Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

And as I said, a biology student that understood evolution would not make such bad arguments. Here is a peer reviewed article on the evolution of the blood clotting factor:

Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation - PubMed

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Well I am not, since that is far from my area of expertise. But that is well understood. In fact you are now sounding a bit like a poe since that was the topic that caused Behe to slink away from the Dover trial in shame. It was demonstrated there that he had no clue about the work done in that field.

So you admit that you don't really know much about it, yet you assume that it's "well understood."

OK...

Well...It was once well understood that the earth was flat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make so many obvious and flawed assumptions, i can tell that you're not really well-versed in biology.

1. Evolution is NOT a theory. It does NOT qualify as a theory. It's an unproven hypothesis. As renowned Evolutionary Biologist Lynne Margulis once remarked "The problem with evolution is that it's never been observed to occur."

2. DNA is most certainly a code. It's a complex, highly organized system that defies the organizing principles of the universe - entropy, or disorder. But it developed all by itself??? How cute!!!

3. If you're hoping to be embarrassed more, well...You will be.

Okay. so you are not a biology student. You do not even know what a theory is. You have now demonstrated that at best you have a high school level of science education and have picked up a few terms. That is all.

And you are repeating refuted arguments. That did not take long at all.

Let's start with the concept of a theory. Yes, anyone with even a high school level of science education understands that evolution is a theory. Theories are never "proven". The theory of gravity is not "proven". But both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are well supported by scientific evidence. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence for the theory of Gravity. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. To date there is no scientific evidence against either.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

And as I said, a biology student that understood evolution would not make such bad arguments. Here is a peer reviewed article on the evolution of the blood clotting factor:

Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation - PubMed

This is an abstract of how something could work according to one person/group's hypothesis.

It's NOT indicative of a factual event.

In addition, you didn't read it:

"although the jawless fish have genes for generating the thrombin-catalyzed conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, they lack several clotting factors, including two thought to be essential for the activation of thrombin in mammals."

So what does THAT prove???

Nothing, in terms of disproving irreducible complexity.

 

[McBell]

Darwinian Evolution is - to put it bluntly - mathematically impossible.

Show your math

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Okay. so you are not a biology student. You do not even know what a theory is. You have now demonstrated that at best you have a high school level of science education and have picked up a few terms. That is all.

And you are repeating refuted arguments. That did not take long at all.

Let's start with the concept of a theory. Yes, anyone with even a high school level of science education understands that evolution is a theory. Theories are never "proven". The theory of gravity is not "proven". But both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are well supported by scientific evidence. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence for the theory of Gravity. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. To date there is no scientific evidence against either.

LOL!

Sorry, Champ, but YOU don't know what a theory is!

A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon

A theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.

A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept.

Evolution is a hypothesis. It's NEVER been observed to occur. It doesn't qualify as a theory.

This is too much fun!

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Show your math

A meaningless reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you admit that you don't really know much about it, yet you assume that it's "well understood."

OK...

Well...It was once well understood that the earth was flat.

It is complex, you clearly to not understand it and yet you think that you can refute it. Didn't you complain about how I was gong against a PhD, who by the way was speculating on science that was not in his personal field of study, when I told you that Behe had been refuted? There are quite a few PhD's that understand the evolution of the blood clotting factor. I am not one of them, but I know that they exist and I know that they can support their claims. That is why I linked their work.

Knowing what you do not know and when it is time to ask experts is an important part of knowledge.

And no, Flat Earth believers never "understood". That is the problem. Creationists never "understand". They are not that much different from Flat Earthers.

 

[McBell]

A meaningless reply.

You made the claim.
Now either support it or have it dismissed as a bold faced lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL!

Sorry, Champ, but YOU don't know what a theory is!

A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon

A theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.

A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept.

Evolution is a hypothesis. It's NEVER been observed to occur. It doesn't qualify as a theory.

This is too much fun!

Hey! You can look up things! Wow.

But you keep demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of biology. Of course evolution has been observed. It has been observed directly in the lab. It has been observed directly in the field. I bet that you do not even know what evolution is. By the way, your hierarchy is a bit messed up. In the sciences there is nothing "above" a theory. It is as good as it gets. Evolution is an in depth explanation of the observed phenomenon of the diversity of life.

Once again, what school did you supposedly get your degree from? Anyone that graduated in biology would not make such grade school level errors:

Can you be specific in what observations that you think have not occurred? You probably do not even know how evolution is observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You made the claim.
Now either support it or have it dismissed as a bold faced lie.

He already exposed himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an abstract of how something could work according to one person/group's hypothesis.

It's NOT indicative of a factual event.

In addition, you didn't read it:

"although the jawless fish have genes for generating the thrombin-catalyzed conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, they lack several clotting factors, including two thought to be essential for the activation of thrombin in mammals."

So what does THAT prove???

Nothing, in terms of disproving irreducible complexity.

There is a link to the complete article. You can read all of if for free.

The article shows that Behe is wrong. The blood clotting cascade did not need to evolve all at once. That is what the article demonstrates. The particular example you quoted demonstrates one stage in the evolution of blood clotting. You do not even seem to understand Behe's argument. If you did you would see how that alone refutes it.

 

[Yerda]

Yes. I am acquainted with all of those things (Mitosis, Meiosis, DNA, RNA, replication, etc.) In fact, it's one of the reasons why I disbelieve evolution.

In my opinion, the assumption that a system as complex as DNA (and replication, etc.) could arrive due to a series of random mutations is simply not believable. DNA is a code. Codes are NOT random; they are designed.

I see. I'm not going to try and argue with you. I would like to ask some questions and also give you some impression of my perspective as someone who thinks evolution by natural selection is a good scientific theory.

So when I learned how DNA replicates I was struck by how complicated it is. In fact cell biology in general blew me away. So much going on.

Anyway, lets assume for the sake of argument that we don't know where DNA comes from. Maybe it's the outcome of natural chemical processes, maybe God did it. Would you agree that when DNA replicates the process is inherently mistake prone and that mutations are guaranteed to occur in such a system?

 

[Yerda]

Claims to have a background in biology. The claim of irreducible complexity is merely an argument from ignorance with all of the original examples being explained for. Irreducible complexity was Michael Behe's argument. His original claims have all been shown not to be irreducibly complex. What he did was to find unanswered in biology at the time and made claims about their possible evolution that were later shown to be wrong.

When someone claims to understand evolution and that they can refute it they usually demonstrate rather rapidly that they do not understand the science and that all they have are old recycle arguments at best.

For the purposes of this thread I'm quite content to take our new poster's word on his background.

One of the reasons I've been sidestepping arguments about evolution here and elsehwere is that I've heard it all before. People were posting about irreducible complexity when I joined this over a decade ago. If that's their take they can have it - I don't want to argue about it.

 

[McBell]

For the purposes of this thread I'm quite content to take our new poster's word on his background.

One of the reasons I've been sidestepping arguments about evolution here and elsehwere is that I've heard it all before. People were posting about irreducible complexity when I joined this over a decade ago. If that's their take they can have it - I don't want to argue about it.

Any time someone presents old outdated debunked and refuted out the backside "arguments" I tend to yawn and not bother.

Though I do love to ask them to present the math when they make math claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the purposes of this thread I'm quite content to take our new poster's word on his background.

One of the reasons I've been sidestepping arguments about evolution here and elsehwere is that I've heard it all before. People were posting about irreducible complexity when I joined this over a decade ago. If that's their take they can have it - I don't want to argue about it.

I do get a bit irritated when posters claim to have a specific level of education and then demonstrated almost immediately that they do not have any education at all. All that he was going to do was to repeat the same failed arguments from ten years ago.

I am sorry for ruining your fun so quickly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any time someone presents old outdated debunked and refuted out the backside "arguments" I tend to yawn and not bother.

Though I do love to ask them to present the math when they make math claims.

I love the standard response "You provide the math!"

I am not opposed to an honest debate, but one should never give themselves credentials that do not hold up:

I am a neurosurgeon and I will explain the benefits of eating Fruit Loops every day. I do not think that I would get away with that for very long.

 

[Yerda]

I do get a bit irritated when posters claim to have a specific level of education and then demonstrated almost immediately that they do not have any education at all. All that he was going to do was to repeat the same failed arguments from ten years ago.

I am sorry for ruining your fun so quickly.

Ach, it's the internet, innit?

 

[Polymath257]

Darwinian Evolution is - to put it bluntly - mathematically impossible. From a probability perspective, it's akin to eternally flipping a coin that eternally comes up "heads." To account for this problem, strict evolutionists keep tacking more and more zeros ("billions and billions of years") onto the evolutionary process to hopefully account for the time they think is needed for these changes (mutations) to occur.

So, yes...That would classify my view, although the description you provide of my perspective is somewhat simplistic.

Additionally, Darwinian Evolution cannot account for the irreducible complexity of highly complex organ systems.

You clearly are not taking into account natural selection.

I had a nice little demonstration. I had a computer randomly generate a sequence of 70 symbols with 90 possibilities in each place.

If you compare that to a 'target' string of 70 symbols, the probability you will get the correct sequence is vanishingly small. it would take longer than the age of the universe to randomly find such a string, even if you try millions of times per second.

BUT, if you generate 50 sequences and *select* the best 5, then randomly change *those*, and repeat, you will get to the target string is a few thousand 'generations'.

Too many people criticize evolution by looking only at the mutation side of things. But it is mutation *with natural selection* that is the real power of evolution. That is what allows near optimal solutions to problems involving survival.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry, but you reveal your own ignorance when you attempt to explain away a learned PhD's theory about irreducible complexity simply by saying it doesn't work.

Point-of-fact, none of Behe's claims have been scientifically refuted; this is something that evolutionists repeat, ad nauseum, and hope no one notices.

Again...Please cite where Behe's claims have been PROVEN wrong.

Actually, even Behe admitted he had no real examples.