I have probably looked at it longer than you have. Looking at is is why I reject it. You don't look at it. You just accept by faith alone what ever some evo scientist says. Evidently you don't know enough real science to evaluate what is being offered as science.
-
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!
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
I have probably looked at it longer than you have. Looking at is is why I reject it. You don't look at it. You just accept by faith alone what ever some evo scientist says. Evidently you don't know enough real science to evaluate what is being offered as science.
You stated that I "admitted that I can't prove that mutation can change species." This is false. False accusation is false accusation, I'm sorry to have to tell you. If I have not admitted to something, and you say that I have, you are levelling a false accusation. (Or maybe you'd prefer now to call it "a typo?") And I do understand that the Jesus of the Gospels would not have thought making false accusations against others is a particularly good way to go about loving them.
I actually linked you to a piece of peer-reviewed science, which of course you did not look at. You yourself have said that you won't, and so of course that is what I expected. But because of that, I now get to state with complete honesty that it is YOU who do not understand even basic genetics -- and have demonstrated that to be the case in post after post.
Here's a little heads-up: Francis Collins is a geneticist, and was also the Leader of the Human Genome Project. He is also, just as an aside, a Christian believer. One might at least suspect that he had some tiny smattering of knowledge about genetics -- possibly even as much (or, GASP! more!) as you. And Francis Collins accepts evolution completely because -- even as a Christian -- that is what the science tells him.
Now, I am here to state, quite truthfully and non-disparagingly, that you're science knowledge simply isn't up to what you've set out to "prove." And the very fact of what you accuse me of -- not being able to demonstrate a change in species due to gene mutation -- shows absolutely without question that you do not even understand what the Theory of Evolution actually is about -- even as you attempt to debunk it. In fact, your suggested "proof" would actually be a (putative) proof of some other theory, which is not evolution. And the fact is, I don't accept such a theory, and thus also know full well that I can't prove it.
If you actually understood what ToE said and means, you might have the beginnings of a way to learn more. But at this time, you do not. And as a consequence, I'm not prepared to try to teach you. You have too many basics to learn, first. (In exactly the same way, I would not attempt to teach a grade school student calculus, if he hasn't yet mastered the basics of arithmetic. It would be fair neither to him nor to me.)
McBell
Unbound
Interesting that you state flat out you will not follow links, but then claim to have looked at more evidence...
I am sure there is a word that describes the conflict in those two claims...
Let me think...
What could that word be...?
I'm actually beginning to find you quite rude in continuing to slag me and others about not knowing "basic genetics." I just provided you with the name of one world-renowned, Christian geneticist who does (Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project). If you would look up "evolutionary genetics," you would find that virtually every university in the world teaches such a topic.
I understand that you may not have had the opportunity to attend one of those courses. Lots of people have not. But most people are willing to admit that simply not knowing about something does NOT mean it isn't true. You may not know where Punkeydoodles Corners is (about 50 miles from where I live), but just because you don't know it does not mean that it does not exist. Your level of knowledge is not exactly the standard gauge for "all that is true."
Rather than slagging others as you do, you might try a little humility -- followed by a little study. Learning isn't really painful, and often quite enjoyable and rewarding.
Last edited:
In fact, I would strongly advise everybody else on this debate who you accuse of not knowing "basic genetics" to insist that you disclose where you were so well-trained in that topic, and what degrees you possess that allow you to so disparage others, before they ever bother to respond to you again.
In fact, I make that demand myself, and won't respond to you again until you reply intelligibly.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That's why I stopped wasting time with Omega. A person who refuses to look at anything from a scientific source, and then goes on to declare that no one has shown them any evidence to back up a scientific position just isn't worth bothering with.
gnostic
The Lost One
If that's true then why did you even include what you wrote in the last line?
So what did Jesus say about mutations and changes to species that are wrong?
I hardly think Jesus even understand what genetics.
So how does your two paragraphs link to each other? And what does Evangelisthumanist don't understand about Jesus?
If you say you have evidence and don't present it, IMO, that is indirectly saying you have none. However, since you considered it evidence, I will retract my statement.
Every time someone give me a link, I tell them I have quite reading links because they NEVER provide the evidence to support what they say. Then I always challenge them to cut and past the evidence their link provided. To date none has done so. So I have to assume some did go back and after reading the evidence, it suddenly dawned on them it was not even evidence, let alone scientific. You can put an end to this today. Go to your link, cut and paste what it offered as evidence and show it to all of us.
Wonderful. cut and paste what he says about mutations being a mechnism for a change of species.
Give me a break. The TOE is not rocket surgery. I went to public schools, including college. They all preached evolution as a a proven fact. Since becoming a Christian I have looked at both sides of the coin and I find that what the creation scientist say is based on real science and what the evolutionist scientist say is not.
This is the bolony I always get- If you reject evolution, it is because you don't understand. I understand that time and the environment will not change the laws of genetics. Something you don't know. I know that genetics will not allow what evolution says was the first life form to evolve into something it was not. Pleas don't bother telling me that is not about evolution, because you don't even know that at one time it was.
I know that life can't originated from lifeless elements. You have to believe it can, and that by faith alone. I know that no land animal with no gene for fins or a blowhole, will ever have a kid with fins and a blowhole. I know that even basic evolution does not teach that a land animal surviving quite well on land would need to evolve into something where its survival would be in jeopardy.
I know that genetics will not allow such a thing, and that is more than you know, because you accept without question what ever the evo preach. So again I will challenge you to cut and past the evidence your link provided or admit it was not really evidence.
Read what I actually sis---I NO LONGER read links, because the NEVER offer any real SCIENTIFIC evidence.
It is not one word you need it is 4: there is no conflict.
The only conflict is that you post a link but will not go back and cut and paste the evidence they offered. Then the conflict becomes is what they say really scientific evidence which causes great conflict in what your religious doctrines preach and what is really evidence.
That makes me think of 2 words, which I am sure a bright guy like you can figure out.
I do not find any humility by you saying I don't understand evolution, when I am probably as educated as you are.
Again you mention someone who is an expert in genetics but don't provide anything he said to make your point. Again you are not willing to cut and post the evidence you say your link provided. Until you do that your credibility is zero. Maye it is you who needs to do some study on what genetics really teach. It will be helpful to study what creationisits say about whale evolution and about genetics. Sorry, but it will prove painful, if you really understand science, but it will also be rewarding.
Until you are willing to cut and past what you think is evidence in your link on mutations, therr is no logic in continuing this discussion. When it comes to insults instead of discussion, it becomes pointless.
@omega2xx, what is your background in evolutionary biology? Is it primarily solitary study? Which sources do you look to?
Personally I am educated formally in this area at a tertiary level, in addition to which I have read extensively from scientific journals, articles and so forth on the subject, in addition having read on the various religious views on the subject.
Personally I am educated formally in this area at a tertiary level, in addition to which I have read extensively from scientific journals, articles and so forth on the subject, in addition having read on the various religious views on the subject.
Basically my background is the same as most in this forum---solitary study. I also use sources like ICR and Answers in Genesis. It is really only necessary to understand a few basics. For example, genes control the characteristic the offspring will get--no gene for bones, not kid with bones.
Do you really evaluate scientifically what is presented as evidence in what you read?
Time and environment will not change the laws of genetics. Evolutionist rely heavily on mutations and natural selection as mechanisms for a change of species, but they have to rely one time and the environment to try and make their case. and they cannot provide the HOW this can happen.
Even if natural selection was true, it might contribute to the species continuing, but it will never result in the rabbit with the stronger legs becoming anything other than another rabbit and the gene pool may not even pass on the stronger legs to the next generation. Actually there is no gene for stronger legs, only for legs.
Mutations do not add information, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mutation.
We all know the great number of mutations are harmful. So those who use mutations as a mechanism for a change of species, are putting their money on a sick horse.
Roughly, yeah.
Yeah.
There are five forces involved in biological evolution. Mutation, natural selection, migration, non-random mating and genetic drift. These all result in a shift in allele frequencies, which is what evolution is.
What do you mean that the "evolutionists" can't prove that populations change over time? In what sense do you mean this?
Actually there is no gene for legs. There is a diverse plethora of genes, many of them involved in developmental regulation, which are involved in coding for a leg. Differences in relative bodily proportions or denser muscle masses are quite readily brought about through adjustment of genes involved in regulation, primarily homeobox genes.
Species are a human construct anyway, there are around 40 definitions of a species now. It's just useful for us to talk about lifeforms that way, but don't mistake the map for the terrain.
How do you mean they do not add information? Wouldn't you say gene duplication and divergence is an increase in information?
Yeah, most mutations aren't beneficial, sure. But it's the beneficial ones that are selected for through environmental pressures.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
how many turned into humans, or any other species for that matter?
You may have more programming experience and expertise than I do, but I have a fair bit, in commercial applications as well as some gaming. We assign fitness functions, and the algorithm calculates the most efficient way to satisfy that fitness function. Dawkins quotes a program for designing efficient spider webs as an analogy for evolution... again the program is set a specific task, given specific parameters to adjust- and will perform that task, no more no less, it will give you nothing that was not specifically set as a goal in the first place.
Dawkins is not without his naive charm, but life, DNA, operates on complex (dare I use the word) information systems, as does the whole crux of the question today, like many biologists he is way out of his depth in this key area.
It may seem so intuitively, but that's really an anthropomorphic bias:
As humans we can identify a .01% advantage in a design, an airline operater might well preserve this for a later accumulated savings in fuel. This decision requires forethought, purpose, desire, things found only in a conscious mind
Natural selection cannot make these forward looking decisions- and you'd have to argue this with Dawkins and Darwin if you disagree! it has no way to specifically preserve and save up insignificantly beneficial mutations for rainy days. Not only that, we could grant a raccoon a whopping 50% advantage in it's gestation period, and it's just as likely to get run over by a semi before reaching sexual maturity as the rest, so nature is at a huge disadvantage here
ha ha, try replicating a particular random pile of bricks, versus a brick wall with a simple design and you will soon find out which is the more complicated task. But again we are getting into semantic weeds. The point is that if we see a brick wall next to a pile of the same number. Most of us don't have much trouble figuring out which is random and which was designed-
as 'HELP' in rocks on the deserted island, waves or intelligent agent?
And I don't take advice from a group who can't spell 'center' correctly!
Okay, and if I cite the 2nd law I'll be sure to cut and paste the same blurb.
In the meantime
Entropy
2 lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse;
We've all seen a document that someone kept photocopying from the last generation, it's still functional, but it slowly deteriorates with entropy. when it comes time to regenerate them, sure you might select the 'fittest' of that generation to reproduce for the next generation, but this in no way denotes a fittER new generation (although perhaps someone at the complexity science campus would disagree!)
But if they were organized, they kept a master to copy from, and if after 100 million re-issues of the memo- it's still as fresh as the first, you know the copy is derived from that independent master
On the off-chance you're not just making a joke about non-American spelling systems, I'm gonna point out that this is not a mis-spelling.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
If you're a Frenchman maybe..
I was born in Wales.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Ah, well in that case I can understand the trouble with spelling, it's probably genetic!
