A
Asyncritus
Guest
Adam What are you talking about?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
[_ Old Earth _] Evolution - Part 2
- Thread starter ossiegoldhill
- Start date
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
Seems to me we are almost on the same page. Dr. Perez research is mostly for AIDS but there is some overlap into nano tech. What makes nano tech even possible is that the genetic code is similar to computer programming. In my last post I provided a link to Microsoft where they are developing a programming language for DNA called strand displacement language. “We present a programming language for designing and simulating DNA circuits”. In addition to simulating DNA, this language is designed to compile a program meant to run on DNA. Instead of life they program DNA to make a circuit. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/80784/Interface09b.pdf
Dr Perez discovery the genetic code is fractal would be useful to anyone developing a programming language for the genetic code, such as M$. At the same time this poses quite a problem for writing functional code. Imagine trying to write a book where lifting every 16th word writes another book, and every 16th word from that book writes another book, until that pattern is repeated 6 times! Dr Perez, a computer scientist, discovered DNA does that. Which is why I said DNA is more complex than anyone ever imagined. If computer code were fractal the compression rates would be incredible.
I hate to nitpick but a checksum really is math. A basic checksum adds up the total number of bits copied from the source and target, and check that the sums match, hence check sum.
This type of checksum isn't very good since an even amount of errors wouldn't be detected and it cannot restore any data lost in the transfer. More advanced checksums include an algorithm which is computed with the total number of bits which not only check the sum, but can restore lost data.
And DNA can restore lost data. Barbara McClintock discovered this. She intentionally deleted parts of the genetic code out of corn maize and observed DNA restored the lost code by transcribing other genes. This was such an amazing discovery nobody took her work seriously. It wasn't until 1983 she won the noble prize for her work in 1940.
Dr. Perez, a compter scientist, discovery fits with that:
Concatenating 24 Human chromosomes, we show that the entire human genome employs the well known universal genetic code table as a macro structural model. The position of each codon within this table precisely dictates its population. So the Universal Genetic Code Table not only maps codons to amino acids, but serves as a global checksum matrix. Frequencies of the 64 codons in the whole human genome scale are a self-similar fractal expansion of the universal genetic code. The original genetic code kernel governs not only the micro scale but the macro scale as well.
Sorry, I forgot to mention it was Perry Marshall and Dr. Perez who think the most productive research will be with computer sciences studying the genetic code.
In light of the fact Microsoft is developing a language to compile programs meant to run on DNA. I'd say “human DNA is like a computer program” is more than just an opinion.
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/80784/Interface09b.pdf
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
If I understand what you mean, it's like the term “environment†has different meanings to different sciences. I see that as a shortcoming of the English language, and a need for better terminology. Drifting away from a dictionary makes me nervous, aren't we also straying from a source of truth? Do you see science as a search for truth or a search for an explanation? I see it as a search for truth.
What makes you so sure it would?
Conclusions. I always prefer to see the evidence. Not that I don't trust you, I just like to see it for myself.
I know God created nature, but would you say he designed nature?
To me design just means created with a purpose. He called his creation good, then came the fall and it was corrupted, which is why things aren't so good now.
That was actually pretty interesting.
I believe Adam was perfect, without variation. God said if you eat from that tree surely you will die. I believe mitochondrial DNA was in the fruit. Before I get accused of being off the wall here, there are some evolutionary scientists that believe without mitochondrial DNA life would still be a single celled amoeba.
To me the fall explains the current state of things much better than evolution. Evolution assumes time + change = evolution. That over time things move from simple to complex. This is not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. To me things are moving from complex to simple. Those trilobites, amphicyonidae, are complex compared to later species. Amoebas have the most complex genome. Mammals one of the simplest.
What we observe is time + change = degradation. Here is an example of generational loss.
View attachment 3286
DNA has been replicating itself for quite some time now. I suppose there are two ways of looking at this. Either chance beneficial mutations outpace the loss, or DNA isn't as old as we think.
God is all powerful and all knowing. I couldn't demote him. Design just means created with a purpose. I just don't understand what you mean when you say “designer†demotes.
It's my understanding Paley invented it. But I'm curious the approach Jesus used you're referring to.
Can you elaborate how it's against reason? And justify what exactly?
I wonder why Gen 1:24 is valid but the fall isn't?
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
Barbarian observes:
Dictionaries will often lead you astray, if you use them for scientific definitions.
If you don't use words in a scientific discussion, as they are used in the relevant discipline, you will be continuously misled and misunderstood. No point in arguing it shouldn't be so. That's how language is. The truth should matter to you.
Barbarian observes:
If it was designed by God, it would be the same in all organisms.
If God actually "designed" something, it would be perfect, and thus universally used.
Barbarian observes:
And the small differences sort out according to taxa, so the evidence shows that evolved, too.
Evidence. It works just like a family tree in DNA studies, so we know it works.
You could go to the literature and see "variations in DNA coding."
Barbarian observes:
If it was designed, the "designer" isn't so good.
No, I think "creation" is the accurate term.
If you weaken the meaning to the informal usage, it no longer means anything at all.
But that's not what the Bible says:
Isaiahs 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Barbarian
If the design was perfect, it wouldn't have variations.
But of course, that's not a scriptural belief.
God said he'd die the day he ate from that tree, so we know it wasn't a physical death.
Unless Adam was a vastly different species than we are, he had his own mitochondria. A human cannot move or even think a thought without them.
Amoebae have mitochondria. A few eukaryotes lack them, however.
Barbarian observes:
"The fall" should not be used as a magic wand to wave away any difficulties.
God says otherwise in Isaiahs
No. That could be almost anything.
That is not a requirement for evolution.
You think a plant can't grow from a seed?
No. Insects are far more complex than trilobites. Would you like me to show you?
Size of genome is not complexity. Huge tracts of duplicated genes is not complexity. There is little relationship between size of genome and complexity, once you get past the bacteria.
No, that's wrong. For example, we see most populations get increasingly fit over time. And Hall's bacteria demonstrated the evolution of a new enzyme system with a regulator, by random mutations and natural selection.
Nope. Just a man-made artifact that doesn't have the benefit of natural selection.
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Barbarian observes:
Demoting Him to designer does just that.
Which is why calling Him a mere "designer" is a mistake. It's disrespectful to say the least.
No, unless you use the colloquial usage. It means planning. And that is not what God does. If you water the word down to merely mean "intent", then it just trivializes God and what He does.
Why don't you just call Him what He is, the Creator?
Barbarian regarding the religious doctrine of ID:
Nope. Just religion, according to the guys who invented it. They claim the purpose of it is to convince people God made everything. I think they'd do better using the approach Jesus used.
No. Paley's used a man-made artifact in his argument for a reason. If he had used a natural object, no one would have gotten the point. Design is what limited creatures do.
ID is a religious/social doctrine whose "governing goals" according to the guys who invented it, are:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
As you see, it's a religion, which borrows a few elements from Christianity, but not all of them. Hence, the believers of ID can suppose that the "designer" is a "Space Alien", as one of their leaders suggested.
Barbarian, regarding blaming "the fall" for all the flaws in creationism:
Sorry, just a catchall defense against reason. Not convincing. You could justify anything by saying "the fall did it."
Anytime you invoke a supernatural or miraculous event to cover flaws in a theory, it's against reason. And note, that God claims that it is He who creates evil ("evil" in the sense of "bad things happening", not sin).
It is valid. It's just not the all-purpose problem-solver that creationists would like it to be.
Dictionaries will often lead you astray, if you use them for scientific definitions.
If you don't use words in a scientific discussion, as they are used in the relevant discipline, you will be continuously misled and misunderstood. No point in arguing it shouldn't be so. That's how language is. The truth should matter to you.
Barbarian observes:
If it was designed by God, it would be the same in all organisms.
If God actually "designed" something, it would be perfect, and thus universally used.
Barbarian observes:
And the small differences sort out according to taxa, so the evidence shows that evolved, too.
Evidence. It works just like a family tree in DNA studies, so we know it works.
You could go to the literature and see "variations in DNA coding."
Barbarian observes:
If it was designed, the "designer" isn't so good.
No, I think "creation" is the accurate term.
If you weaken the meaning to the informal usage, it no longer means anything at all.
But that's not what the Bible says:
Isaiahs 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Barbarian
If the design was perfect, it wouldn't have variations.
But of course, that's not a scriptural belief.
God said he'd die the day he ate from that tree, so we know it wasn't a physical death.
Unless Adam was a vastly different species than we are, he had his own mitochondria. A human cannot move or even think a thought without them.
Amoebae have mitochondria. A few eukaryotes lack them, however.
Barbarian observes:
"The fall" should not be used as a magic wand to wave away any difficulties.
God says otherwise in Isaiahs
No. That could be almost anything.
That is not a requirement for evolution.
You think a plant can't grow from a seed?
No. Insects are far more complex than trilobites. Would you like me to show you?
Size of genome is not complexity. Huge tracts of duplicated genes is not complexity. There is little relationship between size of genome and complexity, once you get past the bacteria.
No, that's wrong. For example, we see most populations get increasingly fit over time. And Hall's bacteria demonstrated the evolution of a new enzyme system with a regulator, by random mutations and natural selection.
Nope. Just a man-made artifact that doesn't have the benefit of natural selection.
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Barbarian observes:
Demoting Him to designer does just that.
Which is why calling Him a mere "designer" is a mistake. It's disrespectful to say the least.
No, unless you use the colloquial usage. It means planning. And that is not what God does. If you water the word down to merely mean "intent", then it just trivializes God and what He does.
Why don't you just call Him what He is, the Creator?
Barbarian regarding the religious doctrine of ID:
Nope. Just religion, according to the guys who invented it. They claim the purpose of it is to convince people God made everything. I think they'd do better using the approach Jesus used.
No. Paley's used a man-made artifact in his argument for a reason. If he had used a natural object, no one would have gotten the point. Design is what limited creatures do.
ID is a religious/social doctrine whose "governing goals" according to the guys who invented it, are:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
As you see, it's a religion, which borrows a few elements from Christianity, but not all of them. Hence, the believers of ID can suppose that the "designer" is a "Space Alien", as one of their leaders suggested.
Barbarian, regarding blaming "the fall" for all the flaws in creationism:
Sorry, just a catchall defense against reason. Not convincing. You could justify anything by saying "the fall did it."
Anytime you invoke a supernatural or miraculous event to cover flaws in a theory, it's against reason. And note, that God claims that it is He who creates evil ("evil" in the sense of "bad things happening", not sin).
It is valid. It's just not the all-purpose problem-solver that creationists would like it to be.
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
It does, which is why I am trying to prevent “relativism†from entering the picture. I think truth matters to you too but you don't realize by giving certain disciplines “special†consideration, they're not accountable to some objective standard. If science is misunderstood because of a dictionary, they should change and step up their vocabulary, not the dictionary.
It's just absurd to think a word “no longer means anything at all†by using a dictionary.
But I should take a bit of my own advise and instead of changing a dictionary, I should step up my explanation. “Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created them†Genesis 1:26-27. â€Let us make†is formulating a plan, conceive or fashion in the mind. Design – To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent. To formulate a plan for; devise. I believe it was “by design†not “natural selection†man was made.
I'm not calling him a designer. I'm calling him creator too. I just think design is a recognizable truth. Science is a search for truth.
It sounds like you're saying God just created things at random, without intention, without purpose.
I think it is, God is perfect and Adam was created in his image.
Technically it's “for in the dayâ€. It seems the whole “spiritual†v “physical†can be used to justify more than “the fall†can.
The vast difference would be in the energy of the cell, not species. You even pointed out there are a few eukaryotes that can function without mitochondria. Humans are made of eukaryote cells, just because we can't understand a way for a human to function without mitocondrial DNA doesn't mean it's impossible. I could imagine all sorts of ways Adam's cell would have functioned.
Yes, and it's consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Do you think evolution was more efficient in the past or is more efficient today?
Without trilobite DNA it wouldn't be a complete comparison. But I don't doubt people have gone to great lengths to classify them, and based on that insects are more complex. I was making the observation trilobites seemed more complex when they appeared in the fossil record than when they left it.
Most exhibit no directional change. Show me some examples increasingly fit.
Birth defects, Autism, and auto immune diseases are on the rise.
Why hasn't it eliminated huntington's disease?
Why is it if someone in my family gets a disease relatives consistently more likely to get it?
CDC has been keeping track for some time and heredity and disease seems counter to the benefits of natural selection.
If it's that beneficial why don't we live 900 years?
Why don't more species have regeneration?
After a point in Lobsters and turtles the aging process stops, they just grow bigger until something eats them or a disease gets them. Why don't more species age like lobsters or turtles?
I suppose I was taken by atheistic evolution, which teaches chance + time could do anything.
We need to give credit where it's due. I've read Dembski's book and he credits Paley for being the first to recognize intelligent causes.
His argument was the ability to recognize a cause not the effect, a watch.
Anyway, a watch is a natural object.
Natural- Present in or produced by nature.
Object- A material thing.
A watch isn't a supernatural object. A watch is made of the same stuff found in a rock. The metal didn't become an artifact until someone formed or shaped it with intention. His argument was the ability to recognize how it became an artifact.
Searching for a cause is science, not religion. Using that science to push their agenda is unfortunate. Boo, to them for promoting theism.
It's not against reason, it's against materialism.
Richard Lewontin of Harvard:
“It is not that the methods of institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.â€
“no matter how counterintuitiveâ€, even he acknowledges miracles are reasonable explanations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
Barbarian observes:
If you don't use words in a scientific discussion, as they are used in the relevant discipline, you will be continuously misled and misunderstood. No point in arguing it shouldn't be so. That's how language is. The truth should matter to you.
All disciplines have their own technical terms. One can lament this, but it's the way humans behave. You have to know the terminology, if you want to discuss such disciplines. True of biology, engineering, carpentry, soccer, or whatever.
Not going to happen. There is no royal road to any technical field.
Barbarian regarding the weak use of "design.":
If you weaken the meaning to the informal usage, it no longer means anything at all.
It's just absurd to think a word “no longer means anything at all†by using a dictionary.
God doesn't have a nose, or toenails or earlobes. The "image" is in His mind and spirit. God is, as Jesus says, a spirit, and a spirit does not have a physical body.
We speak of God's wrath also, but God does not lose His temper. You are anthropomorphizing God, trying to make Him in your image.
Barbarian observes:
Which is why calling Him a mere "designer" is a mistake. It's disrespectful to say the least.
No evidence for it. The evidence is that He used evolution to make our bodies.
Barbarian observes:
If God actually "designed" something, it would be perfect, and thus universally used.
Engineers have learned that evolution works better than design for complex problems. They have started to copy creation to find solutions that had previously eluded them. God turns out to be a lot smarter than creationist suspected.
(Barbarian on the notion that Adam was created perfect)
But of course, that's not a scriptural belief.
No replacement for God's word, though.
Barbarian observes:
God said he'd die the day he ate from that tree, so we know it wasn't a physical death.
He didn't die in the day, either. He lived on physically for many years thereafter.
It has the virtue of being consistent with God's word.
Barbarian observes:
Unless Adam was a vastly different species than we are, he had his own mitochondria. A human cannot move or even think a thought without them.
It would be an entirely different species. Adam would be vastly different than we, genetically. All those genes in those little bacterial endosymbionts would have to be added to our genes, in order for us to live.
Vastly different genetically than other eukaryotes, too. It would take a lot of changes to evolve into something with mitochondria.
A few thousand mutations. A completely different species. Probably impossible in vertebrates, because of our internal cell structure.
Barbarian asks:
You think a plant can't grow from a seed?
Moves from simple to complex. You just told me that is ruled out by the 2nd law.
Define "efficient" as it applies to evolution.
Barbarian observes:
No. Insects are far more complex than trilobites. Would you like me to show you?
If you believe trilobite DNA was much more complex, I'd be open to your evidence for that.
But they weren't. The first ones were relatively simple, and the later ones much more complex. Would you like me to show you?
Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. For example, we see most populations get increasingly fit over time. And Hall's bacteria demonstrated the evolution of a new enzyme system with a regulator, by random mutations and natural selection.
Most exhibit no directional change. Show me some examples increasingly fit.
Birth defects, Autism, and auto immune diseases are on the rise.
Because the disease doesn't usually kill, until after people are well past the age when most of us reproduce. Hence, not visible to natural selection.
Depends on the disease. That's not generally true. If it's genetic, it is. But of course, you now see that many genetic disorders, particularly in societies with medical care, are not selected against.
Show us your numbers. Do you think that native Americans are as vulnerable to measles and whooping cough as they were at the time of Columbus? Guess why they aren't.
Because we are genetically programmed to die earlier than that.
We do. My daughter, for example, lost the last bone of one finger. It grew back, fingernail and all. But we lose it as we age. Too much of that makes one prone to cancers.
Evolution. What makes you think it's to the advantage of a species to live longer than most do?
Barbarian observes:
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Nope. That trick is by creationists, who simply made up that story.
Show me a biologist (atheist or not) who says that. You've been lied to.
Barbarian regarding the religious doctrine of ID:
Nope. Just religion, according to the guys who invented it. They claim the purpose of it is to convince people God made everything. I think they'd do better using the approach Jesus used.
That's wrong, too. But as you know teleology is a religious or philosophical idea, not a scientific one. Which makes sense, since ID is a religion of sorts.
Nope. Man-made artifact.
Barbarian observes:
ID is a religious/social doctrine whose "governing goals" according to the guys who invented it, are:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
As you see, it's a religion, which borrows a few elements from Christianity, but not all of them.
Assuming that cause to be a deity, that's religion. Which as you see, ID does.
Barbarian observes:
Anytime you invoke a supernatural or miraculous event to cover flaws in a theory, it's against reason.
It's against reason. Supposing non-scriptural miracles at every turn, to cover the logical problems with evidence, that's against reason.
If you don't use words in a scientific discussion, as they are used in the relevant discipline, you will be continuously misled and misunderstood. No point in arguing it shouldn't be so. That's how language is. The truth should matter to you.
All disciplines have their own technical terms. One can lament this, but it's the way humans behave. You have to know the terminology, if you want to discuss such disciplines. True of biology, engineering, carpentry, soccer, or whatever.
Not going to happen. There is no royal road to any technical field.
Barbarian regarding the weak use of "design.":
If you weaken the meaning to the informal usage, it no longer means anything at all.
It's just absurd to think a word “no longer means anything at all†by using a dictionary.
God doesn't have a nose, or toenails or earlobes. The "image" is in His mind and spirit. God is, as Jesus says, a spirit, and a spirit does not have a physical body.
We speak of God's wrath also, but God does not lose His temper. You are anthropomorphizing God, trying to make Him in your image.
Barbarian observes:
Which is why calling Him a mere "designer" is a mistake. It's disrespectful to say the least.
No evidence for it. The evidence is that He used evolution to make our bodies.
Barbarian observes:
If God actually "designed" something, it would be perfect, and thus universally used.
Engineers have learned that evolution works better than design for complex problems. They have started to copy creation to find solutions that had previously eluded them. God turns out to be a lot smarter than creationist suspected.
(Barbarian on the notion that Adam was created perfect)
But of course, that's not a scriptural belief.
No replacement for God's word, though.
Barbarian observes:
God said he'd die the day he ate from that tree, so we know it wasn't a physical death.
He didn't die in the day, either. He lived on physically for many years thereafter.
It has the virtue of being consistent with God's word.
Barbarian observes:
Unless Adam was a vastly different species than we are, he had his own mitochondria. A human cannot move or even think a thought without them.
It would be an entirely different species. Adam would be vastly different than we, genetically. All those genes in those little bacterial endosymbionts would have to be added to our genes, in order for us to live.
Vastly different genetically than other eukaryotes, too. It would take a lot of changes to evolve into something with mitochondria.
A few thousand mutations. A completely different species. Probably impossible in vertebrates, because of our internal cell structure.
Barbarian asks:
You think a plant can't grow from a seed?
Moves from simple to complex. You just told me that is ruled out by the 2nd law.
Define "efficient" as it applies to evolution.
Barbarian observes:
No. Insects are far more complex than trilobites. Would you like me to show you?
If you believe trilobite DNA was much more complex, I'd be open to your evidence for that.
But they weren't. The first ones were relatively simple, and the later ones much more complex. Would you like me to show you?
Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. For example, we see most populations get increasingly fit over time. And Hall's bacteria demonstrated the evolution of a new enzyme system with a regulator, by random mutations and natural selection.
Most exhibit no directional change. Show me some examples increasingly fit.
Birth defects, Autism, and auto immune diseases are on the rise.
Because the disease doesn't usually kill, until after people are well past the age when most of us reproduce. Hence, not visible to natural selection.
Depends on the disease. That's not generally true. If it's genetic, it is. But of course, you now see that many genetic disorders, particularly in societies with medical care, are not selected against.
Show us your numbers. Do you think that native Americans are as vulnerable to measles and whooping cough as they were at the time of Columbus? Guess why they aren't.
Because we are genetically programmed to die earlier than that.
We do. My daughter, for example, lost the last bone of one finger. It grew back, fingernail and all. But we lose it as we age. Too much of that makes one prone to cancers.
Evolution. What makes you think it's to the advantage of a species to live longer than most do?
Barbarian observes:
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Nope. That trick is by creationists, who simply made up that story.
Show me a biologist (atheist or not) who says that. You've been lied to.
Barbarian regarding the religious doctrine of ID:
Nope. Just religion, according to the guys who invented it. They claim the purpose of it is to convince people God made everything. I think they'd do better using the approach Jesus used.
That's wrong, too. But as you know teleology is a religious or philosophical idea, not a scientific one. Which makes sense, since ID is a religion of sorts.
Nope. Man-made artifact.
Barbarian observes:
ID is a religious/social doctrine whose "governing goals" according to the guys who invented it, are:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
As you see, it's a religion, which borrows a few elements from Christianity, but not all of them.
Assuming that cause to be a deity, that's religion. Which as you see, ID does.
Barbarian observes:
Anytime you invoke a supernatural or miraculous event to cover flaws in a theory, it's against reason.
It's against reason. Supposing non-scriptural miracles at every turn, to cover the logical problems with evidence, that's against reason.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
You're the one who has been suckered, barbarian. Dawkins and his ilk are probably throwing hats in the air and whooping with glee to read this.
If you, and they, can imagine that random mutation can give rise to 'directed' evolution because 'natural selection' is at work, then I pity the 'scientists' who subscribe to this appalling nonsense.
All mutations are either neutral or damaging. Natural selection has nothing to work on, no matter how much wishful thinking you may indulge yourself in.
Therefore as Vaccine points out, the only products of M + NS must be either neutral or damaging.
Hardly the stuff from which humans and sequoias came into existence from the famous and totally fake 'common ancestor'.
I've asked you many times for a fossil of this imaginary creature, but you haven't complied as yet. When do you propose doing so? But I suppose a fossil of something that only exists in someone's imagination would be hard to find.
Prove me wrong!
And the fact that evolution (and you) can possibly propose the idea that says that DNA could have 'evolved' from whatever, shows just how far Darwin, Dawkins and you have climbed up the proverbial gum tree.
I imagine you do know something about DNA's structure and functioning.
How can you possibly look at that absolutely miraculous piece of molecular engineering and declare that it 'evolved'?
But the fact is that DNA is a chemical - and chemicals are non-living or dead. By itself, DNA can do nothing - like all other chemicals. It certainly could not reproduce, or issue instructions without the powering, immaterial instinct.
So I ask you again - where did the powering, immaterial instinct come from? And how did it enter the genome?
Further, where did the translators come from? They are coded for in the genome. So without DNA they could not exist, and without them DNA could not exist.
Enjoy.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
But this is precisely what evolution does - all the time!
Here is a reptile. Can't fly.
Here is a bird. Can fly wonderfully well.
Evolution says: a miracle took place between A and B.
All the necessary flight information, anatomical, biochemical and physiological changes that must be in place before the reptile could fly, all suddenly appeared by 'random mutations and natural selection' which, you'll agree is a miraculous happening.
Jesus made the blind from birth to see. All of a sudden, that guy could see - and recognise what he was looking at.
In other words, all the necessary sight instincts were immediately implanted in his mind - because even a functioning eye is useless without the mental machinery which translates the electrical impulses into meaningful vision.
That was a miracle.
Yet, here is evolution claiming that flight instincts were suddenly implanted in a reptile. That's a miracle too - but we're supposed to be talking about science here, not religion.
It's no wonder that evolution has been described as faith. Here are a couple of quotations along that line: one from the foreword to, of all things, the Origin of Species.
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory..is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof' (The Foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Harrison L. Matthews. p. x)
'In the classic work, "Implications of Evolution", Dr. G.A. Kerkut, listed seven assumptions upon which evolution is based, and then said.."The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification". (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerut. Pergamon, London. p. 7, 1960)
Now faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen...
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
Barbarian chuckles:
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Nope. Even your leaders have admitted that natural selection is a fact:
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution
I doubt it. Creationists have long ago conceded the fact.
As you learned, it produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.
You've already been shown a list of useful ones. So there's no point in you denying the fact. Would you like to see some of them, again?
Surprise. Well, no, it shouldn't be a surprise to you.
And yet those bacterial evolved a useful new enzyme system. By mutation and natural selection. Creationists often consider bacteria to be cheating, because they reproduce so fast, we can see evolution of such things.
In vertebrates, one really good one is the Milano mutation that provides almost complete protection against hardening of arteries. We can even trace it back to the individual, who first had the mutation.
Another is the new digestive organ evolved by lizards transplanted to a new island in the Adriatic. Over a few decades, they evolved a cecal valve, not seen before in such lizards.
Another is the Hbc mutation, which provides protection from malaria without the disastrous effects of homozygousity found in Hbs.
Lots more to see, if you like.
Actually you were shown, but it's not hard to do that again. It turns out that an organism still exists that is very much like the common ancestor of plants and animals. Not surprisingly, it's neither plant nor animal, but a protist, a single-celled eukaryote (animals and plants are also eukaryotes, organisms with nucleated cells)
ct. 12, 2007 — Genes of a tiny, single-celled green alga called Chlamydomonas reinhardtii may contain scores more data about the common ancestry of plants and animals than the richest paleontological dig. This work is described in an article in Science.
A group of researchers*, including Arthur Grossman of the Carnegie Institution, report on the results of a major effort to obtain the full library of genes, or the genome sequence, of Chamydomonas and to compare its ~15,000 genes to those of plants and animals, including humans. The research shows that this alga has maintained many genes that were lost during the evolution of land plants, has others that are associated with functions in humans, and has numerous genes of unknown function, but which are associated with critical metabolic processes.
"Although Chlamydomonas is certainly more plant than animal, there are clear similarities between this photosynthetic organism and animals that would surprise the average person on the street," comments Grossman. "Just twenty years ago no one would have guessed that an alga would have retained many of the functions we associate with humans and would be useful for developing a basic understanding of certain human diseases."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm
Remember, now?
Actually, evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began. It assumes life began, and describes how it changes. Even Darwin just supposed that God made the first living things.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence in The Origin of Species 1872
I have taught it, yes.
Evidence. For example, since life appeared, it has evolved in a number of ways. Not all of it is the same in the way it codes, for example. And the differences sort out according to phylogenies obtained by other evidence.
If you'd like to suppose that God just magically poofed DNA into existence, instead of using natural means as He says in Genesis, that's O.K. with evolutionary theory.
"Instinct", as you learned earlier, is just a word that means "we don't know why it happens." When you supposed that a plant searching toward the light was instinct, I showed you it was a mere chemical reaction. All instinct, whenever we find out why, is like that.
You've been taken by a simple trick: they told you it was all by chance. But as Hall showed, random mutation and natural selection together is not a chance process.
Nope. Even your leaders have admitted that natural selection is a fact:
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution
I doubt it. Creationists have long ago conceded the fact.
As you learned, it produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.
You've already been shown a list of useful ones. So there's no point in you denying the fact. Would you like to see some of them, again?
Surprise. Well, no, it shouldn't be a surprise to you.
And yet those bacterial evolved a useful new enzyme system. By mutation and natural selection. Creationists often consider bacteria to be cheating, because they reproduce so fast, we can see evolution of such things.
In vertebrates, one really good one is the Milano mutation that provides almost complete protection against hardening of arteries. We can even trace it back to the individual, who first had the mutation.
Another is the new digestive organ evolved by lizards transplanted to a new island in the Adriatic. Over a few decades, they evolved a cecal valve, not seen before in such lizards.
Another is the Hbc mutation, which provides protection from malaria without the disastrous effects of homozygousity found in Hbs.
Lots more to see, if you like.
Actually you were shown, but it's not hard to do that again. It turns out that an organism still exists that is very much like the common ancestor of plants and animals. Not surprisingly, it's neither plant nor animal, but a protist, a single-celled eukaryote (animals and plants are also eukaryotes, organisms with nucleated cells)
ct. 12, 2007 — Genes of a tiny, single-celled green alga called Chlamydomonas reinhardtii may contain scores more data about the common ancestry of plants and animals than the richest paleontological dig. This work is described in an article in Science.
A group of researchers*, including Arthur Grossman of the Carnegie Institution, report on the results of a major effort to obtain the full library of genes, or the genome sequence, of Chamydomonas and to compare its ~15,000 genes to those of plants and animals, including humans. The research shows that this alga has maintained many genes that were lost during the evolution of land plants, has others that are associated with functions in humans, and has numerous genes of unknown function, but which are associated with critical metabolic processes.
"Although Chlamydomonas is certainly more plant than animal, there are clear similarities between this photosynthetic organism and animals that would surprise the average person on the street," comments Grossman. "Just twenty years ago no one would have guessed that an alga would have retained many of the functions we associate with humans and would be useful for developing a basic understanding of certain human diseases."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm
Remember, now?
Actually, evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began. It assumes life began, and describes how it changes. Even Darwin just supposed that God made the first living things.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence in The Origin of Species 1872
I have taught it, yes.
Evidence. For example, since life appeared, it has evolved in a number of ways. Not all of it is the same in the way it codes, for example. And the differences sort out according to phylogenies obtained by other evidence.
If you'd like to suppose that God just magically poofed DNA into existence, instead of using natural means as He says in Genesis, that's O.K. with evolutionary theory.
"Instinct", as you learned earlier, is just a word that means "we don't know why it happens." When you supposed that a plant searching toward the light was instinct, I showed you it was a mere chemical reaction. All instinct, whenever we find out why, is like that.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
You bailed out of a thread where I showed you how we know the evolution of flight in birds took no miracle. As you know, all the things necessary for flight, including behaviors and nervous systems were already present in feathered dinosaurs.
But you learned, it wasn't sudden; that's not the way it happened.
Miracles are a fact. But God doesn't have to do miracles to make the world work. He does miracles to teach us things, not because He has to do them.
Keeping in mind, He had already, by natural means, created an optic tectum, the eye itself, and all the other things necessary. This man, who was missing some part of that, was miraculously restored. Not the way He does it in nature.
Nope. As I showed you, they were gradually evolved in feathered dinosaurs, with all the motions and structures in use before flight evolved.
But a lot of ignorant people claim the theory is about sudden miraculous changes.
Yep. Ignorance is the enemy.
Instead of edited "quotes", how about some evidence? Science works on facts, not opinions. Don't get quotes, get educated. Once you learn about the evidence, you won't be so easy to handle.
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
But aren't we are just arguing the same point? I'm saying definitions matter. You're saying definitions relevent to their field matter?
I asserted God formulated a plan to make man. Which he did.
There is plenty of evidence for design. DNA, Language, Morals, one of the least variable species. One could say spiritually we are evolving. But physically the Heavens and Earth are running down due to entropy, so are humans.
Misinformed.
a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
God formed Adam, not nature; from the dust, not apes. God is the Creator, nature is the creation. Saying “nature produced life” is an insult to God. Its attributing the power to create to the creation. Its like saying nature is god or God is a liar.
The genes that allow adaptation were already there. Evolution didn't make them God did. Engineers borrow from his design not this:
"The theory of evolution is the observation that organism adapt and change to their surroundings through selection pressures from one generation to the next."
Touche. I should have done more research.
Only its outward appearance did. The organism's DNA didn't get more complex, cells didn't get more complex, chemical reactions didn't get more complex, its metabolism didn't get more complex. Entropy never stopped, cells were just added faster than they were lost for a time. And over more time its appearance will move from complex to simple. Evolution says DNA gets more complex over time, which it doesn't.
capable of doing more.
Sure.
Huntington's disease is an example of degeneration. Degeneration can't have “ the benefits of natural selection” to prevent degenerative loss if it is invisible to natural selection. I think genetic information isn't as old as we think it is.
Genetic disorders are not selected against. Medicine is an example of an intelligent cause. Medicine is better than natural selection. So natural selection isn't as good as design after all.
It isn't about numbers, if genes are invisible and disease aren't selected against, natural selection isn't as beneficial or better than the claim.
lol good answer.
Humans don't have it like starfish or flatworms though. Which means God is telling us something through his design. Why didn't God make us with that kind of regeneration? The fact he could have but didn't should teach us something.
Evolution is a misnomer. The internal organs of an adolescent lobster look and function the same as a very old lobster, an extremely desirable and advantageous trait isn't it? God certainly could have made humans this way but he didn't. More we can learn through his design.
No offense Barbarian, I just had to laugh at that, now you think you know my thoughts better than me? My biology Mr Adams, who gave every indication he was an atheist, taught me that.
Dawkins with his blind watchmaker for one. Most my biology teachers for another.
Misinformed. Dembski cited Paley.
His argument was the ability to recognize a cause which turned a natural object, metal, into the artifact.
By that definition evolution is a religion.
There are two types of causes: Natural and intelligent. Natural selection is an example of a natural cause, artificial selection is an example of an intelligent cause.
Assuming nature can produce life is against reason. Keeping God out of his creation is against reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
It not "new", its a degenerated version of the original.
"This form of resistance is conferred by the expression of proteins from pre-existing genetic elements that specifically neutralize the antibiotic through an enzymatic pathway. Either by degeneration of one gene or by the gain of pre-existing genes, antibiotic resistance occurs in bacteria. What has this to do with witnessing the fact of evolution?"
http://blueprintsforliving.com/evolution-the-idea-has-so-far-triumphed/
Misinformation. Useful doesn't mean chimps can transform into humans. There is a tradeoff, something gained something lost.
80% of the human genome is reproducibly transcribed, bound to protein, or has its cromatin specificially modified.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html
Misinformation. “These observations should not be attributed to the presence of an apparently protective gene”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1684746/pdf/ajhg00162-0037.pdf
That population just happened to have a low prevalence of heart disease unrelated to the mutation.
Interesting variation within a species. They called it "new digestive structure" not organ. "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste". If they are "genetically identical" the changes can be explained by existing genes being turned on/off.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Hbc is a disease with health risks, maybe not as harmful as Hbs but it is not without effect. Disease- a harmful development. To say a disease is not harmful is incorrect.
That was interesting.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
If you don't use words as they are used in the field, you're going to be continuously confused.
No. God never had to figure out anything.
Sorry. Omniscience rules out "devising."
Evidence shows otherwise. And of course, there's nothing in Christian belief that rules out that fact.
Barbarian observes:
We speak of God's wrath also, but God does not lose His temper. You are anthropomorphizing God, trying to make Him in your image.
Without scriptural support, you have only your personal belief.
Barbarian observes:
No evidence for it.
But it evolved. We have different kinds in different domains.
Language observably evolves. Before 1000, French, Spanish, Italian, etc. were still mutually intelligible. Then they evolved into what they are today. No design involved.
Huge variations apart from natual law, which is universal.
Hmm... we're getting smarter. Flynn effect has required adjusting IQ tests, to make it necessary to get a higher score to score 100.
Sports records continue to fall, so we aren't degenerating physically. No, you assumption is wrong.
Barbarian observes:
The evidence is that He used evolution to make our bodies.
Would you like to learn how we know?
.
As you learned, speciation is an observed fact. Kenyon used some weasel words to redefine speciation. In fact, a new species is never entirely new; it's always a modification of something that existed before. Kenyon knows that, but he correctly surmised that you wouldn't know it.
If so, God insulted Himself. He says the Earth brought forth living things.
No, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying that. If you won't take Him at His word, at least don't suggest it means He's a liar.
Barbarian observes:
Engineers have learned that evolution works better than design for complex problems.
Nope. Let's take Adam and Eve. They could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between the two of them. Yet most human loci have dozens. The rest must have evolved.
What you're saying is "the hammer didn't build the house, the carpenter did." Meaningless semantics.
You're wrong. That process is exactly what they do. Because it works better than design for complex things. God is smarter than you think.
Barbarian observes:
Unless Adam was a vastly different species than we are, he had his own mitochondria. A human cannot move or even think a thought without them.
The vast difference would be in the energy of the cell, not species.
It would be an entirely different species. Adam would be vastly different than we, genetically. All those genes in those little bacterial endosymbionts would have to be added to our genes, in order for us to live.
Vastly different genetically than other eukaryotes, too. It would take a lot of changes to evolve into something with mitochondria.
Touche. I should have done more research.
Barbarian asks:
You think a plant can't grow from a seed?
Yes, and it's consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
Moves from simple to complex. You just told me that is ruled out by the 2nd law.
No, that's wrong. Entirely new tissues, structures, and functions developed.
That's wrong. Seeds have very little biochemical activity. Plants do a huge amount of things. Photosynthesis, for example.
See above.
It was reversed. A plant holds far more energy than a seed.
Wrong again. Nothing in the theory that says anything like that. In fact, evolution sometimes makes things simpler. But that's not what the 2nd Law of thermodynamics says.
Barbarian suggests:
Define "efficient" as it applies to evolution.
The evidence shows it has worked in the past pretty much as it does now.
But they weren't. The first ones were relatively simple, and the later ones much more complex. Would you like me to show you?
Trilobites do provide some of the earliest examples of complex visual systems, but eyes didn’t evolve in Trilobites. Richard Fortey suggests that eyes developed up to 250 million years before the first known trilobites appeared.1 Eyeless species certainly existed, but besides the visually impaired Agnostids, eyeless Trilobites were the exception, not the rule. Eyeless species seem to have lost their vision over time, likely because they didn’t need it in the ecological niche they inhabited (for instance, if they lived in a very dark environment).
Trilobite Eyes
There are three types of Trilobite eyes: Holochroal, Schizochroal and Abathochroal. Holochroal eyes were the most common, and can be found in most Trilobite orders. Schizochroal eyes are rarer, seeming to be an evolutionary development unique to portions of the order Phacopida. Abathochroal eyes are also uncommon, present only in the Agnostid suborder Eodiscina during the Cambrian. 2
http://www.etrilobite.com/trilobite-eyes-more-interesting-than-you-think-part-1/
Increasing complexity in Trilobites:
http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
If you don't have an objective standard such as truth, you're going to be continually confusing.
We were created for a purpose.
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare[b] and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”- Jeremiah 29:11
You're saying you have evidence. So if I give you a chimp you can give me a human? Scripture says God formed the man, not nature.
“And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.”- Genesis 2:7
‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Matt 3:9God didn't use nature
It is against reason to think “natural selection” works on a rock or dust.
Nothing in pantheism rules it out but there is in Christianity.
“then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground.”Genesis 2:7
“the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.”Genesis 2:19
The garden of Eden.
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare[b] and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”- Jeremiah 29:11Jerimiah 29:11
“In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth” – Genesis 1:1 YLT
“And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.”– Genesis 1:27 YLT
The design is in that language is a concept before it is ever spoken or written. If you define “evolution” as change over time I agree it evolved. They degenerate. They started complex and move to simple. We went from languages like Hebrew to this: “r u goin 2 b their?”
(for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex (f). Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages (g)
“Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.
“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.
Language started as a concept, immaterial. It was eventually expressed materially, spoken or written, but it exists apart from material. Language is caught not taught. I'm referring children, I know there are plenty of language classes. Adam learned language from God in the garden of Eden.
“Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”- Genesis 2:19
Those are the exceptions, as a rule things are moving from order to chaos. “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matt. 5:18
We don't live as long. We aren't as tall as they were in the OT. Birth defects, Autism, and genetic related auto-immune diseases are on the rise.
Nobody has ever observed a chimp give birth to a human. All you have to offer are conclusions. You said your masters was in cryptology? You also said a biology professor doesn't know how to define speciation. Don't take this the wrong way but I think I'd rather learn from a biology professor like Kenyon.
I had to laugh at that, I'd just read this the other day.
"For this reason, many students of biology have given up their own objections at being taught irrational and illogical explanations and incompatible comparisons. If the evolutionary jargon doesn’t confuse them then personal criticisms from the authority in the classroom, the teacher, usually silence students. Their classmates then ridicule those same students after class. I have 22 years of formal education and 2 years of post doctoral experience spread over five different university locations and two different government research labs. This is the modus operandi of teaching evolution. Don’t ask the question and don’t tell anyone your confused… it is the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” of academia where academic freedom of inquiry is more like academic torture for anyone who maintains critical thinking skills.” Dr. Daniel Moran
http://blueprintsforliving.com/the-bait-and-switch-tactics-of-evolution/2/
Also, that's supreme court testimony, I'd imagine purgery charges bring a stiff penalty. But, what would a hairless ape like me know?
We should clarify this point.
“Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind” The verb in that sentence is Let. God is the cause in that sentence, not the earth.
“He says the Earth brought forth living things.” The verb in that sentence is brought, not says. In your sentence the Earth is the cause, God is just an observer.
“And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.” Genesis 1:10
I didn't realize this, but earlier you said “God says the Earth brought forth living things as He intended. So he used nature to do that.” You tricked me with a bait and switch. Scripture calls the earth “dry land”, your bait, and you said he used “nature”, the switch, to do that. This is a christian forum, not a pantheistic or unitarian universalist one. God sustains nature, God is the creator not nature. ,
You just assumed evolution to prove evolution.
"And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Matt 3:9
God knows about DNA. John asserted God could make a human with genetic information consistent with a descendent of Abraham, from a rock. God doesn't need evolution to create.
Evidence says otherwise.
Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. -Stephen Jay Gould Harvard professor, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, historian of science, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.
The genes are already there. “Natural selection, however, is not the originator of the genome of the species. This has yet to be proven.” Dr. Daniel Moran.
As much as I hate to admit it, the loss of eyes was the exception then. I did find this quote by darwin interesting.
In his book, Origin of Species, he included a section entitled, "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication," in which he declared:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.[6]
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
[MENTION=96494]Vaccine[/MENTION], how does the ylt get barah, which is the Hebrew word to create from nothing to prepare? this is why I like another here doesn't like to use genesis as a debate in the evolution/ creation controversy. that takes away from the plain reading of it and the riches of that book. I am yec btw.
Vaccine
Member
- Apr 22, 2013
- 1,294
- 140
[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION] Hi Jason! Thank you for pointing this out to me! I am new to the yec point of view. Reading it that way, does it mean God created the "actual" man or just the genetic code? Because I think it means God created the genetic code for man out of nothing since well the genetic code is nothing. Ideas and language are immaterial. I think it all ties in with in the beginning was the word.
And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared (created out of nothing) for making. Genesis 2:3
These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared (created out of nothing), in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens Genesis 2:4
In Genesis 2:3 just mentions God, yet in Genesis 2:4 Jehovah God is mentioned, is that Jesus?
and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, Genesis 2:5
And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.2:7
Does this mean Jesus formed the man and breathed life into him?
And God blesseth the seventh day, and sanctifieth it, for in it He hath ceased from all His work which God had prepared (created out of nothing) for making. Genesis 2:3
These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared (created out of nothing), in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens Genesis 2:4
In Genesis 2:3 just mentions God, yet in Genesis 2:4 Jehovah God is mentioned, is that Jesus?
and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, for Jehovah God hath not rained upon the earth, and a man there is not to serve the ground, Genesis 2:5
And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.2:7
Does this mean Jesus formed the man and breathed life into him?
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
in context God is speaking to the earth as he is done with that and has it create the body. the word form with his hands isn't literal in that god is a spirit.let us make man in our image means we have the earthly body with the nature of God in it to make the complete five dimensional sou
while I am a Trinitarian this chapter can NOT be used to support the idea of the trinity.elohim is a borrowed word from the Chaldean word meaning GOD of the congress God's its an apologetic to teach the Hebrew children where they came from.the days are literal in jewish thought because of how its recorded that the jews do feasts to this day. all feasts start at sundown.
while I am a Trinitarian this chapter can NOT be used to support the idea of the trinity.elohim is a borrowed word from the Chaldean word meaning GOD of the congress God's its an apologetic to teach the Hebrew children where they came from.the days are literal in jewish thought because of how its recorded that the jews do feasts to this day. all feasts start at sundown.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
I knew it. You cut and paste slabs of text without reading them! Nor do you read what I say.
I have no leaders, and I have said many times that natural selection works ON EXISTING TRAITS. Did you read that?
More importantly, do you understand that?
I doubt it somehow. But let me try again.
Natural selection works on traits WHICH ALREADY EXIST. Now don't lie and say that I didn't say that.
But your problem is that you haven't the faintest understanding of a simple fact: NATURAL SELECTION CANNOT CREATE NEW CHARACTERISTICS - such as flight.
Did you get that? Natural Selection CANNOT CREATE NEW CHARACTERISTICS.
So where do you go from there? Try flim-flamming your way out of that hole. If you wave your arms hard enough, you'll fly out of the hole - and confirm that evolution did take place after all. Why not try it?
Here you are again parading round shouting that we all learned something! Yes, we did. We learned that nonsense trumps your good sense.
A new enzyme system does not equate to a new genus, family order, any new SIGNIFICANT taxon. Nothing, in fact. Do you deny that statement?
Just remind me: how many were these, and what was the ratio of 'good' (presumably imaginary 'good') to deleterious plus damaging?
Then show how this ratio of good to bad could possibly produce the Cambrian explosion of new species and higher taxa.
Still wishfully thinking, are we? Hm, yes - I see.
:toofunny
Ha hah haaaa! Lenski shot himself and you in the foot, didn't he? What was it - 35,000 generations and NOT A SINGLE NEW SPECIES!
Woweee! Fault this calculation if you will.
Since 35000 generations produce 0 new species
Therefore, 1 generation produces 0/35000 new species
Therefore, 10000000 generations produce (0/35000) x 10000000 new species.
I make that 0 new species.
So where did all the hundreds of thousands of new species (plus all those which have not been catalogued yet!) come from, if the rate of production of new species by evolution is 0 per million years?
:toofunny
Ha ha haaaaah! Marvellous eyewash. Exactly how many new species has this fantastic, supercalaphragilisticexpealidocious mutation produced?
Do let us know! We're all agog with expectation!
:toofunny
Ha ha haaaaah! Marvellous eyewash. Exactly how many new species has this fantastic, supercalaphragilisticexpealidocious mutation produced?
Oh yes, this one: Sauromalus novocecovalvicus!
Where is this new species classified?
And where did you say the new species is to be found? Nowhere? I thought so.
Yeah sure. Wate our time. Convince us all of the magnificent, munificent, multitudinous hordes of new species and genera which all these produced. If you find one, you'll be lucky.
And even then it'll be the overheated imagination of some foolish taxonomist talking! But go to it. Google scholar eagerly awaits you.
So what about the zillion or so new ones in the Cambrian?
Ah me! Such imagination! Come back brothers Grimm! Come back, Hans Christian! On second thoughts, forget it. You've been ousted by this collection of quacks.
Before I go further, have you really read this nonsense you cut and pasted? And are you claiming that this nonsense is a serious contribution to the question of where is this famous 'common ancestor'?
You didn't read it, did you? It looked good, so snip, snip, cut, paste. And you'll impress those you haven't the intellect or inclination to look critically at this tripe.
If you did read it, then where is the claim that this is or are fossils of the 'common ancestor'?
You haven't been reading your wikipedia, then! Ha ha haaaah!
Why haven't you read this, I wonder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Go look, and then come back with some revised version of this error that you want to use to duck out of the difficulty, no, impossibility.
I know evolution theory doesn't SAY so, but how many times have you read about PREBIOTIC EVOLUTION?
No, we're not having that bit of nonsense. 'Life appeared' begs the question of whether or not DNA 'evolved', from what I do know, but you don't.
So back up and account for its existence in the first place.
And 'it evolved in a number of ways' is also a nonsensical statement. The genetic code is identical in all forms of life:
"... [the genetic code] is now known to be A UNIQUE AND INVARIANT SYSTEM OF RULES which is IDENTICAL IN EVERY CELL ON EARTH. No cell has ever been found that departs in any significant way from THE UNIVERSAL PATTERN OF THE CODE....
...like cilia and so many of the characteristics found in living things on earth, THE GENETIC CODE IS NOT LED UP TO GRADUALLY THROUGH A SEQUENCE OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS."
Denton, M, Evolution, A Theory In Crisis pp108, 109
You should know that.
In other words, no evolution has occurred in the genetic code.
Which means that IN EVERY ORGANISM, it was divinely implanted completely and in its perfection.
He never says so in Genesis. You ought not to make such mischievous and misleading statements.
Got any better ideas? And no, it's not OK with evolutionary theory, which says that there's no God. Ask Dawkins, and I'm sure he'll tell you all about that.
You made, and are making your usual silly mistake, which shows you are chronically incapable of understanding the difference between the 'How' question and the 'Why' question.
A 'mere chemical reaction' can carry a plover 2,800 miles from Hawaii to Alaska across the Pacific ocean? Or a swallow 7,800 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in California and arrive there on the same date every year?
Some chemical reaction!
Is this science you're teaching? Or what?
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,205
- 2,512
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Even your leaders have admitted that natural selection is a fact:
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n-vs-evolution
Notice that AIG denies the fact of evolution, but does concede that natural selection is a fact. Just what I told you.
But you do. Many times, we've found you cutting and pasting discredited stories from your leaders.
I'm pleased you how accept the fact of natural selection. You're almost there. You see, evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.
That's what we've been telling you. Without mutation producing new traits, natural selection would have nothing to work on.
See above. You've got half of it, but the rest is still beyond your ken.
When someone has parial mastery, it's good to build on what is already there. You see, natural selection does indeed tend to cull out traits that make organisms less fit, and tends to favor traits that make them more fit. "Fit" being applied to the particular environment, remember.
So a new mutation, if it happens to be unfavorable, will tend to be removed from the population, and one that happens to be favorable, will tend to increase in frequency.
Hence, the evolution seen in Hall's bacteria. As you learned, it produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.
It merely demonstrates that complex systems evolve over time. Young Earth creationists have already conceded that new species, genera, and families evolve. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, endorses James Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study, which says that new species, genera and families evolved from a few "kinds" that were on the Ark.
Barbarian chuckles:
You've already been shown a list of useful ones. So there's no point in you denying the fact. Would you like to see some of them, again?
Humans have dozens of alleles for each gene locus, but Adam and Eve could have had at most, four among them. All the rest evolved. So given around 30,000 human genes, that a bunch, um?
In one species, over 120,000 mutations at a minimum. So plenty for the observed evolution.
As you learned, Hall's bacteria produced more than enough useful mutations for natural selection to produce that new enzyme system.
And yet those bacterial evolved a useful new enzyme system. By mutation and natural selection. Creationists often consider bacteria to be cheating, because they reproduce so fast, we can see evolution of such things.
Speciation, as you learned, is already admitted by YE creationists. In fact, theyh admit that major new taxa evolve. So no point in you denying it.
Barbarian, regarding the claim that there are no favorable mutations:
In vertebrates, one really good one is the Milano mutation that provides almost complete protection against hardening of arteries. We can even trace it back to the individual, who first had the mutation.
(Sound of goalposts being repositioned)
You argued that there aren't any favorable mutations. I showed you one. Do you want to see some more speciations now?
Barbarian observes:
Another is the new digestive organ evolved by lizards transplanted to a new island in the Adriatic. Over a few decades, they evolved a cecal valve, not seen before in such lizards.
Barbarian continues:
Another is the Hbc mutation, which provides protection from malaria without the disastrous effects of homozygousity found in Hbs.
Lots more to see, if you like.
Hardly a waste. You have just learned that there are many favorable mutations, something you didn't previously know.
Actually you were shown, but it's not hard to do that again. It turns out that an organism still exists that is very much like the common ancestor of plants and animals. Not surprisingly, it's neither plant nor animal, but a protist, a single-celled eukaryote (animals and plants are also eukaryotes, organisms with nucleated cells)
The Chlamydomonas Genome Reveals the Evolution of Key Animal and Plant Functions
Science. 2007 October 12; 318(5848): 245–250.
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is a unicellular green alga whose lineage diverged from land plants over 1 billion years ago. It is a model system for studying chloroplast-based photosynthesis, as well as the structure, assembly, and function of eukaryotic flagella (cilia), which were inherited from the common ancestor of plants and animals, but lost in land plants. We sequenced the ∼120-megabase nuclear genome of Chlamydomonas and performed comparative phylogenomic analyses, identifying genes encoding uncharacterized proteins that are likely associated with the function and biogenesis of chloroplasts or eukaryotic flagella. Analyses of the Chlamydomonas genome advance our understanding of the ancestral eukaryotic cell, reveal previously unknown genes associated with photosynthetic and flagellar functions, and establish links between ciliopathy and the composition and function of flagella.
Comes down to evidence. You can read the original article here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875087/
Go take a look and see. If you'd like a simpler explanation, suitable for laymen... (Barbarian checks)...
The study identified many new proteins that are likely associated with the flagella, and has distinguished those proteins of the flagella that are critical for movement and those that are associated with sensory functions (feeling the conditions in the environment). The analysis has also generated new insights about human diseases associated with ciliary dysfunction in humans, including those of the kidney and the eye.
The researchers also performed a comparative gene analysis across species to explore the evolutionary history of Chlamy, and the relationship of this alga to other organisms. Of the 6,968 protein families that have so-called homologs --proteins that have similar amino acid sequences, often reflecting a similar or related function among the species -- they found that Chlamy shared 35% (2,489/6,968) with both flowering plants and humans, and an additional 10% (706/6,968) with humans but not with flowering plants.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm
I believe you saw this before, but hopefully, the simpler text will be more useful to you.
Read it. It's kind of a classic in biological sciences. Here's a chart that shows how the genes sort out, showing the common ancestry of humans and plants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875087/figure/F2/
Surprise.
As you learned, genes can often show common descent,where we can't see biochemistry in fossils.
Actually, evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began. It assumes life began, and describes how it changes. Even Darwin just supposed that God made the first living things.
Doesn't matter. Here it is:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin, last sentence in The Origin of Species
I have taught it, yes.
Evidence. For example, since life appeared, it has evolved in a number of ways.
Sorry, it's a fact. Learn about it here:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/9/1481
God says the Earth brought forth living things. I think He's right.
You've been suckered on that one. See the link.
See the link. Surprise.
Nope. Notice that Darwin assumed God just created the first living things.
Dawkins says evolutionary theory can't rule out God. In fact, he says there is no way to rule out God, and he is not absolutely sure that there isn't a God.
Which one? The sun-seeking behavior, you were so sure was inexplicable in plants, which turned out to be a simple chemical process?
"Instinct", as you learned earlier, is just a word that means "we don't know why it happens." When you supposed that a plant searching toward the light was instinct, I showed you it was a mere chemical reaction. All instinct, whenever we find out why, is like that.
Teleology is a religious or philosophical thing. Not part of science. Science just shows what is. The fact that instinct, when we know what causes it, always has a physical explanation, is noteworthy, but not an issue in science.
Nope. Even your leaders have admitted that natural selection is a fact:
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n-vs-evolution
Notice that AIG denies the fact of evolution, but does concede that natural selection is a fact. Just what I told you.
But you do. Many times, we've found you cutting and pasting discredited stories from your leaders.
I'm pleased you how accept the fact of natural selection. You're almost there. You see, evolution works by natural selection and random mutation.
That's what we've been telling you. Without mutation producing new traits, natural selection would have nothing to work on.
See above. You've got half of it, but the rest is still beyond your ken.
When someone has parial mastery, it's good to build on what is already there. You see, natural selection does indeed tend to cull out traits that make organisms less fit, and tends to favor traits that make them more fit. "Fit" being applied to the particular environment, remember.
So a new mutation, if it happens to be unfavorable, will tend to be removed from the population, and one that happens to be favorable, will tend to increase in frequency.
Hence, the evolution seen in Hall's bacteria. As you learned, it produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.
It merely demonstrates that complex systems evolve over time. Young Earth creationists have already conceded that new species, genera, and families evolve. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, endorses James Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study, which says that new species, genera and families evolved from a few "kinds" that were on the Ark.
Barbarian chuckles:
You've already been shown a list of useful ones. So there's no point in you denying the fact. Would you like to see some of them, again?
Humans have dozens of alleles for each gene locus, but Adam and Eve could have had at most, four among them. All the rest evolved. So given around 30,000 human genes, that a bunch, um?
In one species, over 120,000 mutations at a minimum. So plenty for the observed evolution.
As you learned, Hall's bacteria produced more than enough useful mutations for natural selection to produce that new enzyme system.
And yet those bacterial evolved a useful new enzyme system. By mutation and natural selection. Creationists often consider bacteria to be cheating, because they reproduce so fast, we can see evolution of such things.
Speciation, as you learned, is already admitted by YE creationists. In fact, theyh admit that major new taxa evolve. So no point in you denying it.
Barbarian, regarding the claim that there are no favorable mutations:
In vertebrates, one really good one is the Milano mutation that provides almost complete protection against hardening of arteries. We can even trace it back to the individual, who first had the mutation.
(Sound of goalposts being repositioned)
You argued that there aren't any favorable mutations. I showed you one. Do you want to see some more speciations now?
Barbarian observes:
Another is the new digestive organ evolved by lizards transplanted to a new island in the Adriatic. Over a few decades, they evolved a cecal valve, not seen before in such lizards.
Barbarian continues:
Another is the Hbc mutation, which provides protection from malaria without the disastrous effects of homozygousity found in Hbs.
Lots more to see, if you like.
Hardly a waste. You have just learned that there are many favorable mutations, something you didn't previously know.
Actually you were shown, but it's not hard to do that again. It turns out that an organism still exists that is very much like the common ancestor of plants and animals. Not surprisingly, it's neither plant nor animal, but a protist, a single-celled eukaryote (animals and plants are also eukaryotes, organisms with nucleated cells)
The Chlamydomonas Genome Reveals the Evolution of Key Animal and Plant Functions
Science. 2007 October 12; 318(5848): 245–250.
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is a unicellular green alga whose lineage diverged from land plants over 1 billion years ago. It is a model system for studying chloroplast-based photosynthesis, as well as the structure, assembly, and function of eukaryotic flagella (cilia), which were inherited from the common ancestor of plants and animals, but lost in land plants. We sequenced the ∼120-megabase nuclear genome of Chlamydomonas and performed comparative phylogenomic analyses, identifying genes encoding uncharacterized proteins that are likely associated with the function and biogenesis of chloroplasts or eukaryotic flagella. Analyses of the Chlamydomonas genome advance our understanding of the ancestral eukaryotic cell, reveal previously unknown genes associated with photosynthetic and flagellar functions, and establish links between ciliopathy and the composition and function of flagella.
Comes down to evidence. You can read the original article here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875087/
Go take a look and see. If you'd like a simpler explanation, suitable for laymen... (Barbarian checks)...
The study identified many new proteins that are likely associated with the flagella, and has distinguished those proteins of the flagella that are critical for movement and those that are associated with sensory functions (feeling the conditions in the environment). The analysis has also generated new insights about human diseases associated with ciliary dysfunction in humans, including those of the kidney and the eye.
The researchers also performed a comparative gene analysis across species to explore the evolutionary history of Chlamy, and the relationship of this alga to other organisms. Of the 6,968 protein families that have so-called homologs --proteins that have similar amino acid sequences, often reflecting a similar or related function among the species -- they found that Chlamy shared 35% (2,489/6,968) with both flowering plants and humans, and an additional 10% (706/6,968) with humans but not with flowering plants.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011142628.htm
I believe you saw this before, but hopefully, the simpler text will be more useful to you.
Read it. It's kind of a classic in biological sciences. Here's a chart that shows how the genes sort out, showing the common ancestry of humans and plants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875087/figure/F2/
Surprise.
As you learned, genes can often show common descent,where we can't see biochemistry in fossils.
Actually, evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began. It assumes life began, and describes how it changes. Even Darwin just supposed that God made the first living things.
Doesn't matter. Here it is:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin, last sentence in The Origin of Species
I have taught it, yes.
Evidence. For example, since life appeared, it has evolved in a number of ways.
Sorry, it's a fact. Learn about it here:
http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/9/1481
God says the Earth brought forth living things. I think He's right.
You've been suckered on that one. See the link.
See the link. Surprise.
Nope. Notice that Darwin assumed God just created the first living things.
Dawkins says evolutionary theory can't rule out God. In fact, he says there is no way to rule out God, and he is not absolutely sure that there isn't a God.
Which one? The sun-seeking behavior, you were so sure was inexplicable in plants, which turned out to be a simple chemical process?
"Instinct", as you learned earlier, is just a word that means "we don't know why it happens." When you supposed that a plant searching toward the light was instinct, I showed you it was a mere chemical reaction. All instinct, whenever we find out why, is like that.
Teleology is a religious or philosophical thing. Not part of science. Science just shows what is. The fact that instinct, when we know what causes it, always has a physical explanation, is noteworthy, but not an issue in science.
- Jun 21, 2009
- 10,783
- 414
That is quite the supposition. Do you normally argue from the specific (plants and chemical reactions) to the general (all instinct)? I like the old world map I saw that described the edge of the world: "There be dragons..." Is that what you declare then? That the unknown can not include dragons? I'm with you if that's what you're saying. God has imposed limits. But to then say that all things are understandable by mankind and anything we don't understand doesn't exist? Not sure I can follow this.
Okay, I know I've stretched things with the dragon stuff but hope you get my point: Just because a chemical process can explain "sun seeking" behavior of plants, we can not then jump to the conclusion that there is no such thing as instinct. Or maybe we can? Do you possess an understanding of solid scientific consensus for this allegation?