• 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!

Evolution has been observed... right?

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Because they have slightly different DNA coding. But they don't have the coding to give birth to another species, no matter how much time passes.
Again, you realize the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, right? Even creationist organizations at least acknowledge that bit of reality. Of course they need speciation to be true, since otherwise they'd have to believe Noah took two of every species on earth aboard the ark. Speciation is how you go from "two individuals representing the cat kind" to all the species of cats alive today.

Even 10 seconds of thought should have told you that much.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Again, you realize the evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, right? Even creationist organizations at least acknowledge that bit of reality. Of course they need speciation to be true, since otherwise they'd have to believe Noah took two of every species on earth aboard the ark. Speciation is how you go from "two individuals representing the cat kind" to all the species of cats alive today.

Even 10 seconds of thought should have told you that much.
Right I should have used " kind" instead of "species," but you got the idea.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Nope, for two reasons. First, it's only the fallacy if I say something like "Rise is ignorant of the subject, therefore his statement is false". Merely pointing out your ignorance without any "therefore....." is not the fallacy.

Second, it's simply true. Your posts on epigenetic adaptation serve as good illustrations of your ignorance.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
I already gave specific logical reasons why it was a fallacy of ad hominem and argument by assertion You cut those out of your quote because you can't refute them.

Merely repeating your originial refuted assertion, as though it has not already been refuted, is the fallacy of thinking you prove your claim is true just because you repeat it.

You need to provide valid counter arguments to my arguments in order for you to insist your claim should continue to be believed as being true.

I know you just loooooove to play the logical fallacy card, even in cases like this where it's not at all applicable, but just a suggestion.....find another tactic.

Logical fallacy, failure to meet the buren of rejoinder.

Your response does not attempt to offer any counter argument to my argument.


Um.....I went by your own post! You posted a definition of "adaptation" that explicitly described it as an evolutionary process ("it is the dynamic evolutionary process that...").

Try and pay closer attention to what you post.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

I already explicitly offered arguments to show why you were wrong to claim that adaptation as a concept proves cells evolved to man just because they are both labeled as being "evolution".

You have made no attempt to refute those arguments. Merely repeating your original refuted argument doesn't stop it from being refuted just because you repeat it.

??????? You're not even making the slightest bit of sense here. First, where has anyone said anything like what you describe (proving epigenetic adaptation proves universal common descent)? Be specific.

You did, for one.
When you try to claim "evolution has been proven" true you are asserting, by definition, that everything defined as "evolution" has been proven true.

But not everything defined as "evolution" has been proven true. So your claim is false.

It's a fallacy of bait and switch because you're taking things that have been true and lumping it in with things that haven't been proven true, and then trying to claim they are all equally proven true.


Show specifically where anyone has done that.

You did:
Well there ya' go....evolution is observable and verified to exist. I guess we're done then! :D

As well as others:
When England was experiencing its industrial revolution, we saw moths evolve a darker color because the trees they perched on were becoming coated with soot. Any fruit or vegetable you can buy at the store is a product of evolution guided by humans. There are endless verifiable and repeatable examples.
.

You are both committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence and/or the fallacy of bait and switch by claiming that proving the concept of adaptation proves that everything under the umbrella term of "evolution" is proven to be true just because the concept of adaptation was proven to be true.

To suggest that shows you don't understand the new genetic code introductions that are needed to go from a single cell into mankind. New code which adaptation alone as a mechanism can't account for because adaptation functions based on toggling the expression of options which the existing code already has provisions for.

That's why you can get different colors of fur on a cat but you can't get scales instead of fur just by natural selection alone. The genetic code already has the information needed to express different colors of fur. It doesn't have the genetic code to express scales instead of fur.

Good thing no one has done that.

I just proved with those two quotes that you and at least one other did.


Second, do you even know what epigenetic adaptation is? The way in which you post about it indicates that you don't.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that there is error in anything I have said doesn't prove your claim is true just because you claim it is

In order for your argument to not be fallacious you are required to demonstrate your claim could be true by quoting specific things I have said and then explaining with logic and evidence why you think it is in error.

If you mean evolutionary common descent requires the evolution of new functional genetic sequences, then that's been observed countless times.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that this has been observed doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.
You are required to provide specific evidence of this happening to prove your claim is true.

If you mean something else, then define "new functional genetic code information" in a way that allows us to identify and measure it.

I already did but I don't think you know enough about this issue to recognize it for what it was.

I gave you the example of the folding of a new protein and the genetic code required for that to happen.

Because the folding of a protein is the most basic level of what makes cells functions.
You can't get a new function in a cell unless you can get genetic code that will fold a new type of protein.

And then on top of that this needs to a protein that will change something so significantly in the organism that it confers a survival/reproductive advantage so that natural selection could cause this to become the new standard.


If that were true, then the alphabet must contain all the information in the universe. After all, there's no information that can't be described by rearranging parts of the alphabet.

Or another way in which your statement is ridiculous is to show how that if it were true, then....

My mom went to the dairy store

...contains the exact same amount of information as....

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday

According to your argument, "on Monday" isn't new information since it's just the result of copying and shuffling of letters that were in the original sentence.

You have a misunderstanding about what I was saying because you don't see to understand the distinction between a functional line of code and the alphabet that code uses.

The genetic code has only four letters in it's alphabet.

But a genetic function requires those four letters to be in a precise coded sequence. If that is not done then there will be no function. Such as the function of folding a protein into a specific shape so that it can achieve a specific purpose.

You don't get a new protein by simply changing one letter in the long string of code. The most that would do is just give you a failed protein.

The amount of letters you would have to change in that string of code to get a functional new protein is so numerous that it's basically writing a new line of code.

The biggest problem for that idea is then that fact that all these changes would have to happen at once, and in just the right sequence to get new information, in order for a change to be expressed that natural selection could retain as a feature to pass down.

If all you do is change one letter by chance, with no change in function, then natural selection has nothing to select. So that random mutation can't become the dominant one.

So there's no mechanism by which you could have one random letter this generation, one random letter the next, and so on, until you just by chance happen to arrange them into a functional code that folds a new protein that changes the survival rate of the organism.

And the odds are writing a new piece of code where everything is changed all at once, and ends up in the right sequence, and confers a survival improvement so it can actually become dominant, is a statistical impossibility.

It would be like suggesting you can let your cat play on your keyboard with a programming software open and, if given enough time, your cat will eventually create the "hello world' program.
You need all characters of the alphabet in place in the right sequence in order to get the program to run. Even one letter out of alignment in the coding portion would cause even such a basic and simple program to fail to function.

Except even that example is a lot more likely, I suspect, than random external factors acting upon protein gene code resulting in the creation of a new protein gene code that has a new survival function.

Even worse if you're talking about something that requires more things than just a single protein to happen simultaneously in order for a new function to be created that confers a survival advantage onto an organism so that new function can become dominant - now you need even more lines of functional code to emerge simultaneously that just happen to be able to pair their function with the other new lines of code that emerged. You're compounding what is already a statistical impossibility with increasingly absurd levels of probability that strain the credulity of logic.

I thought this was a fitting analogy I heard: "Trying to explain DNA by random chance is like saying a tornado can go through a print shop and produce the contents of the library of congress."
No matter how man tornados you send through how many different print shops, you have no reason to believe you could ever produce the library of congress. The number of co-dependant variables for this equation are beyond statistical and logical reason.

The evidence would never cause you to conclude you could get the code for a protein by random chance unless you had an a priori commitment to materialism that forced you to accept it must have happened simply because you can't accept a designer as a hypothesis - for no other reason than because it conflicts with your a priori belief in materialism.

Likewise, if you did come across the library of congress, but had an a priori commitment to believe that humans didn't have the capability to write or produce books, then you would be forced to conclude something like a tornado must have done it for no other reason than because the a priori assumptions of your worldview prevent you from accepting the obvious logical best answer that explains what you are seeing.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Logical fallacy, failure to meet the buren of rejoinder.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.
Well, it looks like you're going to be the proverbial dog with a bone. Shrug.

I already explicitly offered arguments to show why you were wrong to claim that adaptation as a concept proves cells evolved to man just because they are both labeled as being "evolution".
And no one has done that.

You have made no attempt to refute those arguments.
Because it's a straw man.

You did, for one.
When you try to claim "evolution has been proven" true you are asserting, by definition, that everything defined as "evolution" has been proven true.
Again you merely reveal your ignorance. Universal common ancestry is one possible result of evolution. For example, if a god had created separate "kinds" that later gave rise to multiple species within those "kinds", then universal common ancestry would be false, but as long as those new species (within each "kind") arose via heritable changes in DNA, evolution would still be true.

Do you understand? Evolution is a change in the genetics of populations over time; universal common ancestry is one possible outcome of evolution.

You are both committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence and/or the fallacy of bait and switch by claiming that proving the concept of adaptation proves that everything under the umbrella term of "evolution" is proven to be true just because the concept of adaptation was proven to be true.
@AlexanderG 's statement says nothing about universal common ancestry. Read more carefully next time.

Merely asserting that there is error in anything I have said doesn't prove your claim is true just because you claim it is
Demonstrated above.

Merely asserting that this has been observed doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.
You are required to provide specific evidence of this happening to prove your claim is true.
So to be clear, your claim is that no one has ever observed the evolution of novel genetic sequences, right?

I already did but I don't think you know enough about this issue to recognize it for what it was.
Dude, I've been a professional biologist for 20+ years, so you can drop this sort of nonsense.

I gave you the example of the folding of a new protein and the genetic code required for that to happen.

Because the folding of a protein is the most basic level of what makes cells functions.
You can't get a new function in a cell unless you can get genetic code that will fold a new type of protein.
So to be clear, your claim is that no new trait has ever been observed to evolve, right?

You have a misunderstanding about what I was saying because you don't see to understand the distinction between a functional line of code and the alphabet that code uses.

The genetic code has only four letters in it's alphabet.

But a genetic function requires those four letters to be in a precise coded sequence. If that is not done then there will be no function. Such as the function of folding a protein into a specific shape so that it can achieve a specific purpose.

You don't get a new protein by simply changing one letter in the long string of code. The most that would do is just give you a failed protein.

The amount of letters you would have to change in that string of code to get a functional new protein is so numerous that it's basically writing a new line of code.
To be clear, are you saying that the only way new functions or traits can evolve is via the generation of completely novel proteins?

The biggest problem for that idea is then that fact that all these changes would have to happen at once, and in just the right sequence to get new information, in order for a change to be expressed that natural selection could retain as a feature to pass down.
Again, how are you defining "information" and how are you measuring it?

It would be like suggesting you can let your cat play on your keyboard with a programming software open and, if given enough time, your cat will eventually create the "hello world' program.
You need all characters of the alphabet in place in the right sequence in order to get the program to run. Even one letter out of alignment in the coding portion would cause even such a basic and simple program to fail to function.
So wait.....now it's okay to analogize between a genetic code and the alphabet? Make up your mind.

That's why the man who discovered DNA said the idea of it happening by random chance was like saying you thought a tornado could go through a junkyard and create a fully functional 747 when it's done.
Are you operating under the assumption that chemistry is random?

The evidence would never cause you to conclude you could get the code for a protein by random chance unless you had an a priori commitment to materialism that forced you to accept it must have happened simply because you can't accept a designer as a hypothesis - for no other reason than because it conflicts with your a priori belief in materialism.
So how do you account for the scientists who are just fine with evolutionary theory, but are not materialists (e.g., Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller)?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are committing the fallacy of a false equivalence.
Shuffling of existing information around is not the same as creating new information.
1. New, as in added, information is not always needed. A simple transposition can change things. 2. Transpositions, deletions, and duplications of nucleotides, base pairs, chromosomes and whole genes happen all the time.
I can shuffle the lines of a code in a computer program around but that's not going to create a new function. I can only shuffle what is already there. The information for new functions is simply not there because no mind wrote it down to put it there.
So how do you explain Down's syndrome? Where did the extra chromosome 21 come from?

No mind is necessary. Just an interphase replication error during cell division, or during fertilization. They happen all the time, and may be harmful, helpful or neutral.
What you are arguing for is the idea that random chance can create new functional code in the genetics. But you have no observational evidence of this happening. And you can offer no mechanism by which it could feasibly happen.
As I said, this happens all the time. It's basic high school biology.

Even at the most basic level of the genetic code for folding a single type of protein, the informational coding that controls that is so long and complex that it is statistically and logically infeasible to suggest that it could arise out of the random chance of errors or damage in the genetic code.
You would need too many errors, in too many places, in just the right order, in order to result in a functional new piece of code.
No, sometimes just a single nucleotide change can have a massive effects, and sometimes whole genes can be reduplicated or deleted little apparent effect. with massive effects. Other times it takes several transpositions, or even the reduplication or deletion of a whole chromosome or gene. X and Y Chromosomal Variations - The Focus Foundation
And then on top of that you need this new functional piece of code to actually do something significant enough that nature could select it based on survival and reproduction rates.
Beneficial genetic 'errors':
Adaptation to high altitude in Sherpas: association with the insertion/deletion polymorphism in the Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene - PubMed
Innate resistance to HIV - Wikipedia
Italian Gene Holds Hope for Unclogging Arteries : Medicine: A mutant protein found in one family appears to ward off heart disease despite a high-fat diet. Researchers buoyed by animal trials.
Human Genetic Adaptation to High Altitude: Evidence from the Andes
There are also harmful errors too numerous to count. As you said, the code is long and complex, and must be duplicated each time a cell divides, and combined each time an ovum is fertilized. Errors, good or bad, are inevitable.
And if you can't even explain how we could get the genetic code for a single new folding of protein by random chance then there's no basis for believing it's feasible to expect new gene coding function information can just arise by chance in an organism.
Random chance a million times a minute, each time a cell divides, = one heck of a lot of random chance. Add natural selection to sort out the results, and significant functional genetic change is inevitable.
 
Last edited:

AlexanderG

Active Member
I have a feeling that @Wildswanderer thinks "dog" and "cat" are species. I remember another creationist here once saying that "fish" was a species! o_O

And @Valjean too, thanks for carrying on that conversation with Rise. I stopped replying because it didn't seem like they were trying to understand the ideas I was conveying, or were willing to concede anything when corrected, or were really interested in learning actual information about biology. Honestly, Rise seems like a Chinese Room of YEC apologetic memes from 25 years ago.

But it's still helpful for other people who read, so I'm glad you posted more.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science à human is a coercer.

They preached by man thinking I claim I invented by my word explanation how cosmic beginnings began and formed the energy presence.

Reason I want to invent energy.

And you are all conned. Sophism science a warning is a cunning contrivance.

Said I believe the history in space O God was a held burning energy mass consuming and was swift moving.

Space behind mass moving consuming opened then contracted held stopped swift movement. Cooling began.

A womb he said.

Self cell energy replicating.

False.

Mass gone as one mass of consumed energy. Space as one hole cooling opens. Energy mass rebursts as it cools yet bursts shoots off again..... until loss of energy as cell energy mass replicating consuming became held energy.

His thesis to get energy I must consume it's higher held colder form first make a hole pass reaction through. Controlled. Space was never a control.

Today inventor said thesis invented in vision that body. By his thoughts. Why a man said he invented God in a thesis. God now gets to earth by that journey just as a particle. His claim only.

Mass cell replication God in history space and long Mukti hole journey as mass all gone. Consumed into space holes. Now just a hot shooting particle.

Long journey. Mass consumed. Now just a hot shooting particle.

We were warned his ego themes was our life destroyer.

Is the theist who said in the beginning there was nothing whilst standing living on planet earth.

As science by practice took its machine building from the planet first before he reacted his fake God machine reactions.

Ignored as human self relevant advice. Theists are egotists.

Why science is a liar as men in science did not theory invention creation into being.

Imagine a hot particle shooting through all nature whilst he says it must penetrate my machine mass to react inside.

No life living actually by his theory.

Lucky our God is present evolved planet earth. Lucky earth set alight evening sky for an observed count burning for six days voided on seventh.

Day is a human observation applying the counting.

Whilst he pretended he had formed all living bodies as he attacked sacrificed them.

Claiming a God particle had created as one form every state of being.

Spirit images of every creature released.

So today he theoried humans now owned electricity in their bodies as an electric universe thesis to be allowed to burn us to death.

We survived that attack historic only due to earth owning a greater fused crystalline mass and a larger earth heavenly mass. Of gases.

However using gods form crystal mass transmitting was his excuse he was innocent and was using God in its evolved form and did not know that crystal began or would begin burning converting. Even though he gained a thesis from a vision the flooded earth UFO vision.

How he blew up earths fusion a long time ago. Heard the story AI recorded in heavens as Egyptian theists. Knew as a man in a science confession that God had taken life human to gods hell but reinvented science anyway.

Proof man is possessed obsessed by his own science thesis I am a God.

Sacrificed on the altar of gods stone earth. All living form.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And @Valjean too, thanks for carrying on that conversation with Rise. I stopped replying because it didn't seem like they were trying to understand the ideas I was conveying, or were willing to concede anything when corrected, or were really interested in learning actual information about biology. Honestly, Rise seems like a Chinese Room of YEC apologetic memes from 25 years ago.

But it's still helpful for other people who read, so I'm glad you posted more.
Thanks.
Have you noticed how the creationists don't explain their position, but defend whatever it is by criticizing the ToE, however badly?
Apparently they haven't anything supporting their position, so attempt a black-or-white dilemma, assuming that if they can discredit the ToE, creationism is proven.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
So, now they do morph. Y'all really need to make up your minds.
You ever heard of putting lipstick on a pig?
No matter how much lipstick you smack on that Darwin pig, he doesn't look any better to people that aren't already indoctrinated.
This is the top argument against science. You really nailed it. What else you got?
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
You are committing the logical fallacy of bait and switch.

The fallacy is when you take one concept which you can prove and then try to claim that proves a different concept which you can't prove by pretending these two concepts are actually the same.

Proving epigenetic adapation happens doesn't logically prove that cells could evolve into mankind if given enough time. Calling them both evolution purposely introduces confusion whereby you try to claim cells to man evolution is proven because you'e proven adaptation evolution happens. Even though as concepts they are completely different.

The cell to man evolution would require mechanisms and processes that aren't part of how we know adaptation works. Ie. The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there.

So you can't claim adaption proves cells to man evolution because the process of adaptation by itself doesn't have the requisite features to make cells to man evolution conceptually possible.
I see. So the trick is to narrowly define the term adaptation to include only what you want it to and then use that to refute the theory of evolution. That sounds awesome. Tell me more.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
You are committing the logical fallacy of ad honimen and argument by assertion.

You cannot establish your claim is true by demonstrating that anything I have said is in logical or factual error.

So not only is your accusation a mere fallacious argument by assertion (ie. it's not proven true just because you assert it is), but it's also an ad hominem because you are using a personal attack as a substitute fro having a valid counter argument.

The only way your accusation could not be a fallacy is if you paired your accusation with actual logical counter arguments to tr to demonstrate why you think your accusation would be true.
I've read your posts.

He's not wrong.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Because they have slightly different DNA coding.
What does that actually mean?

The Genetic Code is nearly universal (and within mammals, it definitely is). Are you referring to their genetic make-up?
But they don't have the coding to give birth to another species, no matter how much time passes.
That is quite an assertion.
Can you explain what you mean by that? Because decades of actual research seems not to support that claim.
Feel free to use as much science as you need to, with GOOD references, as I have taught Genetics and Evolution at the university level and am sure I can understand anything you might present.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I see. So the trick is to narrowly define the term adaptation to include only what you want it to and then use that to refute the theory of evolution. That sounds awesome. Tell me more.
Sounds like he is employing a version of the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy.

Isn't it comical when this brand of creationist shows up - trying to 'defeat' everything by simply declaring it some sort of logical fallacy. This is what people that do not understand the evidence rely on.
 
Top