Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Autodidact]

OK Peg.

You made the statement.

Now it's time to back it up.

Hit us with your best biblical prophecy.

-Q

Please start a thread for this subject. It is not relevant to this discussion. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

No go ahead, this thread is already off topic.

I'm sure no one will mind.

-Q

I mind.

 

[newhope101]

you do realise that every book produced to promote evolution is biased?

The WT society have produced a book entitled 'Evolution or Creation' which presents 'both' sides of the issue. Its bibliography is extensive and it is a well researched book showing us the many parts of evolution that are unexplainable

when you weigh them up, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion as most of the people in the world that the way evolution is explained is not entirely accurate of reality.

I agree with you Pegg. It is much about having a hypothesis about evidence and the only evidence is fossils. The rest is assumptive. If one only looks for ancestry between kinds no matter what they find they will rework their theories to suit. This happens all the time.

A glaring example is the whale hippo connection. When these researchers found a supposed similarity in DNA closer to that of a pig or whatever, suddenly this means ancestry. Despite the use of biased modelling one can clearly see in fact whatever it is that these guys and gals are looking at is not valid.

The Relationship Between Hippopotamuses and Whales | Scienceray

This is one possibility for a common ancestor of whale an hippo. It certainly must have loved the water very much. It is really an incredible assertion that to me wraps the whole idea in ridiculousness.


As creationists I'd say one prediction we could make along with IDers is that God would not make junk DNA. There is no purpose to it. Indeed science has validated this prediction. It further highlights the lack of robustness in any comparative research to date, in that researchers do not know what is going on or what they are seeing if the truth be known.

The death of LUCA is another example of fubbing off research that contradicts TOE, whereby an evolutionary solution, horizontal gene transfer, must be invented to stabilize the status quo and explain why even with their biased research data goes against common thinking and a LUCA. Other researchers will refute, highlighting quite clearly to me that these researchers, as hopefull as they are, are barking up the wrong tree of life.
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway Pegg, I see you as making point after point successfully here then moving on. I just wanted to pat you on the back. Well done!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Please start a thread for this subject. It is not relevant to this discussion. Thank you.

Pegg is all over it.

But in a fit of cowardice she started it in the bibliology section where she is most likely to get positive responses and those that are most likely to disagree are forbidden from posting.

-Q

 

[painted wolf]

Why do whales have four chambered stomachs?

Why do early whales have long back legs?

And yes, Pakacetids did love the water, as evidenced by bone density and isotopic ratios in their teeth.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I agree with you Pegg. It is much about having a hypothesis about evidence and the only evidence is fossils. The rest is assumptive. If one only looks for ancestry between kinds no matter what they find they will rework their theories to suit. This happens all the time.

Actually, no. Fossils are a tiny piece of the evidence. The strongest and most important evidence is the nested heirarchy structure of every living thing. Another important piece is the common mechanism of reproduction--DNA. DNA also corroborates the evidence of relationships found from fossils and homological similarity. Other evidence comes from the precise pattern of homologies and vestigial structures in almost every organism. Finally, most important is the way all of these lines of evidence converge, are consistent, and support each other. This is called "consilience," is the highest possible level of scientific evidence, and is what causes a theory to be accepted by a scientific community.

A glaring example is the whale hippo connection. When these researchers found a supposed similarity in DNA closer to that of a pig or whatever, suddenly this means ancestry.

So you see why DNA similarity would be caused by common ancestry? Otherise what is your explanation for it?

As creationists I'd say one prediction we could make along with IDers is that God would not make junk DNA. There is no purpose to it. Indeed science has validated this prediction. It further highlights the lack of robustness in any comparative research to date, in that researchers do not know what is going on or what they are seeing if the truth be known.

Your prediction is that there will no such thing as junk DNA? Is that right?

 

[newhope101]

Listen Auto, I have posted enough information for you to be somewhat educated by now.

Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn
Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA

If your genomic data was so clear there would be no bird ancestry confusion.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

Your comparative genomics, if you know anything about them at all, are based on the presumption of ancestry, use probabilites with mutation rates that are now known to not be constant, while now knowing that junk DNA is not junk at all, and all you have are theories and more theories. That's a fact Auto. You can jump up and down as much as you like and this will not change.

My post was simply to encourage Pegg. I have made the points I needed to make here to prepare myself for discussions outside RF.


If junk DNA is useful, why is it not shared more equally?

Vestigial organ definition has recently changed to include partly functional organs and bits. An appendix is functional. It is not vestigial. That is rubbish. There is plenty of evidence to suggest shared traits do not necessarily denote ancestry, and applies to any organ or morphology. You once thought eyes evolved once and knuckle walking, including the resulting morphology. Now that is crap. Hence vestigial organs evidence is meaningless. This is just another assertation that has changed to suit the evidence and what is found and will likely change again.
Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs - Answers in Genesis

Once I start getting desperate replies I see my point established. For example my point that your evolutionary theories always change along with common thinking is an established fact. Posting pictures of the periodic table or toilets does not redress the point. Hence point made ...move on.

Point..Why should anyone believe information that is purported as irrefuteable then tossed aside. What makes todays assertions and theory any more robust? Nothing, it is just as likely to be refuted tomorrow. Hence replies requesting a creational model of everything, my explanation of something unrelated, questions posted at me that your own researchers cannot answer or are unclear about, is no refute to any point, just woffle and desperation. So my point is made..move on.

Point. Some creationists are well credentialed, and do not believe in TOE is established. The pages of woffle and asides did not detract form the fact. Point made..move on

etc etc

So I do not need to debate you any further at this point, and only wish to say Pegg is doing great and I can see the points she has established.

 

[Man of Faith]

I disagree that common descent carriers as much weight as the real science of the biological evolution that we can observe. I don't see how anyone can say that something we can observe and test is just as much of science that something we can't.

 

[outhouse]

I disagree that common descent carriers as much weight as the real science of the biological evolution that we can observe

evolution has been observed and this is a fact

I don't see how anyone can say that something we can observe and test is just as much of science that something we can't

this statement is due to your lack of education in the scientific field

 

[outhouse]

So my point is made..move on.

you have never made a educated point yet in this whole thread.

your lack of education in the field is noted

you have posted allot of personal fantasy due to what i believe to be religious brainwashing you may have recieved

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I disagree that common descent carriers as much weight as the real science of the biological evolution that we can observe. I don't see how anyone can say that something we can observe and test is just as much of science that something we can't.

Think of your family tree. You can trace your geneology back generations genetically. You have bits and pieces from those that came before you yet are responsible for your existence. That is a description of (descent with modification). Even though you can't "observe" it, it is testable and fits perfectly with what the ToE says.

 

[Jose Fly]

while now knowing that junk DNA is not junk at all

Yes it is. Or perhaps you can tell us what function microsatellites and long terminal repeats have?

My post was simply to encourage Pegg. I have made the points I needed to make here to prepare myself for discussions outside RF.

So are you going to do the same thing you do here, i.e. ignore most of everything that contradicts your arguments, refuse to answer any questions, and make one fallacious argument after another?

For example my point that your evolutionary theories always change along with common thinking is an established fact. Posting pictures of the periodic table or toilets does not redress the point. Hence point made ...move on.

So evolutionary scenarios for specific taxa or traits are altered as new data are acquired, and apparently you still think that's some sort of major revelation.

Point..Why should anyone believe information that is purported as irrefuteable then tossed aside. What makes todays assertions and theory any more robust? Nothing, it is just as likely to be refuted tomorrow.

Except you haven't provided a single example of anything that was touted as "irrefutable". So really, you're just arguing against something that exists only in your imagination.

Point. Some creationists are well credentialed, and do not believe in TOE is established. The pages of woffle and asides did not detract form the fact. Point made..move on

Again, so what?

So I do not need to debate you any further at this point, and only wish to say Pegg is doing great and I can see the points she has established.

You honestly think what you've done up to this point qualifies as "debate"? Really?

 

[McBell]

So my point is made..move on.

IF your point is nothing more than revealing the fact that you merely post random stuff and make wild unsubstantiated claims that are easily and repeated shown to be pure fantasy and wishful thinking, then I agree with you.

Other wise you are merely blowing a whole lot of smoke and getting upset because no one who has an inkling of knowledge about the ToE ACTUALLY says wants it going up their arse...

 

[Autodidact]

Listen Auto, I have posted enough information for you to be somewhat educated by now.

Homoplasy: A good thread to pull to understand the evolutionary ball of yarn
Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA

If your genomic data was so clear there would be no bird ancestry confusion.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

Your comparative genomics, if you know anything about them at all, are based on the presumption of ancestry, use probabilites with mutation rates that are now known to not be constant, while now knowing that junk DNA is not junk at all, and all you have are theories and more theories. That's a fact Auto. You can jump up and down as much as you like and this will not change.

My post was simply to encourage Pegg. I have made the points I needed to make here to prepare myself for discussions outside RF.


If junk DNA is useful, why is it not shared more equally?

Vestigial organ definition has recently changed to include partly functional organs and bits. An appendix is functional. It is not vestigial. That is rubbish. There is plenty of evidence to suggest shared traits do not necessarily denote ancestry, and applies to any organ or morphology. You once thought eyes evolved once and knuckle walking, including the resulting morphology. Now that is crap. Hence vestigial organs evidence is meaningless. This is just another assertation that has changed to suit the evidence and what is found and will likely change again.
Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs - Answers in Genesis

Once I start getting desperate replies I see my point established. For example my point that your evolutionary theories always change along with common thinking is an established fact. Posting pictures of the periodic table or toilets does not redress the point. Hence point made ...move on.

Point..Why should anyone believe information that is purported as irrefuteable then tossed aside. What makes todays assertions and theory any more robust? Nothing, it is just as likely to be refuted tomorrow. Hence replies requesting a creational model of everything, my explanation of something unrelated, questions posted at me that your own researchers cannot answer or are unclear about, is no refute to any point, just woffle and desperation. So my point is made..move on.

Point. Some creationists are well credentialed, and do not believe in TOE is established. The pages of woffle and asides did not detract form the fact. Point made..move on

etc etc

So I do not need to debate you any further at this point, and only wish to say Pegg is doing great and I can see the points she has established.

What point of mine were you responding to?

So I take it you only want to post your views, and not get any response. O.K., but then please don't post in a debate forum. Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree that common descent carriers as much weight as the real science of the biological evolution that we can observe. I don't see how anyone can say that something we can observe and test is just as much of science that something we can't.

No one is saying that. All of the evidence in support of ToE is things we have observed, and ToE has been tested and tested and passed every test many decades ago. My guess is that you are not familiar with what the tests were, or how ToE passed them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by newhope101
while now knowing that junk DNA is not junk at all

Yes it is. Or perhaps you can tell us what function microsatellites and long terminal repeats have?

Maybe her understanding of "junk" DNA is some how to be taken as "bad" or "useless"...either way she may be mistaken about the importance of "junk DNA"...

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe her understanding of "junk" DNA is some how to be taken as "bad" or "useless"...either way she may be mistaken about the importance of "junk DNA"...

Could be...of course she's probably also unaware that there are significant portions of her DNA (ERV's) she'd better hope are non-functional.

 

[painted wolf]

I wonder what hidden use our non-functional vitamin C gene is?
Or all the other pseudogenes.

wa:do

 

[Bereanz]

No one is saying that. All of the evidence in support of ToE is things we have observed, and ToE has been tested and tested and passed every test many decades ago. My guess is that you are not familiar with what the tests were, or how ToE passed them.

What about the things that go to make up TOE that you haven't observed nor ever will be able to observe? This is the fundamental problem you don't seem to want to address. WHY???????????????????

And if you ask me what I mean, Im not going to take anything you say seriously again, and I will simply write you off as a POE!

 

[Bereanz]

I wonder what hidden use our non-functional vitamin C gene is?
Or all the other pseudogenes.

wa:do

I wonder what wa:do means?