• 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 Vs. Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
theres no use argueing with gloom i mean gloone

hes just making noise, just to do so because he has nothing intellegent to add
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Gloone said:
Well I am still disappointed with ToE. I thought there was more to it. What a let down.
Click to expand...

It is simple. Only the uneducated make it complicated due to their lack of understanding.

It hurts the brain of people such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind to admit evolution is factual instead they use proper terms such as (adapt, adaptation, mutation, beneficial). They do all they can do to keep themselves from using the word evolution considering they're actually agreeing with evidence.

Case in point is the (Abstract) from a portion of the website explaining basically the understanding of evolution in regards to bacteria.

A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria - Answers in Genesis
Mutations alter the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. They may affect the organism’s phenotype, which can play a key role in bacterial adaptation and transformation to changing environments. Some of these mutations even appear to be beneficial to the organism. However, creationists have tended to offer an inconsistent or incomplete perspective of “beneficial mutations” within a creation framework. This includes the frequent denial that mutations can ever provide a beneficial phenotype, and the concept that “beneficial mutations” are merely an evolutionist exaggeration.
In bacteria, a wide range of mutations can be shown to provide a beneficial phenotype to the cell. These benefits are often of sufficient phenotypic affect that they can undergo strong positive selection. But the benefits are generally temporary and limited. Some common examples of beneficial mutations are those involved in bacterial antibiotic resistance. These mutations potentially enable the bacterium to survive exposure to various antibiotics, but the resistance results from loss or reduction of pre-existing activities such as enzymatic, regulatory, or transport systems. Bacteria also can undergo adaptive mutation; a phenomenon used by bacteria to survive very specific stressful conditions. The exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment but at a mutation rate higher than random mutations would produce. Various mutations have also been found that enable bacteria to survive temporary exposure to high temperatures or starvation. Such mutations usually involve loss of certain sigma factors, reduction of DNA repair, or loss of specific regulatory controls. Other examples include several subpopulations of mutant strains of bacteria obtained over a period of up to 20,000 generations. These mutants have a greater “fitness” than the wild-type strain. However, analysis showed that most contained deletion mutations in various genes.


I think you get the point. There's even more there but I decided not to take up too much space posting which is why I provided their link. This understanding fits evolution but they go through great lengths to not say it but attempt to deny it. It sounds like double talk really.
 
Last edited:
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Gloone said:
Artificial selection was around way before Darwin. Why everyone is so blown away by animal breeding is really strange.
Click to expand...
Of course it was; that's a big piece of how Darwin figured out natural selection; by carefully observing artificial selection.

Here's the thing, Gloone. You know next to nothing about this subject. You can't defeat knowledge with ignorance. The only way to prevail is to actually understand what you're talking about. So I repeat my offer; do you want to learn about ToE, or do you prefer to remain ignorant and confused?

Oh, and plants are living things.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Gloone said:
Well I am still disappointed with ToE. I thought there was more to it. What a let down.
Click to expand...

1. You don't know what it is yet.
2. It's only one of the biggest advances of human knowledge of the natural world in history, and the foundational theory of modern Biology. Other than that, true, no big deal.
 
Gloone

Gloone

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
It is simple. Only the uneducated make it complicated due to their lack of understanding.

It hurts the brain of people such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind to admit evolution is factual instead they use proper terms such as (adapt, adaptation, mutation, beneficial). They do all they can do to keep themselves from using the word evolution considering they're actually agreeing with evidence.

Case in point is the (Abstract) from a portion of the website explaining basically the understanding of evolution in regards to bacteria.

A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria - Answers in Genesis
Mutations alter the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. They may affect the organism’s phenotype, which can play a key role in bacterial adaptation and transformation to changing environments. Some of these mutations even appear to be beneficial to the organism. However, creationists have tended to offer an inconsistent or incomplete perspective of “beneficial mutations” within a creation framework. This includes the frequent denial that mutations can ever provide a beneficial phenotype, and the concept that “beneficial mutations” are merely an evolutionist exaggeration.
In bacteria, a wide range of mutations can be shown to provide a beneficial phenotype to the cell. These benefits are often of sufficient phenotypic affect that they can undergo strong positive selection. But the benefits are generally temporary and limited. Some common examples of beneficial mutations are those involved in bacterial antibiotic resistance. These mutations potentially enable the bacterium to survive exposure to various antibiotics, but the resistance results from loss or reduction of pre-existing activities such as enzymatic, regulatory, or transport systems. Bacteria also can undergo adaptive mutation; a phenomenon used by bacteria to survive very specific stressful conditions. The exact mechanism is controversial because some results suggest a directed mutation specifically enabling adaptation to the environment but at a mutation rate higher than random mutations would produce. Various mutations have also been found that enable bacteria to survive temporary exposure to high temperatures or starvation. Such mutations usually involve loss of certain sigma factors, reduction of DNA repair, or loss of specific regulatory controls. Other examples include several subpopulations of mutant strains of bacteria obtained over a period of up to 20,000 generations. These mutants have a greater “fitness” than the wild-type strain. However, analysis showed that most contained deletion mutations in various genes.


I think you get the point. There's even more there but I decided not to take up too much space posting which is why I provided their link. This understanding fits evolution but they go through great lengths to not say it but attempt to deny it. It sounds like double talk really.
Click to expand...
There is no argument over whether bacteria can be beneficial or not. The same bacteria they use to GE crops can also be the same bacterium that burns holes in the ozone. The argument is whether or not you consider bacteria to have evolved just because a strain is present that allows live longer. I could play a word game all day long and say, “well no, those are just hyperactive bacteria and wouldn’t be like that if someone didn’t feed them molecules to send them on a feeding frenzy.” But the problem is, there are a lot of factors you have to look at in the theory of evolution before you go jumping to conclusions and call it evolution. Just because you say “oh it mutated, that is evolution” doesn’t mean it is evolution. Also note the very first sentence of this wiki article, it might do you some good to read. That has been said to me a lot, but it seems like a lot of people have been having that problem themselves. “Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium.” Is says nothing about it being a new bacteria.If you want to know what Flavobacterium actually is then just follow the link. Now if you still wonder why creationists don't call it evolution, then you know why.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Gloone said:
There is no argument over whether bacteria can be beneficial or not. The same bacteria they use to GE crops can also be the same bacterium that burns holes in the ozone.
Click to expand...
Holes in the ozone?

The argument is whether or not you consider bacteria to have evolved just because a strain is present that allows live longer. I could play a word game all day long and say, “well no, those are just hyperactive bacteria and wouldn’t be like that if someone didn’t feed them molecules to send them on a feeding frenzy.” But the problem is, there are a lot of factors you have to look at in the theory of evolution before you go jumping to conclusions and call it evolution.
Click to expand...
no... just one: "Change in allele frequencies over time". The change in genetic expression in a population over generations.


Just because you say “oh it mutated, that is evolution” doesn’t mean it is evolution.
Click to expand...
only if you keep changing your definition of evolution. This is unfortunately a common tactic by some people. They start with "evolution can't happen" then when they are shown the boring definition of evolution can be seen, they change it to "mutations can't be beneficial, therefore evolution can't happen"... when that is shown, they change again...

Also note the very first sentence of this wiki article, it might do you some good to read. That has been said to me a lot, but it seems like a lot of people have been having that problem themselves. “Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium.” Is says nothing about it being a new bacteria.If you want to know what Flavobacterium actually is then just follow the link. Now if you still wonder why creationists don't call it evolution, then you know why.
Click to expand...
Flavobacterium is like saying "Dog".... it's an inclusive group of several species. Bacteria species are most commonly called strains. So, yes... it does say it's a new bacterium.

wa:do
 
Gloone

Gloone

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
Flavobacterium is like saying "Dog".... it's an inclusive group of several species. Bacteria species are most commonly called strains. So, yes... it does say it's a new bacterium.

wa:do
Click to expand...
Well a dog is still a dog, are you going to argue that its not?
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
His point is that you're essentially saying "So what if a wolf turns into a poodle? That's hardly proof of evolution!"
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Gloone said:
There is no argument over whether bacteria can be beneficial or not. The same bacteria they use to GE crops can also be the same bacterium that burns holes in the ozone. The argument is whether or not you consider bacteria to have evolved just because a strain is present that allows live longer. I could play a word game all day long and say, “well no, those are just hyperactive bacteria and wouldn’t be like that if someone didn’t feed them molecules to send them on a feeding frenzy.” But the problem is, there are a lot of factors you have to look at in the theory of evolution before you go jumping to conclusions and call it evolution. Just because you say “oh it mutated, that is evolution” doesn’t mean it is evolution. Also note the very first sentence of this wiki article, it might do you some good to read. That has been said to me a lot, but it seems like a lot of people have been having that problem themselves. “Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium.” Is says nothing about it being a new bacteria.If you want to know what Flavobacterium actually is then just follow the link. Now if you still wonder why creationists don't call it evolution, then you know why.
Click to expand...


No need to respond. PW said perfectly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top