Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[themadhair]

And what is with the Human- Chimp ancestor baloney?

Hear the evidence from a professional biologist yourself - YouTube - Evolution FALSIFIED! (...or not), with Ken Miller

Since no scientific process, including natural selection, is able to explain DNA’s origin, many scientists believe that it must have been designed.

What a typically unfounded unsupported bare-face creationist claim.

The coding behind DNA is pointing to a designer of such intelligence that it staggers the imagination.

Why can’t the DI meet the simple challenge of finding a single designed gene?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q

Why are you so uneducated about science that feel the need to falsely equate it with atheism? My computer is a product of scientific understanding – does that mean it is fuelled by atheist-juice?

You plagiarised again. This time from Molecular Biology: The Evolution of Complex Organs

 

[emiliano]

You don’t really need to know Dawkins that well, or much biology, to know this creationist propaganda. The dude has published books explaining the process ffs.


Why do you rely on arguments from authority rather than address some of the evidences people have linked you to on this forum. Why have you avoided those skullslike the plague?


Actually this is about science. Is this a deliberate tactic on the part of creationists to paint science as being atheism or do you folks really not know any better?


See the ‘first cause’ argument get discussed here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/81193-argument-contingency-world.html

[/color]
Copypasta from here. Plagiarism is rather pathetic don’t you think? Particularly when the claims plagiarised are untrue. Can you link to a single peer-reviewed paper making the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life or will you admit this is unfounded creationist propaganda?


Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, Hoyle’s faulty logic is so well known it has its own fallacy named after it.


Behe argued for irreducible complexity and did not show any biological system that was unevolvable by slight successive modifications. He got destroyed on this in Dover. I note you are avoiding reading the details of that like the plague, preferring to copypasta unfounded crap from you favourite website.


Copypasta’d from here - Molecular Biology: The Evolution of Complex Organs
You really should read the Dover trial decision where it is explained, in great depth, why Behe was wrong. The irony to this is that, in his latest book, Behe all but admits common descent. I note you haven’t mentioned this fact.

[/color]
Really? He seemed to have pretty much nailed it in his book on the subject:
Origin: Chap 6


Biologists have explained the process. And, like any good empirical science should, they made testable predictions confirmed by the genetics. The gradual evolution of the eye is the reason why you have a blind spot. The human eye is actually a strong argument against design since in other creatures, such as squid, the problems of the human eye do not exist.

Tell me this emilano – are you incapable of doing research? Do you have to ignore any contradictory evidence to your beliefs in order to continue holding them? Do you have anything other than ignorant posting copypasta?

But Madhair I posted the link to the article from where the info came.
It title is Y-origen.com. Like I responded to “Surgiva, I did not claim authorship of these statements and the dog thing came from a Behe v Dawkin debate if you read the article there is a claim that Dawkin admitted that Darwin theory fails at macro-evolution level” I find this site very interesting and with lots of information and I am still reading, next I intend to read the Pope work on evolution I am very busy so I can’t read all of the material that you suggest. At present I only have time for copy pasta, take or leave it.

 

[themadhair]

But Madhair I posted the link to the article from where the info came.
It title is Y-origen.com.

You never linked to the goresources site you copypasta’d from.

if you read the article there is a claim that Dawkin admitted that Darwin theory fails at macro-evolution level”

And the claim is untrue. Which is a pretty common occurrence when you copypasta from creationist propaganda websites.

At present

I only have time for copy pasta, take or leave it.

I fully intend to criticise you for pasting huge wads of shoite while ignoring all the posts other people took the time and effort to compose trying to educate you.

 

[painted wolf]

So the evidence is that the two short chromosomes in Chips if they were to fused then the result of this would be a human

NO... you have had this explained repeatedly.... it is just the first of a handful of mutations needed!

What would compel these short chromosomes to fuse?

Generally it's due to a crossing over event (very common) that didn't finish all the way. And / or breakage of chromosomes (also not that uncommon) and repairs of such breaks.
Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes — Genome Research

And what is with the Human- Chimp ancestor baloney? Chimps have 24 pairs chromosomes and that is what makes them Chimps and not human, humans on the other hand have 23 pairs and that makes them humans, their ancestor also had 23 pairs,

What about humans that have 24 pairs of chromosomes? They don't become chimpanzees... you're argument is flawed and absurd.

It isn't the number of chromosomes that makes the species what it is! You have latched onto a frankly idiotic argument and you don't seem to understand that.

Darwin assumed that all biological systems including the cell would evolve gradually by natural selection over great periods of time. But science has made great advances since then, and the organs and systems Darwin thought were so simple have been found to be extremely complex and interdependent so is not natural selection, what can it be? I stay with design and that’s that!

No one doubts Natural Selection... but yes in the era of genetics we know that it isn't the only factor.
Modern evolution does not depend on Natural Selection and Darwin alone... do try to catch up to the past 100 years of science. At least try the last 50 or 20 years of science....
Creationists have been using the same tired arguments since the 1800's, it's time to grow up.

Since no scientific process, including natural selection, is able to explain DNA’s origin, many scientists believe that it must have been designed.

Ignorant bull scat... a big steaming pile of it.
There has been a lot of research done to show how DNA came about from an RNA precursor. And the natural development of RNA has also been demonstrated.

The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. The coding behind DNA is pointing to a designer of such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. That view was stated by none other than the world’s leading atheist for the past 50 years, Professor of Philosophy, Antony Flew.

Philosophy.... great source for information on genetics.... try someone who actually bothered to learn about how DNA works and you wouldn't have to listen to such drivel.

Seriously... I wouldn't want a philosopher to do surgery on me any more than I'd want him to poke around the genome.

This is why we need comprehensive science education...

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

You never linked to the goresources site you copypasta’d from.

[/color]
And the claim is untrue. Which is a pretty common occurrence when you copypasta from creationist propaganda websites.


I fully intend to criticise you for pasting huge wads of shoite while ignoring all the posts other people took the time and effort to compose trying to educate you.

As I said I don’t have the time for every site that you suggest and I understand that you don’t have the time to visit the ones that I have copypasted for you, I understand but I went back the posts that I used and for the most part I have given a link, soooo. To tell you the truth I don’t have much use for the information anyways, there are other discussions that are more practical and I will use my time on them, it was good but it reached an end, it is good cause I am still a Christian and you are still an atheist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

.To tell you the truth I don’t have much use for the information anyways, there are other discussions that are more practical and I will use my time on them, it was good but it reached an end, it is good cause I am still a Christian and you are still an atheist.

Why does being a "Christian" mean that you have to ignore scientific facts?
Is your faith so weak that you have to ignore the evidence in front of you in order to support your beliefs? The essence of Christianity is the love and forgiveness that Jesus taught about, not ignorance of the natural world around us.
I truly believe willful ignorance of the natural world is an insult to whatever creator one believes in. (If one believes in a creator.)

 

[painted wolf]

I truly believe willful ignorance of the natural world is an insult to whatever creator one believes in. (If one believes in a creator.)

I agree 100%

I'm sure that Ken Miller, Francis Collins (head of the human genome research project) and several other genuine scientists, who happen to be christian or of other faiths feel the same way.

My genetics professor is a very religious Christian and has no problems with real science.

wa:do

ps... I thought I'd add links to the Clergy Letter Project, an open list of American Christian clergy that support evolution... currently with 11,926 names: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
They also have one for Rabbi's with over 400 signatures: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Jewish_Clergy/JewishClergyLtr.htm
and one for UU ministers with over 200 signatures: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Unitarian_Universalists/UnivUnitarianClergyLtr.htm

 

[darkendless]

If we're created then who created the creator?

I think a lot of creation arguements are an insult to humanities intelligence. Creation and science can co-exist, using creation to destroy scientific arguements is worthy of thou face palm.

 

[aequitas]

Are you familiar with the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or did you make this statement in ignorance? So do you think all Biologists are really stupid?

Yes i am familiar with the Theory of Evolution and that is exactly why i don't believe it to be true. No i do not believe all biologists are stupid. Right then let me ask you a question. So every living organism has a genetic code that is the blueprint to reproduce life correct?. Then you would also agree that non-living things in nature lack this code and therefore the information to produce life is not available to them correct?. Then can you explain to me just how these codes and information came into existence without the aid of any intelligent source whatsoever???

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Then can you explain to me just how these codes and information came into existence without the aid of any intelligent source whatsoever???

Evolution does not address this.

 

[Tristesse]

Yes i am familiar with the Theory of Evolution and that is exactly why i don't believe it to be true. No i do not believe all biologists are stupid. Right then let me ask you a question. So every living organism has a genetic code that is the blueprint to reproduce life correct?. Then you would also agree that non-living things in nature lack this code and therefore the information to produce life is not available to them correct?. Then can you explain to me just how these codes and information came into existence without the aid of any intelligent source whatsoever???

Thats not evolution, evolution deals with life after it has formed, it says nothing about how it life came to be. Abiogenesis deals with the formation of of the first cells and the building blocks of life. The problem with creationists, is they tend to lump all these subjects into one entity, namely evolution. When evolution just deals with what happens to life after it has emerged. So, please stick to the topic at hand.

 

[painted wolf]

Yes i am familiar with the Theory of Evolution and that is exactly why i don't believe it to be true. No i do not believe all biologists are stupid. Right then let me ask you a question. So every living organism has a genetic code that is the blueprint to reproduce life correct?. Then you would also agree that non-living things in nature lack this code and therefore the information to produce life is not available to them correct?. Then can you explain to me just how these codes and information came into existence without the aid of any intelligent source whatsoever???

No that this is actually about evolution... but... interesting abiogenesis question.

Do you consider viruses alive? Most biologists don't... yet they have RNA and DNA like us. RNA has been experimentally shown to be able to replicate on it's own... and form on it's own under the right conditions... no designer needed.

wa:do

 

[aequitas]

Evolution does not address this.

Exactly why i do not believe in the evolutionary model!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Exactly why i do not believe in the evolutionary model!

This makes no sense.

 

[Tristesse]

Exactly why i do not believe in the evolutionary model!

Evolutionary model? So, you ask an abiogenesis question, and then reject evolution based on your question which doesn't even address what we're taking about. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, you know nothing or very little about the theory of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

Exactly why i do not believe in the evolutionary model!

Evolution doesn't say anything about how the planet formed either.... it only deals with change in organisms over time...

Abiogenesis is the field that deals with how life got started... it's very closely tied to evolution, but not the exact same thing.

wa:do

 

[aequitas]

Evolutionary model? So, you ask an abiogenesis question, and then reject evolution based on your question which doesn't even address what we're taking about. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, you know nothing or very little about the theory of evolution.

I don't base my belief on one question how stupid do you think i am! i can give you other reasons that refute evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't base my belief on one question how stupid do you think i am!

Loaded question.

i can give you other reasons that refute evolution.

Enlighten us please....

 

[Tristesse]

I don't base my belief on one question how stupid do you think i am! i can give you other reasons that refute evolution.

I don't know, how stupid are you? Ok, I'm all ears, what are your other reasons for rejecting a scientific theory thats more sound than the theory of gravity?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't base my belief on one question how stupid do you think i am!

I think we all know the answer to this question.

Protip: Questions should end with a question mark (?), not an exclamation point (!).