this up?

I would also like to add that neither me or Gilbo are edited by moderators. I have had parts of my posts removed before and it is quite annoying. If there is anything that breaks rules of politeness then fair enough, rules of what you count as evidence should be refuted only by Gilbo or myself. If you remove it then this isn't a debate.

#65 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:12 AM

Not a problem. Do we need a moderator to set this up?


I have no idea, this would be my first formal debate so its all news to me

#66 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 April 2012 - 02:17 AM

I have no idea, this would be my first formal debate so its all news to me


Hokey doke, I guess we shall wait and see.

#67 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 02:49 AM

You may want to re-calculate your mistaken posting



Firstly – Where was the deadline I imposed? I said “I’ll give you one more chance at this” After that I wasn’t going to broach it again, because you weren’t answering it. I actually don’t care if you answer it or not, as you aren’t going to posit anything new (or hasn’t been said before); just more of the same old tired evolutionists squirming’s.

Second – you only answered TWO other posts. Please don’t exaggerate, it isn’t fitting.

Thirdly – Four hours, really? You may want to go back and re-calculate…

As I said, I really don’t care if you answer or not, as I’m not going to waste my time asking if you are going to ignore the post. But I will point out that they weren't answered, just as I will point out if they are answered fallaciously (which will likely be the case).


Firstly, I said it was a "pushy kind of time limit thing to say". I did not say you had imposed a time limit, I said it was a pushy kind of time limit thing to say. Which it was.

Secondly I was answering 3 posts (4 including yours). 2 from Gilbo and 1 from Jay Shel (and one from you). Get your facts straight.

Thirdly. I didn't say 4 hours, I said "a few hours".

All the things you have just accused me off are because you cannot read. Apology accepted.

#68 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:16 AM

Yes, did you not read the first sentence in your own link?



Wow, what an incredible example of a quote taken completely out of context.

Would you like to have another go at reading the whole thing? Or shall I just quote you the ACTUAL point of the article?

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:

  • The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[5][6]
  • The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[7]
  • The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[8]
Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2."





We actually knew of thousands upon thousands of differences that “separates humans and chimpanzees” AND ANY other ape, gorilla or monkey. And ALL of these are empirically testable as well.

For example:

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a sonnet, concerto, or any other musical composition!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a book, novel or any other piece of literature!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, manufacture and play the instruments in order to realize the actual musical piece either.

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture the writing instruments and materials used to write on, to realize the finished product of the book, novel or any other piece of literature or the concerto, or any other musical composition!

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture an automobile, motorcycle, scooter, mini-bike, bicycle, tricycle, skate-board (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a Spacecraft, Satellite, airplane, glider, kite (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a steamboat, ocean liner, sailboat, jet-ski, surfboard or toy boat.

I could go on-and-on, but that would only further separate your ‘wont to equate’ humans and apes, from the reality that the gulf between the two is too wide for reconciliation. Further, attempting to tie these together with DNA is simply an imagined contrivance, as you actually have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that does so.



Yep, we have a much MUCH bigger brain, well emphasised.

Exactly… And these genes also make us NOT APES (or chimpanzees etc…). The evolutionist stretches far and wide in their attempt to dogmatically and fervently protect their hypotheses.
Thank you for helping to rebut your assertions.


No, we are still apes, we are just a different species of ape, with different traits and slightly different genetic information. We know this. We are part of the order of mammals called primate which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, etc etc. We are the only surviving member of the genus Homo, but we still belong to the order of primate.



Exactly… And this also makes us NOT APES (or chimpanzees etc…). The evolutionist stretches far and wide in their attempt to dogmatically and fervently protect their hypotheses.

Thank you for helping to rebut your own assertions.


Please see above. If you care to rebut, I suggest you take it up with the field of taxonomy.



First – I didn’t quote “only the abstract”, I provided the source of the quotes as well. So attempting to suggest that what I provided wasn’t what WAS actually written is quite disingenuous on your part. If you can provide where I erred on the quotes OR, that I misquoted, that would be a different story. But you didn’t, Therefore your rebuttal fails.


You quoted the abstract and linked the article. The article didn't suggest what the abstract said. I have already explained why quoting only the abstract is not good practice. I didn't say you misquoted, I said you didn't read the whole paper, which you didn't. If you did, you would have known that the evidence of what the telomeres did is uncertain, they suggest it maybe to do with age but they can't be sure as the evidence didn't always fit. Basically, their results were inconclusive and had nothing to do with our relation to chimpanzees, that was only claimed in the abstract. Like I said, you didn't read the whole paper.

Second – You don’t need the whole story, if the basis for the story is presupposed or less that factual (empirically). Therefore your rebuttal fails.


Yes you do, you do need the whole paper or you make mistakes like you did, another example was at the beginning of the paper they suggest that telomeres seem to be the main area for our understanding of age, later on in the paper, they challange that claim and their claim doesn't stand up to their challange. If you only read half the paper, you would go away with a false idea of what the paper concluded.

The paper you provided, in no way empirically links a macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee. It is presupposed at best. But, if you CAN provide such an empirical link macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee, please do so, or quit pretending that there is one.


You misunderstand how evolution works, you seem to imagine that a chimp would give birth to a human, that isn't how it works. If you stood every single offspring from now back 7 million years ago in a line, you would not be able to point out which was a "human" and which one was a chimp". But for taxonomical reasons we have to put a label on these things. In the same way that on your 18th Birthday you are considered an adult and can legally drink, no one is suggesting that anything happens to you on the eve of your 18th Birthday, but they have to put a label on these things.

Instead we can find fossil snap shots going back 7 million years that show a slow gradual improvement in ways that we had assumed. Like you say, the big difference between us and other modern primates is brain size so we would expect to find a gradual increase in brain case in the fossil record, and that is what we do find. Not nly that, but they are in the right places (geologically speaking) If we found a fossil ardipithicus ramidus in the ground 10,000 years ago, this would show a serious flaw in what we know about our lineage, however we don't. We find it between 3 and 4 million years ago, which is what we predicted.

Evidence of a chimp giving birth to a human is not what evolution would predict and would probably call into question what is understood about how organisms can and have evolved.

#69 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 05:06 AM

No, it only suggests such (at best) as I already previously provided evidence that it is only 95%



I'm sorry, "your evidence" beats that of the official report from the whole mapping? Are you sure, do you really want to say that your "evidence" is better than the people who ACTUALLY mapped the genome. Good luck with that.


But, as I have already provided, “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.” But this, in NO WAY empirically proves that we were descendant of banana-like, sponge-like, or fruit fly-like creatures either. It is assumptive at best!



As I have said, you have misunderstood what these sentences actually mean. It doesn't mean we are 50% the same as a banana" or whatever, it says we "share" 50% of our genes wirth bananas, which is to be expected if we share an ancestory. If you can't understand the difference then this is lost on you.




First – The confusion here belongs to you, as you are basing ALL of your claims on more assumptions of others.


Where are the papers to back up your claims again?

Second – The poster(s) of this quote ASSUMES changes over an ASSUMED 600 million years. This is not an empirically factual statement. It begs the question:

Were ANY of these folks around to empirically test, observe and repeat testing, to verify or invalidate any of the findings; or are they simply testing what they have TODAY and basing everything else upon ASSUMPTIVE assertions?



Ok, Jesus didn't exist because you weren't there and Napoleon didn't exist, you weren't there, you've never been to the Arctic, it doesn't exist. You've never seen an atom, it doesn't exist, you've never seen a dodo, they didn't exist.



The entirety of the above assertion is based wholly upon presupposition! Where have they provided the empirical scientific evidence that ties the lineage between the supposed “core building blocks” to “multicellular forms” to “first animals” to “animals we see today” and “humans”! Where are the gradual, transitional forms? There are absolutely NONE!


Please define what you mean by "transitional form"



And he bases this opinion whole upon his evolutionist presuppositions. He, in no way provides ANY empirical scientific evidences to support his assertion, he simply “says it is so”…


Yes, biologists never do any work, they just sit and say so.

We would expect to see gradual transitional fossils for one, but there are absolutely NONE!


Again, define trasitional form

In the case of the above quote, there should be gradual transitional fossils tying the so called “ancient mouse-like creatures” to modern man… Can you provide such? You cannot even provide gradual transitional fossils for an ancient “ape-like creature” to modern man.



Do I have to link you that picture again?

Posted Image


You simply attempt to stack various, diverse (and sometimes contrived) fossils end to end, in a failed (stutter stepped) attempt to adhere dogmatically and fanatically to your hypothesis of macro-evolution.


Is this one of those cases of one man finds a transitional form between two species and then you say, "right, now you have 2 gaps to fill".

#70 Frenger

Frenger

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 07:35 AM

@Gilbo12345

1. Shakes head.... How is that taking your quote out of context? In one post you admit to using assumptions, in a later post you then claim that you "don’t assume anything"... Its very clear who is the one without context, this is shown by your contradictory, (thus illogical) posts

2. No I mean empirical as in ACTUAL empirical. Observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, your assumption based "evidence" are none of these and thus are not scientific.. I am glad you admit this and that historical "evidence" is used... Therefore you admit that evolution is not scientific since historical evidence doesn’t abide by the scientific method, hence it isn’t science. Thank you for admitting this
.
3. Ummm No.. Different dates that differ by millions of years are contradictory... It is the same as 1+1=2 and 1+1=3. You cannot have 2 different values for the same thing.


4. And so the rest is inference... what about my point about Nebraska man being made from a single tooth, (a pig tooth at that)... Doesn’t that indicate the level of imagination that evolutionists are given license to employ. Wouldn’t that worry you, since assuming things is not science.


5. I am not pointing out coding DNA, as I have said about 3 times now go research snoRNA, rRNA, mRNA etc THESE COME FROM NON-CODING DNA... Coding DNA only code for proteins, hence all the DNA that codes for functional RNA, (the RNA that do things) are part of the non-coding DNA.

6. Furthermore as I said you need to prove that all each non-coding gene absolutely has no function. Great you’ve done one, another 2000 to go, (many of which code for the regulatory RNA which I have mentioned).

6a. As I said before, you are assuming the GLO gene is a pseudogene there may be a function no-one has realised yet. Assumptions are not scientific.

7. So you agree information is lost, since as you said parts are taken out... There is nothing wrong with me, is this more whinging?

8. Really? It hasn’t done the desired effect rather its just displaying your own character.... Again I ask you to address the problems your claims bring about. Your claims about junk DNA infers that the ancestors of animals had more functional genes and as these were degraded they became the junk DNA you claim, this process defies evolution. Furthermore wouldn’t the GLO gene be selected against if it really did nothing... Why are such sequences here if they are useless and there is a fitness benefit to dropping them, (faster copy speed of DNA, less materials used to replicate). Do you see how your claim defies the very tenets of evolution itself?


8a. Again I’ll stress, whinging won’t save you


9. If 6.67% is lots then the 5% of difference between chimps and humans by comparison is also lots too.... Is this a case of evolutionary double standards?

10. Quotes of the paper would suffice, you’re whinging because I picked up on your name dropping tactic. Please provide the quotes for the "15%" considering you got the % number wrong I doubt this is what the information states... Just giving a name is not enough info, I’m not going to scour the internet with only a name to go by. Provide quotes or a summary of the data.

11. True, I thought you were making claims about people who are born with "tails", which are just fatty tissue..

12."The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles."
http://www.vedicscie...n-debunked.html

So basically we don’t have a "tail" during fetus development it is merely the spinal cord developing faster than the rest of the body... WHich makes sense since the rest of the body, (bar the head since it is already developing), stems from the spinal cord hence it needs to be developed first.... Again this exposes the assumptions of the evolutionist...


13. So claiming its a hang over, excuses the fact that IF it the other method is more advantageous natural selection hasn’t selected for it. I can’t believe you attempt to brush arguments aside...

14. As I said Atheism piously defended is a Religion, I have already shown you where Religions do not need to be about supernatural deities. A religion is merely a worldview, one about a person’s origins and purpose in life...

14a, Atheism’s origins are BB and evolution

14b. Atheism’s purpose = subjectivism / humanism... "enjoy life"

15. Therein lies the problem. You do realise that the creationism article has references to scientific articles, hence it is exactly the same as a scientific journal... Actually it was published in a journal so it is scientific, despite what you claim.

16. I take it from this response that you clearly do not understand what I was saying or you are attempting to be stupid on purpose. My words are lost on you. What you wrote resembled nothing to what I said, I suggest you re-read till it sinks in.

17. Again nice story... Too bad you do not have evidence as to the ACTUAL method of how the nerve is like that. You can only assume at this point since no-one documented the transition, (remember what I said about assumptions..... they’re not scientific).

18. We are only going in circles because you cannot grasp what I am saying... Here I will attempt to write it simpler for you.

If selection cannot act on the traits that are not expressed.

and if independent assortment means traits are randomly chosen for offspring

leading to regressed traits

then how can natural selection claim to change fish into amphibians when these regressed traits can still appear.

In other words how does the new traits get 100% fixation with no regressed traits.


This is in the same vein of the genetic diseases, if selection cannot eradicate genetic diseases to 100% what makes you think it can cause 100% fixation of a new trait, (even if it causes an increase in fitness... since genetic disease cause a LARGE decrease in fitness hence we should see selection against them).

19. It’s only a wiki article you can quote from it...

20. Now you are playing word games. I already explained how that was not what I was saying, to which you said you were not

Your reply post #16
" 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."

My reply, post# 24
" 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."


Your reply post #27
" 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)."

My reply post# 31
" 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."

Your reply post# 36
" No you didn’t, it was just a question, I wasn’t quoting you."

Note the retraction... Now you are claiming that you reach that claim from my post 10 which is completely erronious and is contradictory to your post# 36 in where you admit it was a question of your own making. I have already corrected your mistaken interpretation of my post# 10, hence your claim here shows either you forgot, you do not understand or you are trying to play games. Either way I’m not the one who looks silly.

21. Design is the ONLY answer, to information based systems. This also applies to irreducibly complex systems, such as cellular respiration.


1, I did mean both sentences in the same way, one of those occasions where tone would have helped. I would say that is strong evidence of a lineage going back 3- million years old to a "chimp-like" ancestor (but obviously not a chimpanzee).

2, "Ok, we have DNA evidence proving this man was at the scene of the crime". "Were you there sir?" "No, but I" "evidence not accepted".

This is a problem, that evolution takes many many generations, we can witness small scale changes, and changes which increases the information of the genome (the nylon eating bacteria that I linked to earlier) but we can’t, and wouldn’t even expect to see what you would call macro evolution. This is because it takes thousands of generations. I like the Richard Dawkins analogy (and used it above) of being like detectives where we can see the evidence of evolution taking place, and make predictions of what kind of evidence and where we will find it.

3, But like I said, I will need something peer reviewed please, mainstream media rarely gets any facts right.

4, But what you forget was it was evolutionary biologists who uncovered those hoax’s

"The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves" http://en.wikipedia....ki/Piltdown_Man

5, I think it’s fair to say I’m not very familiar with these, can you link me some papers or offer me some reading? Just link me the papers, I will read all of it, unlike some people *cough* Ron *cough*

6, The proof is that we know what that gene does in other animals, we can test it by removing it from humans and implanting it in other species (and trading it for there copy) and seeing that it still works fully in the other species. I will have to find you a paper on that though, bear with me :)

Also remember that a vestigial trait just means it longer performs its original function.

6a, See above

7, I agree, information is lost, and it is also gained, it isn’t one or the other but both, and depends on how it effects the organisms reproductive success.

8, I see, remember, we are still evolving, there is nothing to suggest the GLO gene will disappear from our genome, it hasn’t yet, but then evolution has no goal, it has no end point, it is always changing, and we are always changing. It doesn’t defy evolution that information is lost, because creating this information make take energy at no gain to the organism so it would be selected against. On a bigger scale that happens in animals like mole rats whose eyes are losing function because they cost energy to make and use and they have no advantage to keeping them http://en.wikipedia..../Naked_mole_rat also eyes can easily be damaged underground.
8a, It Might J

9, Two different things really, 5% alcohol isn’t a lot, but 5% cyanide is.

10, Ok, the paper I think he got it from was this http://www.uam.es/pe...dogenes2004.pdf


"Using a homology-based approach, Zhang et al. [12] identified
8000 retrotransposed pseudogenes and
3000 duplicated pseudogenes in the human genome draft (Build 28, April, 2002 release). Ohshima et al."


It is a good paper, but I am just quoting, my knowledge of genetics isn’t enough to be critical of this (just being honest).

Oh, and the reason I got the percentage wrong is because I made a failure I can’t even begin to understand. The book (Jerry A Coyne why evolution is true) only said that "Out of about 30,000 genes, for example, we humans carry more than 2,000 pseudogenes."

11, Not always though http://web.jbjs.org..../4/508.full.pdf (figure 2, page 1)

12, I suppose this does come down to how you see it. From an embryology point of view and the human development following the stages of its descent (as in, each embryonic stage looking similar to that of its ancestors so, fish-reptile-mammal) then it makes sense that way. Especially when we add it to other embryonic evidence such as that of the whale.

http://whitelab.biol...0and%20Hall.pdf (page 449 for the pictures)

13, Remember, natural selection is a tinkerer, it works with what it has, there are many instances of bad design, we like that, if there wasn’t the theory would be in trouble. I’m not brushing this argument aside, in many ways this is the argument I like most, the argument of bad design which can only really be explained by understanding our lineage from ancestral animals.

14, Ok, I suppose this would only be an argument over semantics and again, we would just have to agree to disagree :)

14a, Do you mean atheism stems from understanding evolution? I was an atheist long before I knew anything about evolution, also, wasn’t Spinoza an atheist? Wasn’t he born long before the theory of evolution was proposed?

14b, I disagree there, atheism certainly doesn’t have a purpose, what purpose could you possibly get from "lacks belief in a personal god"?

15, Nope, scientific journals go through peer reviews, creationist websites do not, plus they are free to misunderstand a papers conclusion, which I know they can sometimes do. If you link me the papers and the reason why you have linked me to it, I will certainly read it.

16, Is this the pig story? I understand your point, I asked what is the mechanism for stopping evolution, you said the traits themselves and told me about pigs being bread for meat, so fattened up (genetically) but they crushed under their own weight. What I said is natural selection doesn’t work like that, clearly there has to be compromise between the different phenotypes or the organism won’t survive. The trait for "a lot of meat" would not survive and would not be passed on, therefore natural selection works.


17, Can you explain it any other way? Why would a nerve take a 15 foot harmful detour? And it is harmful because it now makes a blow to the chest dangerous to that nerve.

18, I don’t know what you mean by 100%, 100% in relation to what? It is a constantly changing process, there is no goal, just because we are talking about it now, it doesn’t mean evolution has been heading up to this point and now it’s done. They may well be having this conversation in thousands of generations time talking about the appendix or something like that. There is no 100% in evolution, there is no standard of evolution to measure that against.

19, Good point

"A retrovirus is an RNA virus that is duplicated in a host cell using the reverse transcriptase enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host’s genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell’s DNA. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses that belong to the viral family Retroviridae"

20, Probably word games, I’m getting so lost in these conversations that I forget my intent. Sorry about that :)

21, Can you explain why cell respiration is irreducibly complex?

And I don’t agree that design is the only answer, because the question then arises "who did the designing?"

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:13 AM



You may want to re-calculate your mistaken posting
Firstly – Where was the deadline I imposed? I said “I’ll give you one more chance at this” After that I wasn’t going to broach it again, because you weren’t answering it. I actually don’t care if you answer it or not, as you aren’t going to posit anything new (or hasn’t been said before); just more of the same old tired evolutionists squirming’s.

Second – you only answered TWO other posts. Please don’t exaggerate, it isn’t fitting.

Thirdly – Four hours, really? You may want to go back and re-calculate…

As I said, I really don’t care if you answer or not, as I’m not going to waste my time asking if you are going to ignore the post. But I will point out that they weren't answered, just as I will point out if they are answered fallaciously (which will likely be the case).



Firstly, I said it was a "pushy kind of time limit thing to say". I did not say you had imposed a time limit, I said it was a pushy kind of time limit thing to say. Which it was.



No, what you said was:


Wow, you gave me nearly a few hours to answer 4 posts. Thanks for being generous and giving me so much time.


Your above accusation IS falsely claiming that I gave you a “time limit” of only a few hours. Once again you are being dishonest about your assertions; and all because you cannot accept that you were wrong in that assertion.







Secondly I was answering 3 posts (4 including yours). 2 from Gilbo and 1 from Jay Shel (and one from you). Get your facts straight.


Actually no, it was only two. And you never answered mine.



Thirdly. I didn't say 4 hours, I said "a few hours".


Yep, you were correct, I did misread that one thing, BUT..



All the things you have just accused me off are because you cannot read. Apology accepted.


I at no time apologized for correcting you on your misdirection’s, misleading’s and other forum rules infractions.

Good bye…

#72 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:02 AM



Yes, did you not read the first sentence in your own link?



Wow, what an incredible example of a quote taken completely out of context.

Would you like to have another go at reading the whole thing? Or shall I just quote you the ACTUAL point of the article?

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes




Hmmmm, let’s see; my statement was that “humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and Chimpanzees have 24”. You questioned that, and I told you to read the first sentence in your link. It was not at all taken out of context, but your side-stepping of my FACTUAL claim was.



We actually knew of thousands upon thousands of differences that “separates humans and chimpanzees” AND ANY other ape, gorilla or monkey. And ALL of these are empirically testable as well.

For example:

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a sonnet, concerto, or any other musical composition!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a book, novel or any other piece of literature!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, manufacture and play the instruments in order to realize the actual musical piece either.

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture the writing instruments and materials used to write on, to realize the finished product of the book, novel or any other piece of literature or the concerto, or any other musical composition!

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture an automobile, motorcycle, scooter, mini-bike, bicycle, tricycle, skate-board (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a Spacecraft, Satellite, airplane, glider, kite (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a steamboat, ocean liner, sailboat, jet-ski, surfboard or toy boat.

I could go on-and-on, but that would only further separate your ‘wont to equate’ humans and apes, from the reality that the gulf between the two is too wide for reconciliation. Further, attempting to tie these together with DNA is simply an imagined contrivance, as you actually have absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that does so.


Yep, we have a much MUCH bigger brain, well emphasised.


Brain size alone is in no way indicative of the vast differences between the chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey. And your weak rebuttal IS indicative of you lack of evidence for macroevolution. As I succinctly pointed out:

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a sonnet, concerto, or any other musical composition!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can write a book, novel or any other piece of literature!
No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, manufacture and play the instruments in order to realize the actual musical piece either.

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture the writing instruments and materials used to write on, to realize the finished product of the book, novel or any other piece of literature or the concerto, or any other musical composition!

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture an automobile, motorcycle, scooter, mini-bike, bicycle, tricycle, skate-board (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a Spacecraft, Satellite, airplane, glider, kite (etc…).

No chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey ever has or can imagine, design, and manufacture a steamboat, ocean liner, sailboat, jet-ski, surfboard or toy boat.

Until then, and ONLY until then, the chimpanzee, ape, gorilla or monkey will always remain as ALL other animals; unlike man. We are ALL made of the same materials, that is our link; but aside from that, we a dominate (as the creation model provides). And there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.



Exactly… And these genes also make us NOT APES (or chimpanzees etc…). The evolutionist stretches far and wide in their attempt to dogmatically and fervently protect their hypotheses.
Thank you for helping to rebut your assertions.


No, we are still apes, we are just a different species of ape, with different traits and slightly different genetic information. We know this. We are part of the order of mammals called primate which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, etc etc. We are the only surviving member of the genus Homo, but we still belong to the order of primate.


All you said above is taken (by you) on faith; and a massive amount of faith as that. Man’s self-made listings based upon imaginings cannot change that. But, I must say, you do state such with a great amount of dogmatic zeal and fervor.


Please see above. If you care to rebut, I suggest you take it up with the field of taxonomy.



Please see above. If you care to rebut, I suggest you take it up with the field of taxonomy.

Rebutting the field of “evolutionary” taxonomy is not hard at all. But getting through to its evolutionary disciples with the truth is quite a lot harder.



First – I didn’t quote “only the abstract”, I provided the source of the quotes as well. So attempting to suggest that what I provided wasn’t what WAS actually written is quite disingenuous on your part. If you can provide where I erred on the quotes OR, that I misquoted, that would be a different story. But you didn’t, Therefore your rebuttal fails.



You quoted the abstract and linked the article.


Actually I quoted the source. Had you actually read the source documents that I provided, you’d know that. But, then again, you’d not have your false argument to fall back on.





Second – You don’t need the whole story, if the basis for the story is presupposed or less that factual (empirically). Therefore your rebuttal fails.



Yes you do, you do need the whole paper or you make mistakes like you did, another example was at the beginning of the paper they suggest that telomeres seem to be the main area for our understanding of age, later on in the paper, they challange that claim and their claim doesn't stand up to their challange. If you only read half the paper, you would go away with a false idea of what the paper concluded.



Once again, NO… I didn’t say that you don’t need the “Whole Paper”, I said
(as an analogy) “You don’t need the whole story”. This means that if the foundation is rotten, the building will not stand. You were provided with the document, not the abstract. But, if the foundation for the document is fallacious, then the ENTIRE document fails. Further, if the evolutionary document is validated by nothing but other evolutionists, what kind of validation does that provide?

#73 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:04 AM



The paper you provided, in no way empirically links a macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee. It is presupposed at best. But, if you CAN provide such an empirical link macro-evolutionary lineage between man and Chimpanzee, please do so, or quit pretending that there is one.



You misunderstand how evolution works, you seem to imagine that a chimp would give birth to a human, that isn't how it works.



This is nothing more than the standard evolutionists “red herring”. Attempting to assert that the Non-evolutionist (Aevolutionist) “misunderstands how evolution works” simply because you don’t like the fact that they can refute your silly notion of macroevolution.

Therefore, I would desire you to provide where I ever said chimps gave birth to humans. Further, you don’t even know “how it works”, because macroevolution is nothing more than speculative opinion.


If you stood every single offspring from now back 7 million years ago in a line, you would not be able to point out which was a "human" and which one was a chimp".



First – You cannot go back 7 million years because the term itself is speculatory, and there is no such thing as a time machine.
Second – You could indeed point out which was a "human" and which one was a chimp, because of many skeletal differences.



But for taxonomical reasons we have to put a label on these things. In the same way that on your 18th Birthday you are considered an adult and can legally drink, no one is suggesting that anything happens to you on the eve of your 18th Birthday, but they have to put a label on these things.



Actually, many cultures consider 12 to be adulthood (and various others as well). Further, man-made taxonomical labels are just that… Man-made! They are SUBJECTIVE, not objective, in nature. You can bet your life on them if you wish.


Instead we can find fossil snap shots going back 7 million years that show a slow gradual improvement in ways that we had assumed.


No, we find fossils TODAY, and ASSUME how old they are. This is because ALL the dating methods we use (beyond recorded history) are flawed. There is no “gradual improvement” evidence; there is merely assumptive opinion that suggests…. Nothing more.

#74 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:24 AM


Second – The poster(s) of this quote ASSUMES changes over an ASSUMED 600 million years. This is not an empirically factual statement. It begs the question:

Were ANY of these folks around to empirically test, observe and repeat testing, to verify or invalidate any of the findings; or are they simply testing what they have TODAY and basing everything else upon ASSUMPTIVE assertions?



Ok, Jesus didn't exist because you weren't there and Napoleon didn't exist, you weren't there, you've never been to the Arctic, it doesn't exist. You've never seen an atom, it doesn't exist, you've never seen a dodo, they didn't exist.

This was nothing more than another non sequitur on Frenger's behalf, as his conclusion does not follow from the premise. My question was "Who was there millions of years ago to too witness these extraordinary claims about evolution”, and his retort was asking me “was I there to verify the lives of Jesus, Napoleon, or the Arctic (etc…)

His problem is this:

First – Of course NO PERSON was around the supposed millions (billions) ago to empirically test the hypotheses evolutionists promulgate!


Second – Of course there were MANY-MANY eyewitnesses for Jesus, Napoleon, and the Arctic (etc…)!

Therefore Frenger’s argument fails once again.

#75 joe_born_again

joe_born_again

    Newcomer

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

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:05 AM

I stand by, and restate my best, (coup de grace) original argument
( http://en.wikipedia....p_de_gr%C3%A2ce )
About how no one can point out a difference in depth
In all of these suposedly ancient fossile sites
My guess is, (in truth, I know this)
that they cannot show a depth difference in even one fossile site

And shame on us
For so easily falling for this farcity
Believing in such a far out fairytale
And even worse,,,
Teaching it to our children as law

ORIGINAL QUOTATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- 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

I 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

We need revival now
---- While the age of grace is still here
http://whydoweinsultgod.yolasite.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will now go further into the guts of my argument
To make sure that people are following my logic and facts
Because I wish to point out just how devastating this is to evolution
And how this should settle once + for all
How this evolution fairytale can be thrown out with the garbage
And put it where it should reside
In the fairytale section of our libraries
And not as the backbone for all of our science studies

If all of these fossils in the sedimentry layers of our earth’s crust
Were deposited like they wish us to believe
That they are all formed in local floods or avilanches, over billions or years
Then there should be a local depth difference in the local sedimentary layers
To make up for the thickness of the soil deposit that captured this particular fossile

And not only should there be an extra layer in our sedimentary deposits
But this layer should have its own particular sediment in this area
That should be different from the soil surrounding this site
As well as immediately under this layer and on top of this layer
This is the sediment that was supposedly laid down microscopically
Over millions and billions of years

We should be checking each of these fossil sites
That are supposedly millions of years in the making
To make sure there is a thickness change in every site


How can the rocks surrounding these fossils
Be the same as the consistency of all the rock that contain the fossil
But I promise you, it is the same
This is because it all was laid down by God
In the genesis flood

Now can we please, not let this fairytale stand
In our scientific textbooks and be taught as law to our children
Let us put away with such foolishness
And admit that God created us
And give Him all the thanks
Going back to the debate on which god is Real

I go through a lot more reasons for disputing evolution
In a couple of my websites that are here
http://decimationoft...e.yolasite.com/
http://evolutiondebate.yolasite.com/
http://evotutionfair...e.yolasite.com/
+ you can be sure that I will keep at this battle
continuing to edit these websites as well
not to mention, that I will be adding more websites

#76 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:39 AM

@Gilbo12345


1, I did mean both sentences in the same way, one of those occasions where tone would have helped. I would say that is strong evidence of a lineage going back 3- million years old to a "chimp-like" ancestor (but obviously not a chimpanzee).

2, "Ok, we have DNA evidence proving this man was at the scene of the crime". "Were you there sir?" "No, but I" "evidence not accepted".

This is a problem, that evolution takes many many generations, we can witness small scale changes, and changes which increases the information of the genome (the nylon eating bacteria that I linked to earlier) but we can’t, and wouldn’t even expect to see what you would call macro evolution. This is because it takes thousands of generations. I like the Richard Dawkins analogy (and used it above) of being like detectives where we can see the evidence of evolution taking place, and make predictions of what kind of evidence and where we will find it.

3, But like I said, I will need something peer reviewed please, mainstream media rarely gets any facts right.

4, But what you forget was it was evolutionary biologists who uncovered those hoax’s

"The hoax is often cited (along with Nebraska Man) by creationists as an example of the dishonesty or credulity of biologists that study human evolution, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists had exposed the hoax themselves" http://en.wikipedia....ki/Piltdown_Man

5, I think it’s fair to say I’m not very familiar with these, can you link me some papers or offer me some reading? Just link me the papers, I will read all of it, unlike some people *cough* Ron *cough*

6, The proof is that we know what that gene does in other animals, we can test it by removing it from humans and implanting it in other species (and trading it for there copy) and seeing that it still works fully in the other species. I will have to find you a paper on that though, bear with me :)

Also remember that a vestigial trait just means it longer performs its original function.

6a, See above

7, I agree, information is lost, and it is also gained, it isn’t one or the other but both, and depends on how it effects the organisms reproductive success.

8, I see, remember, we are still evolving, there is nothing to suggest the GLO gene will disappear from our genome, it hasn’t yet, but then evolution has no goal, it has no end point, it is always changing, and we are always changing. It doesn’t defy evolution that information is lost, because creating this information make take energy at no gain to the organism so it would be selected against. On a bigger scale that happens in animals like mole rats whose eyes are losing function because they cost energy to make and use and they have no advantage to keeping them http://en.wikipedia..../Naked_mole_rat also eyes can easily be damaged underground.
8a, It Might J

9, Two different things really, 5% alcohol isn’t a lot, but 5% cyanide is.

10, Ok, the paper I think he got it from was this http://www.uam.es/pe...dogenes2004.pdf


"Using a homology-based approach, Zhang et al. [12] identified
8000 retrotransposed pseudogenes and
3000 duplicated pseudogenes in the human genome draft (Build 28, April, 2002 release). Ohshima et al."


It is a good paper, but I am just quoting, my knowledge of genetics isn’t enough to be critical of this (just being honest).

Oh, and the reason I got the percentage wrong is because I made a failure I can’t even begin to understand. The book (Jerry A Coyne why evolution is true) only said that "Out of about 30,000 genes, for example, we humans carry more than 2,000 pseudogenes."

11, Not always though http://web.jbjs.org..../4/508.full.pdf (figure 2, page 1)

12, I suppose this does come down to how you see it. From an embryology point of view and the human development following the stages of its descent (as in, each embryonic stage looking similar to that of its ancestors so, fish-reptile-mammal) then it makes sense that way. Especially when we add it to other embryonic evidence such as that of the whale.

http://whitelab.biol...0and%20Hall.pdf (page 449 for the pictures)

13, Remember, natural selection is a tinkerer, it works with what it has, there are many instances of bad design, we like that, if there wasn’t the theory would be in trouble. I’m not brushing this argument aside, in many ways this is the argument I like most, the argument of bad design which can only really be explained by understanding our lineage from ancestral animals.

14, Ok, I suppose this would only be an argument over semantics and again, we would just have to agree to disagree :)

14a, Do you mean atheism stems from understanding evolution? I was an atheist long before I knew anything about evolution, also, wasn’t Spinoza an atheist? Wasn’t he born long before the theory of evolution was proposed?

14b, I disagree there, atheism certainly doesn’t have a purpose, what purpose could you possibly get from "lacks belief in a personal god"?

15, Nope, scientific journals go through peer reviews, creationist websites do not, plus they are free to misunderstand a papers conclusion, which I know they can sometimes do. If you link me the papers and the reason why you have linked me to it, I will certainly read it.

16, Is this the pig story? I understand your point, I asked what is the mechanism for stopping evolution, you said the traits themselves and told me about pigs being bread for meat, so fattened up (genetically) but they crushed under their own weight. What I said is natural selection doesn’t work like that, clearly there has to be compromise between the different phenotypes or the organism won’t survive. The trait for "a lot of meat" would not survive and would not be passed on, therefore natural selection works.


17, Can you explain it any other way? Why would a nerve take a 15 foot harmful detour? And it is harmful because it now makes a blow to the chest dangerous to that nerve.

18, I don’t know what you mean by 100%, 100% in relation to what? It is a constantly changing process, there is no goal, just because we are talking about it now, it doesn’t mean evolution has been heading up to this point and now it’s done. They may well be having this conversation in thousands of generations time talking about the appendix or something like that. There is no 100% in evolution, there is no standard of evolution to measure that against.

19, Good point

"A retrovirus is an RNA virus that is duplicated in a host cell using the reverse transcriptase enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host’s genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell’s DNA. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses that belong to the viral family Retroviridae"

20, Probably word games, I’m getting so lost in these conversations that I forget my intent. Sorry about that :)

21, Can you explain why cell respiration is irreducibly complex?

And I don’t agree that design is the only answer, because the question then arises "who did the designing?"


1. So you admit that I wasn't taking you out of context and that your own words (that you wrote) contradicted each other?

2. Evidence for law is totally different to evidence for scientific validity. You cannot compare the two. Law is Law and Science is Science, and any who would claim otherwise doesn't know what Science actually is...

3. There are links at the bottom of the page, from where they gather the information. May I suggest you use them.

4. Was I claiming it as a source of dishonesty? No I was using it as an example where evolutionists are given license to use their imaginations more than any other (real) scientist can. If someone can infer an entire species of transitional humans from a single tooth, you should be worried with the amount of assumptions and imagination used and allowed there.

5. Insults to the Mods here will not be tolerated. I've said mulitple times go research these things. Even wikipedia explains snoRNA in a manner that supports what I am saying... It merely is RNA that helps to shape functional RNA into its proper shape, (thus are necessary).

6. And?

Can't be bothered.... sorry


21. If the cell requires multiple things in place in order for the function to work at all then the thing is irreducibly complex. I have already given the example of cellular respiration, and if you researched it a bit you'd see how many different parts are required... many different proteins and enzymes... and then all the regulatory proteins on top of that, and the proteins that signal for the production of the previous enzymes and proteins etc etc etc

#77 dannyboy

dannyboy

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wales

Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:38 AM

Of a "simple" bacteria being able to
---- Change into man



Hi joe_born_again,

Theres alot in your original post but i feel that is somewhat of a misrepresentation. Firstly, you make it sound like humans sprang up suddenly from bacteria, when the human genus actually arose from other apes. Secondly, metazoans didnt "evolve" from bacteria. If you look at most eukaryotic cells they actually contain organisms with their own genome. Mitochondria, chloroplasts were once independant bacteria, or bacteria-like organisms. So it wasnt a case of simple bacteria-> complex eukaryotes. It was a case of organisms forming a beneficial symbiosis with other cells. Natural selection then acted on these symbiotes. Metazoans could actually be considered "colonies" of organisms.
Also, it wasnt modern bacteria, in any case, that eukaryotes developed from.

kind regards,
danny

#78 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:05 PM

Hi joe_born_again,

Theres alot in your original post but i feel that is somewhat of a misrepresentation. Firstly, you make it sound like humans sprang up suddenly from bacteria, when the human genus actually arose from other apes.


"Actually" implies that your statement is factual. Do you have empirical evidence that proves apes to man evolution?


Secondly, metazoans didnt "evolve" from bacteria. If you look at most eukaryotic cells they actually contain organisms with their own genome. Mitochondria, chloroplasts were once independant bacteria, or bacteria-like organisms.
(emphasis added)


*Mod Hat On*
Now you are equivocating which I will warn you is against the rules and will not be tolerated on this forum. The word organelle and the word organism are not interchangeable. Organelles are an interdependent part that exist within an organism.
*Mod Hat Off*

The naturalistic hypothesis is that organelles originally came from organisms. Do you have empirical evidence to prove this hypothesis?


So it wasnt a case of simple bacteria-> complex eukaryotes. It was a case of organisms forming a beneficial symbiosis with other cells. Natural selection then acted on these symbiotes.


That is the current scientific model of biodiversification when one presupposes naturalism, which is a philosophy.


Metazoans could actually be considered "colonies" of organisms.
Also, it wasnt modern bacteria, in any case, that eukaryotes developed from.

kind regards,
danny


You are free to actually consider anything you want and defend your claims against what you consider to be misrepresentation, but in order to claim something actually happened according to your philosophical presuppositions, you must verify your claims with empirical evidence, and rule out all other possibilities, otherwise you are misrepresenting the facts with your own own premature conclusions.

#79 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 02:01 AM

Hi joe_born_again,

Theres alot in your original post but i feel that is somewhat of a misrepresentation. Firstly, you make it sound like humans sprang up suddenly from bacteria, when the human genus actually arose from other apes. Secondly, metazoans didnt "evolve" from bacteria. If you look at most eukaryotic cells they actually contain organisms with their own genome. Mitochondria, chloroplasts were once independant bacteria, or bacteria-like organisms. So it wasnt a case of simple bacteria-> complex eukaryotes. It was a case of organisms forming a beneficial symbiosis with other cells. Natural selection then acted on these symbiotes. Metazoans could actually be considered "colonies" of organisms.
Also, it wasnt modern bacteria, in any case, that eukaryotes developed from.

kind regards,
danny


You assume that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once separate bacteria... Firstly this has never been empirically demonstrated nor proven hence it is merely an assumption.... Are assumptions science??

1- You'd need to show how a cell can swallow an an entire bacteria
2- You'd need to demonstrate the above plus how the host bacteria doesn't digest it


Now consider that the DNA required for synthesis of new mitochondria and chloroplasts are a part of the main cell this brings about a few problems for your assumption.

1- The DNA of replication of mitochondria etc is (somehow) transported to the host cell genome
2- This DNA is inserted at the exact spot encoding for replication proteins etc.
3- That somehow some of the mitochondrial DNA is left behind, despite the "transport mechanism"

Just claiming "millions of years" is not an answer, I'd like to see concrete empirical evidence answering all 5 points, (and the many others I'd have missed), if you cannot do that then you must (grudgingly) admit that what you speak of is not a fact, nor is it science it is merely an assumption.
  • JayShel likes this

#80 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:53 AM

You assume that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once separate bacteria... Firstly this has never been empirically demonstrated nor proven hence it is merely an assumption.... Are assumptions science??

1- You'd need to show how a cell can swallow an an entire bacteria
2- You'd need to demonstrate the above plus how the host bacteria doesn't digest it


Now consider that the DNA required for synthesis of new mitochondria and chloroplasts are a part of the main cell this brings about a few problems for your assumption.

1- The DNA of replication of mitochondria etc is (somehow) transported to the host cell genome
2- This DNA is inserted at the exact spot encoding for replication proteins etc.
3- That somehow some of the mitochondrial DNA is left behind, despite the "transport mechanism"

Just claiming "millions of years" is not an answer, I'd like to see concrete empirical evidence answering all 5 points, (and the many others I'd have missed), if you cannot do that then you must (grudgingly) admit that what you speak of is not a fact, nor is it science it is merely an assumption.


Gilbo,
Thanks for explaining the difficulties of this theory and helping to reinforce what I was subtly hinting at. Sometimes, I am too subtle I think.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users