-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
That's right, she's a Biologist, so she knows more about Biology than the rest of us, including you. Does that seem odd to you?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
gateway, I have a serious question for you. How old are you?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Well, I'd say we have a definite winner in the pigeon crapping contest.
outhouse
Atheistically
thats because the most devoted ignorant creationist cant even agree on the fiction they create.
That bar gets moved farther back and back and back to where allot of religious people place it to the big bang, lack of education and severe ignorance are associated with the bar moving up to 6000 years ago by some. as you know.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
thats because the most devoted ignorant creationist cant even agree on the fiction they create.
That bar gets moved farther back and back and back to where allot of religious people place it to the big bang, lack of education and severe ignorance are associated with the bar moving up to 6000 years ago by some. as you know.
This is true for most....but not all.
There are two levels of ignorance....
The not informed are indeed.....ignorant.
But then there are those who choose to ignore.
That kind of ignorance is profound....not likely a remedy...until too late.
Ignoring God.....is profoundly ignorant.
averageJOE
zombie
Let's see if I can summarize it: Evolution is the belief that there is no god, all of life was created during the big bang, and that humans came from monkeys.
No, what about the flood? It is as follows: Evolution is the belief that there is no god, all life was created during the big bang, that humans came from monkeys and that the flood didn't happen.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Creationist - what is your understanding of the TOE?
Apparently, absolutely nothing.
Apparently, absolutely nothing.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This is kind of true. I tend to not use the word for those who have never been informed. I think the word fits your second definition, IMO, because the root of the word is (ignore) so a person can't ignore information if he or she is not aware of said information. Again, that's just my take on it though.
This is true but I have a question...do you not see how YOU fit this description? I've seen and been in a few debate threads where you fit into one of these creationist molds.
I completely disagree. Acknowledging your god or any other god is solely based on "faith". There is no evidence that the Abrahamic god or any other god should be recognized. There is no evidence that gods exist let alone any shred of testable evidence that a god "created". If we can't test the supposed validity that a "creator" exist then how can we acknowledge "creation"?
newhope101
Active Member
I don't agree with anything you say, as you know,... and neither do many of your researchers. No Lamarch was not correct and once again you are outdated.
Wiki:Forms of 'soft' or epigenetic inheritance within organisms have been suggested as neo-Lamarckian in nature by such scientists as Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb. In addition to 'hard' or genetic inheritance, involving the duplication of genetic material and its segregation during meiosis, there are other hereditary elements that pass into the germ cells also. These include things like methylation patterns in DNA and chromatin marks, both of which regulate the activity of genes. These are considered "Lamarckian" in the sense that they are responsive to environmental stimuli and can differentially affect gene expression adaptively, with phenotypic results that can persist for many generations in certain organisms. Although the reality of epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as many experiments have validated it), its significance to the evolutionary process is uncertain. Most neo-Darwinians consider[citation needed] epigenetic inheritance mechanisms to be little more than a specialized form of phenotypic plasticity, with no potential to introduce evolutionary novelty into a species lineage.[20
Lamarckism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know that in 600 generations(12,000 human years) of drosophilia experiments the allele for 'accelerated development' did not set in the population. Hence no sign of evolution.
On the topic of refering to the academics here...that's a nonsense to say that any academic here will have the last word. What academics are good at is misrepresenting the truth and choosing to speak to research of their choosing with no regard for conflicting or contradicting research as well as using outdated information. eg Tiktaalic and arch, academics minimizing Y chromo research and a bunch of you still wishing that humans and chimps can interbreed despite research to the contrary, you've got academics giving misrepresentative answers to questions about genome change etc. I would advise any creationist to check up on any information given to them as it is likely to be outdated info or only half the full picture.
The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. The only concept that has remained constant is that all life evolved from something else. The something, the how, the when and why constantly evolves. Hence new information does not support the status quo. New information changes the something (whales/hippos share a common ancestor, humans were never knuckle walkers), the how ( mutations, deletions/insertions, genetic drift, natural selection & adaptation, co socialization etc, accelerated evolution), the when ( human/chimp split was 5myo then 6mya now 8mya), the why (adapation not the only reason and may be luck as much as anything else etc), has all changed with new information.
Creationists understand that you do not have a theory of evolution at all. Rather you have a strong determination to evolve your theory to fit whatever data you turn up with your biased and presumptive computer modelling.
Therefore you do not have a theory of evolution. You have a theory in evolution itself. Your researchers have never shown anything more than in-kind adaptive variation.
Indeed after 600 generations of fruitfly and all other experiments researchers have provided no evidence that one kind can eventually evolve into another kind. Bacteria have stayed bacteria and fruitfly's have remained fruitflys. Yes there were somatic changes, but 70% of the mutations in drosophilia were harmfull. Yet many areas of the human genome have undergone 'accelerated evolution'. And what have your reseaserchers come up to explain it....Oh yeah...they say some mutations are not harmfull. Yet humans compared to chimps are full of large-scale mutations involving amplifications, deletions of large chromosomal regions and inversions and here we are at the top of the food chain, miraculously having survived without legs growing off our heads.
You can say evolution takes millions of years and that is the reason your researchers have turned up zilch. Yet the fact of the matter is that they have produced evidence of adaptation and no evidence of evolution, only excuses for failure.
In multicellular organisms with dedicated reproductive cells, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants through their reproductive cells, and somatic mutations (also called acquired mutations),[23] which involve cells outside the dedicated reproductive group and which are not usually transmitted to descendants. If the organism can reproduce asexually through mechanisms such as cuttings or budding the distinction can become blurred.
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what is my understanding of TOE..it is a theory in evolution and should not be taken seriously.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So... you are just going to ignore whatever facts you don't like then?
Since in the fruit fly research you mention is clear there no "accelerated development allele" but a suite of potential alleles that influence development.
But it's easier to ignore that fact and keep repeating whatever makes you feel good.
wa:do
Since in the fruit fly research you mention is clear there no "accelerated development allele" but a suite of potential alleles that influence development.
But it's easier to ignore that fact and keep repeating whatever makes you feel good.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I have no idea what you think this might have to do with our conversation, as usual. My point is simple. You quote Dr. Grasse. Dr. Grasse was a Lamarckist. He thought Lamarck was right. Lamarck was wrong, as you agree. Therefore you are quoting someone whom you think was wrong.
Yes, I understand that you distrust science and scientists, and think they are all a bunch of liars and scientific research is useless and unreliable. Many of here disagree, and enjoy using the technology that scientific research makes possible, such as our computers.
I realize that for you devoting years of your life to studying a subject in depth has no value, but some of us actually value knowledge and the hard work that scientists do.
First, this is false, but wouldn't matter if were true. The point is whether the currently accepted ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. The answer is yes unless, like you, you reject science and the scientific method.
We call that "science."
If by "zilch" you mean thousands of books and millions of articles detailing rich knowledge of the history of life on the planet, the organizing, foundational theory of all of modern biology, and literal mountains of evidence supporting it, then yes.
As usual, I cannot see what on earth you think this has to do with your point, or why you think it supports it.
It's really not a hard question. What do you think ToE is? What does it say? Not what is your evaluation of whether it's correct, but what do you actually think it is?
newhope101
Active Member
Autodidact how about some evidence for refute other than your valueless opinion.
I note no refute to my stance that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution.
I note no refute to my claim that your reseachers have observed nothing more than adaptive somatic change. Hence there is no evolution.
Your choice to refute asides alone really has not provided any refute to my stance. Rather your style of refute highlights the fact that I am correct and you have nothing of value to add.
I note no refute to my stance that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution.
I note no refute to my claim that your reseachers have observed nothing more than adaptive somatic change. Hence there is no evolution.
Your choice to refute asides alone really has not provided any refute to my stance. Rather your style of refute highlights the fact that I am correct and you have nothing of value to add.
newhope101
Active Member
Wiki:Some biologists say that evolution has happened when a trait that is caused by genetics becomes more or less common in a group of organisms.[14] Others call it evolution when new species appear.
Changes can happen quickly in the smaller, simpler types of living things. For example, many bacteria that cause disease can no longer be killed with some of the antibioticmedicines. These medicines have only been in use about eighty years, and at first worked extremely well. The bacteria have evolved so that they are no longer affected by antibiotics anymore.[15] The drugs killed off all the bacteria except a few which had some resistance. These few resistant bactieria produced the next generation.
..and still bacteria is bacteria and doesn't look like springing legs. It's just happy being bacteria.
Wiki:Fifty million years ago, there were no horses. Eohippus was a short animal. It was the size of a cat. In Modern Latin the name Eohippus means dawn horse. Some scientists believe that Eohippus changed over millions of years into new animals. One of the new animals was the horse.
Eohippus did not have hooves. It had four toes on each front foot. It had three toes on each back foot.[2]
Wiki:Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Both anagenesis (gradual change in an entire population's gene frequency) and cladogenesis (a population "splitting" into two distinct evolutionary branches) occurred, and many species coexisted with "ancestor" species at various times. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and it is only in retrospect that certain evolutionary trends can be recognized.[10]
So here you have trait reversal in supposed horse ancestors, one of you purported best examples of evolution. What did we say about germ line mutation? Oh yeah.. they are supposed to be irreversible......
"The series of horse evolution seems to be pretty clear cut, but biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, "the family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks."[4] When Richard Owen, creation biologist and strong opposition to Darwin, found the first Hyracotherium fossils, he saw no connection to the horse, but to the modern-day hyrax(rock badger). So he named is as it is, Hyracotherium. Later, when other fossils of Hyracotherium were found, it was renamed Eohippus(dawn horse) by scientists who had a more evolutionary mind set. Fossils are usually dated by where in the rock layers they are found in. Many different fossils in the horse "series" are found in the same rock layer together, showing that the different creatures lived at the same time.[2] Fossils of three-toed horses and singled-toed horses have been found in the same rock formation in Nebraska, USA, confirming that one organism did not evolve from the other.[1"
Horse evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Let's face it, your researchers have no idea who is who in the zoo and will offer any adaptive variation of anything as some sort of evolutionary support as flavour of the month.
Hence my stance stands..the toe is a theory in evolution & You have no proof of evolution past adaptive somatic changes that lead to in-kind variations.
How many dozens of stances do you need? Because really, it is becoming a bit ridiculous.
It is a theory in evolution. That does not mean what you want it to mean - namely, that it is "unreliable" or "unproven".
You fail to note lots of things that contradict your beliefs. In this case, the whole body of biological research that exists at this point in time.
Except that it is not even remotely the case.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
"in-kind adaptive variation"..............ROFLMBO.......:biglaugh:
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You already know....you are not ignorant of my other postings....
The universe...(one word)...is the proof and proving.
And I cannot plead ignorance...not now or later.
The angels won't allow it.