Creationists, please provide evidence

[Subby]

That's like asking if dobermans have the same genotype as dogs.

Humans are apes.

And you say this because of what part of biological evolution that we observe, which is just phenotype change you admit to, has changed an ape to man? Or molecules-to-man?

What mechanism within genetics shows such similarity that we must have derived from apes? Because it is not reliant upon current trends of change, namely phenotype.

 

[Autodidact]

Natural selection selects better genotypes? No it selects better expressions of those genotypes.

Hard to select the expression without the genotype.

O.K. so you're too rude or cowardly to answer other people's reasonable questions. You refuse to state what your position is. And you're virtually impossible to understand. I'm done with you for now. I will decide another day whether there is any point in talking to you.

 

[Subby]

Yes. Well, it would be more accurate to say that the human genotype is one variety of ape genotype.

Well instead, I say they are separate genotypes. Why is your way more viable?

 

[Autodidact]

Well instead, I say they are separate genotypes. Why is your way more viable?

Please answer the many outstanding questions I have posed to you first, and then I will address yours. Which, by the way, seems to indicate that you failed to understand mine, so I'll state it more clearly: Yes. Humans are apes.

 

[Subby]

Please answer the many outstanding questions I have posed to you first, and then I will address yours. Which, by the way, seems to indicate that you failed to understand mine, so I'll state it more clearly: Yes. Humans are apes.

There are 10 pages of my position.

Why are they not separate genotypes? Why is your way more viable?

 

[Autodidact]

There are 10 pages of my position.

Why are they not separate genotypes? Why is your way more viable?

Sorry, I'm not willing to allow myself to be treated this rudely. Let me know if you ever develop common courtesy, and we'll talk.

 

[Subby]

Sorry, I'm not willing to allow myself to be treated this rudely. Let me know if you ever develop common courtesy, and we'll talk.

I have not said one rude thing to you. You do know there is you and another talking to me? Sorry if I can't get to everything, grow-up I would say. This is the internet and a fast moving topic.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

There are 10 pages of my position.

How about just a quick statement of your position for those of us who don't feel like digging through 10 pages trying to hunt it down.

 

[Subby]

How about just a quick statement of your position for those of us who don't feel like digging through 10 pages trying to hunt it down.

Lets continue on, and then you will see my position develop as we go.

I say they are separate genotypes (humans and apes). Why is your way more viable, in that they share a common ancestor and are ancestrally related?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Lets continue on, and then you will see my position develop as we go.

I say they are separate genotypes. Why is your way more viable?

You're dodging the question. Answer it and we'll talk. This is actually a rather simple request. What is your position on the origin of life?

 

[Subby]

Your dodging the question. Answer it and we'll talk. This is actually a rather simple request. What is your position on the origin of life?

That perhaps abiogenesis happened by ID. But that is philosophy to me, not based on true scientific observation. ID is not philosophy but an inference in nature. the abiogenesis and the way modern science interprets it by spontaneously happening is the philosophy to me.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That perhaps abiogenesis happened by ID. But that is philosophy to me, not based on true scientific observation. ID is not philosophy but an inference in nature. the abiogenesis and the way modern science interprets it by spontaneously happening is the philosophy to me.

What in nature, do you believe, points to ID?

 

[Subby]

What in nature, do you believe, points to ID?

Everything. Even life and nature that sustains it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Everything. Even biology.

You're going to have to be much more specific. What exactly in biology says "design" to you?

 

[Subby]

You're going to have to be much more specific. What exactly in biology says "design" to you?

Sorry I clarified a bit more with this through edit: "Even life and nature that sustains it."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Sorry I clarified a bit more with this through edit: "Even life and nature that sustains it."

Even so, my question still stands. What in nature says "design" to you? (And, please, try to be specific.)

 

[Subby]

Even so, my question still stands. What in nature says "design" to you? (And, please, try to be specific.)

Dude life itself screams it, look how natural selection select traits and epigenetics and the inherent design with that when forming genotypes, etc.... That is within nature. Life did NOT spontaneously generate from non living material but from pre-existing life, of some sort, or what is called biogenesis.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Dude life itself screams it, look how natural selection select traits and epigenetics

Okay, but none of this "screams" design. There are natural explanations for the entire process. Bringing in a designer is an unwarranted redundancy.

and the inherent design with that when forming genotypes, etc.... That is within nature.

Define "Inherent design"

Life did NOT spontaneously generate from non living material but from pre-existing life, of some sort, namely biogenesis.

Assertion.

 

[Subby]

Okay, but none of this "screams" design. There are natural explanations for the entire process.

For the origin of life there is a process, called abiogenesis, that only happens when ID'd.

There is also for diversification of life, biological evolution. The natural explanations/mechanisms are fine for diversification, not for origin of themselves.

Define "Inherent design"

Epigenetics, is above genetics. Meaning scientists see something else other then DNA sequence making changes in phenotype. It seems like there is a genetic mechanism above DNA that designs phenotypes.

Assertion.

No, it is based on ID seen within nature. It is a natural leap to conclude the origin of life was designed, perhaps through abiogenesis, but not that abiogenesis spontaneously happening, because the only abiogenesis that ever happened was ID'd itself.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

For the origin of life there is a process, called abiogenesis, that only happens when ID'd.

Another assertion. The original process of abiogenesis may well have been unguided. There are working models that show how it can happen.

[youtube]U6QYDdgP9eg[/youtube]

Epigenetics, is above genetics. Meaning scientists see something else other then DNA sequence making changes in phenotype. It seems like there is a genetic mechanism above DNA that designs phenotypes.

Okay, so how do we get from "above genetics" to "intelligent designer"?

No, it is based on ID seen within nature. It is a natural leap to conclude the origin of life was designed, perhaps through abiogenesis, but not that abiogenesis spontaneously happening, because the only abiogenesis that ever happened was ID'd itself.

However there is nothing within nature that can be definitively pointed to as intelligently designed.

And I still don't see how scientists creating life from non-life means that it can't happen in nature.