Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[tumbleweed41]

......
Still not there cowboy.
Actually i like the 1st conclusion also by the authors.
I bet you didnt read any of the real studies.
You just type dont you.
:0

When were you going to present objective evidence in support of your position?

 

[McBell]

When were you going to present objective evidence in support of your position?

I sincerely hope you are not holding your breath.

 

[Onlooker]

ID is nothing more than buttered up creationism.
Creationism/ID has been proven to NOT be science.

Evolution has nothing to say about the beginning of life or the beginning of the universe.

Your sad attempt at dragging evolution to the same sad lowest level of ID/creationism is actually rather comical.

I haven't seen that evidence that ID is not a science. Is it a judge that you are referring to? Because I'm sure its not a peer reviewed process.
Again, I agree that evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis.
What do you have to say about it? Have you seen the wild ideas of abiogenesis?
Nothing sad about discussion, you are afraid of something, need to find out what.
I do find it rather interesting when the discussion gets off track, the disses fly.
I have no problem with all of the posters (is that correct?, all the discussants) with a fire in their belly, wanting to air their "beliefs".
Keep it up.
Do understand your "beliefs" are just that. Nothing in this world is rock solid.
Consider what happens to the definition of a meter (SI based unit ) when it is going the speed of light.
Consider the Copenhagen interpretation.
Good luck finding the ultimate truth and proofs on anything.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I haven't seen that evidence that ID is not a science....

 

[Onlooker]

When were you going to present objective evidence in support of your position?

I guess you dont want to discuss the articles.
The proof of evolution was suppose to be available for the last 100 years. I havent seen it.
When you show us the ultimate proof, and collect your Noble Prize, I will answer your questions.
It seems to post doesnt really mean to discuss.

 

[Meow Mix]

I haven't seen that evidence that ID is not a science. Is it a judge that you are referring to? Because I'm sure its not a peer reviewed process.
Again, I agree that evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis.
What do you have to say about it? Have you seen the wild ideas of abiogenesis?
Nothing sad about discussion, you are afraid of something, need to find out what.
I do find it rather interesting when the discussion gets off track, the disses fly.
I have no problem with all of the posters (is that correct?, all the discussants) with a fire in their belly, wanting to air their "beliefs".
Keep it up.
Do understand your "beliefs" are just that. Nothing in this world is rock solid.
Consider what happens to the definition of a meter (SI based unit ) when it is going the speed of light.
Consider the Copenhagen interpretation.
Good luck finding the ultimate truth and proofs on anything.

If ID is scientific, what method can I use to look at a given object to falsify the suggestion that it's designed by an intelligence?

For instance, let me look at a rock. No one has ever witnessed rock formation since it takes such a long time to occur, so we have this question of whether the rock is designed or not, right?

Well, is the rock designed?

How can I falsify that hypothesis? What experiment can I do with the rock to falsify the proposition that it's designed?

If you can't falsify it, then it isn't science.

 

[Meow Mix]

I guess you dont want to discuss the articles.
The proof of evolution was suppose to be available for the last 100 years. I havent seen it.
When you show us the ultimate proof, and collect your Noble Prize, I will answer your questions.
It seems to post doesnt really mean to discuss.

Then you must not have looked very hard. What say you of biological stratification, of the development of galactosidase in the lab, nylon-consuming bacteria, the E. coli experiments on the verge of a new niche, the fulfilled prediction of why humans have one less chromosome than other great apes -- more stuff than I could list off here aside?

 

[Onlooker]

If ID is scientific, what method can I use to look at a given object to falsify the suggestion that it's designed by an intelligence?

For instance, let me look at a rock. No one has ever witnessed rock formation since it takes such a long time to occur, so we have this question of whether the rock is designed or not, right?

Well, is the rock designed?

How can I falsify that hypothesis? What experiment can I do with the rock to falsify the proposition that it's designed?

If you can't falsify it, then it isn't science.

How can you falsify evolution. Specifically how can you say that mutations actually caused a whole organ system (lets say kidneys) to just mutate into being. Its not one mutation, its a concert of unrelated proteins put together to form a functional unit.
OVER TIME.
Falsify that. OK, not science?

 

[Onlooker]

Then you must not have looked very hard. What say you of biological stratification, of the development of galactosidase in the lab, nylon-consuming bacteria, the E. coli experiments on the verge of a new niche, the fulfilled prediction of why humans have one less chromosome than other great apes -- more stuff than I could list off here aside?

What you have quoted was tumbleweeds posting of many articles, i read just the first one, and asked him if he wants to discuss any parts of it. It was an easier read than auto's but basically the conclusion was : we need to study more to find the molecular cause.
In a nut shell, everybody is still looking. Just cuz your teachers say it is, doesnt necessarily mean its right.
Keep looking.

 

[Meow Mix]

How can you falsify evolution. Specifically how can you say that mutations actually caused a whole organ system (lets say kidneys) to just mutate into being. Its not one mutation, its a concert of unrelated proteins put together to form a functional unit.
OVER TIME.
Falsify that. OK, not science?

It's unnecessary to go to such lengths to falsify evolution. All that we'd have to do is find a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock, or be unable to find where our 24th chromosome pair went. There are many easy ways for evolution to be falsified; we just haven't seen it falsified yet. Usually that's indicative of a good theory.

 

[Meow Mix]

What you have quoted was tumbleweeds posting of many articles, i read just the first one, and asked him if he wants to discuss any parts of it. It was an easier read than auto's but basically the conclusion was : we need to study more to find the molecular cause.
In a nut shell, everybody is still looking. Just cuz your teachers say it is, doesnt necessarily mean its right.
Keep looking.

Okay, let's discuss one in particular. Do you have a favorite?

 

[tumbleweed41]

All objective empirical evidence supports biological evolution by common descent.

Genetic evidence, as presented in the OP, is just one of millions of pieces of evidence that support the predictions made through the Theory of Evolution.

Onlooker seems to think if one does not have all the answers, then any answer can be correct. This is not how the scientific method works.
Every new answer found either supports biological evolution, or tweaks it in a way that helps us to better understand how it works.
My challenge to Onlooker is to present objective, empirical evidence in support of ID.

 

[Meow Mix]

All objective empirical evidence supports biological evolution by common descent.

Genetic evidence, as presented in the OP, is just one of millions of pieces of evidence that support the predictions made through the Theory of Evolution.

Onlooker seems to think if one does not have all the answers, then any answer can be correct. This is not how the scientific method works.
Every new answer found either supports biological evolution, or tweaks it in a way that helps us to better understand how it works.
My challenge to Onlooker is to present objective, empirical evidence in support of ID.

Speaking of, I sort of let Onlooker get away with answering a question with a question.

Onlooker, I provided several examples by which one can in principle falsify evolution/common descent. You totally skipped the question by which one can falsify ID at all.

Can you please explain, Onlooker, how one can falsify ID in any regard?

 

[outhouse]

The proof of evolution was suppose to be available for the last 100 years. I havent seen it.

this is due to your lack of education and nothing more.

 

[Thief]

All objective empirical evidence supports biological evolution by common descent.

Genetic evidence, as presented in the OP, is just one of millions of pieces of evidence that support the predictions made through the Theory of Evolution.

Onlooker seems to think if one does not have all the answers, then any answer can be correct. This is not how the scientific method works.
Every new answer found either supports biological evolution, or tweaks it in a way that helps us to better understand how it works.
My challenge to Onlooker is to present objective, empirical evidence in support of ID.

Not that I don't believe in evolution...I do....
But a theory is not proof.

You might conduct an experiment with repeated results....
but to pronounce that one species evolves into another?....
without that unbroken chain of verifiable links....no.

I do believe in evolution....but not because it is proven.
It is simply a better explanation for what we have all around us.

Theory is theory...not proof.

And to say that Man lacks design?....no.
That Man as a species is doing quite well...speaks of design.

ID fails for those who do not anticipate an afterlife.
No afterlife?....nothing more intelligent?....top of the line life form ..are we?

But that's faith talking...no proof needed.

 

[Onlooker]

Your right, poor syntax.

 

[Onlooker]

Then you must not have looked very hard. What say you of biological stratification, of the development of galactosidase in the lab, nylon-consuming bacteria, the E. coli experiments on the verge of a new niche, the fulfilled prediction of why humans have one less chromosome than other great apes -- more stuff than I could list off here aside?

That is the ultimate proof?

 

[Onlooker]

It's unnecessary to go to such lengths to falsify evolution. All that we'd have to do is find a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock, or be unable to find where our 24th chromosome pair went. There are many easy ways for evolution to be falsified; we just haven't seen it falsified yet. Usually that's indicative of a good theory.

Dig deeper.
No one doubts the "stuff" we can touch. We have tons of material documenting these facts.
Its the non provable parts of evolution. Never going to be tested.
Its the "mutations", the "shifts" of information that leaps into a functional organ that wasn't there before.
So, deep within evolutions belief, is a non testable assertion.
All these "accidental", "non directed", "filtered" or whatever you want to call the mutations that over millions of years cause a functioning organ, that is just not feasible. You can almost agree that a few mutations and shifts can produce some novel proteins. But to knit together a functioning receptor (which probably chronologically couldnt be made before the hormone and/or agonist) that brings on a novel biologic behavior/function. Oh my, the belief is awesome!
Let alone not testable.
Again, a theory as pointing out.
Never will it be proven.
Mirror ID, never will it be proven.

 

[waitasec]

Then you must not have looked very hard. What say you of biological stratification, of the development of galactosidase in the lab, nylon-consuming bacteria, the E. coli experiments on the verge of a new niche, the fulfilled prediction of why humans have one less chromosome than other great apes -- more stuff than I could list off here aside?

That is the ultimate proof?

why do you keep moving goal posts captain?

over and over again evidence is what's on the table and you keep asking for proof...

what do you want?
do you lack the tenacity that is required when facing a challenge? it looks like you don't have it for the very fact you're moving goal posts...

 

[Onlooker]

Okay, let's discuss one in particular. Do you have a favorite?

Thanks.
No fav, just reading what was posted.
Not a bad article. First one concerning the e.coli at extreme temp's and the survivability/fitness. First glance, the generations are comical, 2000-10000. Hard to compare to humans.
If wiki is correct and 200k years has been since man like creatures, and a "generation" of 40 years, that's only 5000 generations.
If its only 50k years for man, and generation is 40 years, that's still only 1250 generations.
My ultimate point is: bacteria survive by recombining plasmids/mutating etc., higher mammals protect this with greater care.
We just don't have time for us "higher" mammals to really "mutate" into a finer organism.
So the question is what has changed with us since the 200k first man like being. Did it take 150k years to go from an anatomic modern human to a modern behavior human.
In that 3750 generation, frontal lobes connected due to mutations? Is that enough time? (The last 6000 years [150 generations] we haven't really changed much [not accounting for the exponential advancement of knowledge in the last 100 years]).
At the end of the article, they are still looking for the molecular basis of adaption.
That would be the holy grail.
In that, we can test if the DNA actually has programming for changes due to stress (which would be favorable to ID) , or its just damaged/changed and this is filtered by fitness in the long run.
Just my take after a brief reading.