[_ Old Earth _] The Amazing Discovery of DNA

[Green Man]

Evolutionists are "conformists" like all the people who believe we are in a Heliocentric instead of Geocentric Solar System are "conformists", Jasoncran[...siiiigh...].

 

[jasoncran]

Evolutionists are "conformists" like all the people who believe we are in a Heliocentric instead of Geocentric Solar System are "conformists", Jasoncran[...siiiigh...].

no, let me ask this one question,

math and statistics are the useful to collection of data? if so then why do you espouse something that is in defiance of statistical probabalities?

and uh strawman. creationists of TODAY arent into heliocentrism. one should google dr.humpreys and his predictions of planets that align with his models on magnetic fields. he was only wrong on jupiter.


yet his work isnt all that acknoweledge as he is a young earth creationist though he has a degree in the proper field.

and uh creationism is evolution that occured real rapidly after the flood. one should read up on what creationists espouse.

i have been reading up my side and YOURS. i have some reading up to do.

 

[jasoncran]

from creation wiki,

Talk Origins uses the ambiguity of the word to attempt to say that Linnaeus was somehow linked to their theory of evolution but this is not the case. This phrase from Linnaeus simply points to observable variation, or speciation, which does not directly or logically lead to Darwin's theory of evolution. Here is an example to show the difference between what Linnaeus said and what Darwin said.

Linnaeus: A group of dogs can produce a new species of dog. Plants can produce new species of plants.

Darwin: Single celled organisms, or some form of simple living creature can produce, over long periods of time, fish. Fish can change into amphibians. Reptiles can change into birds or mammals. (This is truly the theory of evolution, or biological evolution).

So no, Linnaeus didn't believe in "evolution", just variation within major groups, something which creationists accept.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening gentlemen[smile].

Asyncritus post #78....
I hold a degree in Agriculture..."

And this empowers you with the insight to criticize the entire modern scientific community as being more ignorant than you on the Natural Sciences? Your aquantiance with the biological sciences sounds no "broader" than mine[toothy grin].

"I tend to confine my quotes to evolutionist sources. Even so, there are screams of 'quote-mining', context-yanking, and such like."

That's because you do things like this......[While trying to criticize modern science's Theories on Avian evolution]"I will grant you that a reptile layed an egg one day that hatched out as a perfectly formed bird(That was Goldschmidt's idea of the Hopeful Monster, not mine-and things haven't changed much since then as far as accounting for the origin of birds is concerned."- upper middle section of your post#8, within the "Robotic Humming Bird" thread next to this one.
..........You never mentioned that even years ago when Mr. Goldschmidt came up with the idea of the Hopeful Monster, that practically the entire scientific community disagreed with him and even later never came around to supporting his idea, that no one who fully understands how evolution works would ever believe in such a Kirk Cameron-like concept as a cold-blooded reptile laying an egg which hatched out a bird, while also then failing to mention/admit that since the 1990's all kinds of discoveries and research has linked modern Avians with Theropod Dinosaurs[specifically Maniraptora, a group of Theropods which includes Dromaeosaurs and Oviraptorids, among others.].

I guess you failed to notice through lack of proper study/research, or,...something, huh.

 

[Green Man]

Hello and good evening Jasoncran[smile].
About your post #82...
Well, since we now have a mountain of physical evidences to support that evolution has occurred, is still occurring, and doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon[we now know more about how evolution works than we do about the force of gravity.], it doesn't really seem relevant whether or not evolution seems like a statistical improbability. What are your statistics against it, just out of curiosity? Where/how did you acquire the figures?

"And uh, strawman. Creationists of TODAY aren't into Heliocentrism."
If that is so then how do you account for the views expressed by characters AKJVReader and Pard within the nearby thread titled "Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity"? How do you account for websites like the one titled "Galileo was Wrong"? I once read that at least 10% of the American population still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I have all of Ken Ham's books and have visited his website "Answers in Genesis", and have been debating with Young-Earth Christian Creationists for years, so I am aware of what they believe. Jasoncran, there is no physical evidence to date that confirms that the Biblical Flood story ever occurred on a global scale. And even if it did, happen as mots Biblical literalists believe, it only makes things more unscientific and raises harder questions for you to try and answer. Questions like... How did Koala Bears get from the Garden of Eden in the Middle East across the sea to Australia, then get off of Australia to make their way to the Middle East again to get upon the Ark so they could ride out the flood, and then after being dropped off in the Mountains of Eastern Europe/Asia, make it's way back across the sea to Australia again? Good luck trying to answer that with science. To imply that all animal life evolved AFTER the flood is to produce a form of macro-evolution far more unnatural and far-fetched than anything that you think The Theory of Evolution asserts/predicts.

 

[abrown9]

I don't know why I bother.

I'm not asking you to accept that abiogenesis led to an RNA world that eventually evolved into bacteria that had proteins which eventually evolved to nitrogenase, although that is what I believe.

I'm asking you to discuss the subject of nitrogenase EVOLUTION. I have provided evidence that you have not refuted. The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis, although you seem to lump them together. Evolution requires life. Once again, I have demonstrated an environment that provided a selective advantage and that the majority of diazotrophs are very closely related based on 16S RNA. Also, I have shown evidence that a protein CAN RANDOMLY EVOLVE to serve a new function.

Don't answer this post with objections based on "proteins had to come from somewhere" or "bacteria already existed". None of this has to do with the TOE. The TOE only describes the natural history from the beginning of life until now. Either respond to the evidence I have provided, provide your own evidence that shows the evolution of nitrogenase from another protein is impossible, or admit that the innovation of nitrogen fixation does not pose a problem for the TOE.

 

[Asyncritus]

Good evening gentlemen[smile].

Asyncritus post #78....
I hold a degree in Agriculture..."

And this empowers you with the insight to criticize the entire modern scientific community as being more ignorant than you on the Natural Sciences? Your aquantiance with the biological sciences sounds no "broader" than mine[toothy grin].

You obviously don't know that a specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less!

I hold up my hand and admit that I don't have a PhD in evolutionary biology, though I could have done so if I wished. However, the theory makes me want to do unspeakable things, and I could not compromise my conscience so drastically, since the whole thing is so palpably wrong.

"I tend to confine my quotes to evolutionist sources. Even so, there are screams of 'quote-mining', context-yanking, and such like."

That's because you do things like this......[While trying to criticize modern science's Theories on Avian evolution]"I will grant you that a reptile layed an egg one day that hatched out as a perfectly formed bird(That was Goldschmidt's idea of the Hopeful Monster, not mine-and things haven't changed much since then as far as accounting for the origin of birds is concerned."- upper middle section of your post#8, within the "Robotic Humming Bird" thread next to this one.
..........You never mentioned that even years ago when Mr. Goldschmidt came up with the idea of the Hopeful Monster, that practically the entire scientific community disagreed with him and even later never came around to supporting his idea,

For your information, Dr Richard Goldschmidt was a highly respected geneticist, and he could not see how a bird could possibly have evolved from a reptile - and in dismay, I think, came up with the Hopeful Monster.

Naturally the entire biological evolutionary community jumped on him with both boots - but he challenged them, demanding that they put something better in its place.

To this day, they haven't - and guess why? Because it is quite simply impossible, as I have been saying.

The sheer nonsense of the idea that a bird could possibly have evolved from a reptile beggars belief.

You obviously don't know, but let me inform you that a single change in any given structure necessitates a colossal number of subsequent, required alterations. Baron Cuvier, an anatomist and palaeontologist shortly before Darwin's time had this to say - and it hasn't changed since:

That the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons.; it will be necessary that the forearm have a certain facility of turning, whence again will result determinate formation in the bones which compose it; but the bone of the forearm articulating in the shoulder bone, cannot change its structure, without the latter also changing. The shoulder blade will have a certain degree of strength in those animals which use their legs to seize with, and will thence obtain peculiar structure…

Now consider what would have to happen if a reptile forelimb changes into a wing:

a. The sternum (breastbone) has to be altered considerably, to give wide-based points of attachment to the pectoral muscles. [


b. The bones must become very light and preferably air-filled

c. The respiratory system must become many times more efficient in order to generate the necessary rapid fuel burning capacity required.

d. The metabolism must change from cold-blooded to warm-blooded.

e. Some birds (the whooping swans) fly at altitudes exceeding 25,000 feet. The reptiles must be able to withstand such conditions

f. The flight instincts must be present for the bird to be able to fly.

g. The pectoral muscles must become enormously stronger.

h. The shoulder joint must permit flapping movements of the arms.

i. The feet must gain the ability to perch on branches, or to paddle as in aquatics, or walk on floating leaves as the jacana. In the case of the perching birds, a hallux is an essential item, or the bird would fall off the branch when asleep.

This is merely a small selection of necessary changes in the evolution of birds from reptiles. How many gazillion mutations would it take to produce all of these essential changes?

And when we add the fact that the humming bird flies with it's HANDS instead of its ARM, I think you can see that the evolutionists who support the theory that birds evolved from reptiles really need a serious input of relevant information.

But the crowning injury to the theory is the production of the INSTINCTS required BEFORE any of these changes become viable; indeed, useful.

Of what use would be the most perfectly evolved wings IF THE NEWLY ARISEN BIRD HADN’T A CLUE WHAT TO DO WITH THEM? And where did those instincts come from?

that no one who fully understands how evolution works would ever believe in such a Kirk Cameron-like concept as a cold-blooded reptile laying an egg which hatched out a bird, while also then failing to mention/admit that since the 1990's all kinds of discoveries and research has linked modern Avians with Theropod Dinosaurs[specifically Maniraptora, a group of Theropods which includes Dromaeosaurs and Oviraptorids, among others.].

I guess you failed to notice through lack of proper study/research, or,...something, huh.

I regret that you have even fewer qualifications than I do to speak of these things - and I have spent the last 4 or so years researching these very basic points as the above.

My understanding of how evolution is alleged to work is quite considerable.

My knowledge of the facts which say that it hasn't and doesn't work is even greater.

I believe that the organ of thought is shouldn't be the oesophagus, but the brain. I don't swallow. I think. :nod

Try it some time.

 

[jasoncran]

Hello and good evening Jasoncran[smile].
About your post #82...
Well, since we now have a mountain of physical evidences to support that evolution has occurred, is still occurring, and doesn't seem to be stopping anytime soon[we now know more about how evolution works than we do about the force of gravity.], it doesn't really seem relevant whether or not evolution seems like a statistical improbability. What are your statistics against it, just out of curiosity? Where/how did you acquire the figures?

"And uh, strawman. Creationists of TODAY aren't into Heliocentrism."
If that is so then how do you account for the views expressed by characters AKJVReader and Pard within the nearby thread titled "Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity"? How do you account for websites like the one titled "Galileo was Wrong"? I once read that at least 10% of the American population still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I have all of Ken Ham's books and have visited his website "Answers in Genesis", and have been debating with Young-Earth Christian Creationists for years, so I am aware of what they believe. Jasoncran, there is no physical evidence to date that confirms that the Biblical Flood story ever occurred on a global scale. And even if it did, happen as mots Biblical literalists believe, it only makes things more unscientific and raises harder questions for you to try and answer. Questions like... How did Koala Bears get from the Garden of Eden in the Middle East across the sea to Australia, then get off of Australia to make their way to the Middle East again to get upon the Ark so they could ride out the flood, and then after being dropped off in the Mountains of Eastern Europe/Asia, make it's way back across the sea to Australia again? Good luck trying to answer that with science. To imply that all animal life evolved AFTER the flood is to produce a form of macro-evolution far more unnatural and far-fetched than anything that you think The Theory of Evolution asserts/predicts.

basic math, asyncthrytus is showing you all just that, WHEN YOU CAN SHOW ME THAT EVOLUTIONIST OF TODAY DONT BUY INTO EUGENICS THEN I WILL DROP THAT STRAWMAN STATEMENT. kappeesh.


and eugenics is still alive and well.

Modern Eugenics: Building a Better Person? | Science in Society

better humans eh and read the last comment.

i dont think we should do that. tweak humans? i am not agaisnt stem cells but to modify dna to eliminate certain weak genes?

 

[abrown9]

Well, I'm an "evolutionist", for whatever that is worth. I'm also not a proponent of Eugenics. The whole concept of Eugenics is ridiculous because it is based on some arbitrary definition of "the fittest". Being "fit" is entirely dependent on what environment you occupy, and as the environment changes, characteristics that are fit will cease to be advantageous and deleterious characteristics might become useful.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening[smile].
Eugenics is not the same thing as Natural Selection/Evolution in nature, Jasoncran, because it's unnatural, man-made, biological tinkering. Take a Toy Poodle dog for example. Evolution would never make a Toy Poodle, men did through years of selected breeding for desirable mutations/traits. Do you blame Toy Poodles on evolutionists, or the different varieties of Apples[smile]? If so, then that's not being very realistic/fair.

By the way, I hope that your Grandmother is doing better. I have been praying for her speedy/easy recovery.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

Good evening[smile].


By the way, I hope that your Grandmother is doing better. I have been praying for her speedy/easy recovery.

I hadn't realized Atheists now pray.

On to other matters technically Evolution is not wrong. There are two branches Macro and Micro. Macro states we evolved from ancestors while Micro says that changes and mutations happen within a species but do not evolve. We have undoubted proof of Micro Evolution Bacteria adapting to resist medicine and cures is an example.

 

[Asyncritus]

You know, guys, I'm really impressed with and admiring of the exceedingly pleasant way these discussions are going on.

I cannot detect any sign of rancour and ill-feeling as so often happens in these debates.

GM continues to smile cheerily, and AB remains restrained and polite. The only fly in that ointment is me, as I get occasional twinges of annoyance and such like. For that I apologise.

All of this only goes to prove that we haven't evolved from the lower creation. The higher faculties are in full swing here - and they didn't evolve from the slime in some swamp.

We're better than that, thank God.

 

[Asyncritus]

I hadn't realized Atheists now pray.

On to other matters technically Evolution is not wrong. There are two branches Macro and Micro. Macro states we evolved from ancestors while Micro says that changes and mutations happen within a species but do not evolve. We have undoubted proof of Micro Evolution Bacteria adapting to resist medicine and cures is an example.

Eric, I subscribe entirely to what you said. Micro-evolution is an undeniable, observable, measurable fact. Though I think that 'variation' is a better term to use, since it isn't so loaded.

It's when they attempt to extrapolate, that it becomes utter nonsense.

Think, for example, of seaweeds or other algae like them, 'emerging' from the sea to 'invade the land' and become things like the sequoias and the gazillion other plants and trees. Imagine that!

Everybody (apart from these jokers) knows that a seaweed left on the shore will shortly perish - not evolve into lettuces, pumpkins and sequoias. (Oh yeah, I forgot. Give e'm a gazillion years, and anything can happen! Like heck.) Not to mention a fish getting out of water to live on land! (Your goldfish ever jump out of its bowl? Yeah? And it started to walk about on the table, didn't it?)

Yet, I read one author at a symposium of some sort, presenting 'molecular genetic' and 'phylogenetic' evidence establishing that the land plants evolved from sea flora.

Which just goes to show how foolish all this 'molecular genetics' evidence of kinship and ancestry really is. Not to mention the intellectual quality of the author!

Molecular genetics is very useful to the police - because the DNA evidence can quickly establish, with a very high degree of probability and accuracy, the fact that X did the deed.

Nobody can argue with that.

It can also establish paternity and such like very accurately too.

But for heaven's sake, can't these people use the brain God gave them, and see that using that sort of evidence to 'prove' that we are related to chimpanzees and to bacteria in the preCambrian 235 billion years ago is the height of stupidity?

Words fail me sometimes when I read them.

 

[jasoncran]

Good evening[smile].
Eugenics is not the same thing as Natural Selection/Evolution in nature, Jasoncran, because it's unnatural, man-made, biological tinkering. Take a Toy Poodle dog for example. Evolution would never make a Toy Poodle, men did through years of selected breeding for desirable mutations/traits. Do you blame Toy Poodles on evolutionists, or the different varieties of Apples[smile]? If so, then that's not being very realistic/fair.

By the way, I hope that your Grandmother is doing better. I have been praying for her speedy/easy recovery.

i know that but again, you all brought your strawman into play and i mine. i will post what i hear on grandma. nothing new so far. btw.

i may do a post on should man improve man. we do it to the other animals when we breed them. if man is an animal why not? but i will at first post that on the creationist site i am on and see the reaction.


in fact i will use a show that played that scenario out and it aint star trek.