Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond

[David M]

In fact, after all these years I havent heard a great explanation on how exactly the "environment" (stressors that help mutate or drive a new adaptive function) transfer that stress and adaption to the sex cells so you can do something useful like pass it on to your prodigy.

That would be because this is not how evolution works.

Example: Cool weather causing my differentiated (end organ cells) to be stressed enough to want to form thicker hide/more hair/wings/whatever. Once those end organ cells get mutated with whatever DNA/RNA "damage" you can imagine that would be functional later on. How exactly does that "disturbance" to my homeostasis
get transferred to the cells that actually matter for evolution. The sex cells.

So you don't understand ToE at all. And your understanding of biology is pretty shaky.

Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.

No its not.

With evolution, these mutations just occurred and worked out very well, thank you very much. No more questions about these things, lets talk fossils.

Yes they occurred, just like the over 100 mutations that occurred in the making of the sperm and eggg that eventually became you.

 

[micrurus]

The points of contention are all over the place. I would have to link many articles because they are not sure what they were. Some say more like a bird and some say more like a mammal but the thing is the look less and less like reptiles. I am jumping ahead a little because we know what they were not but can not figure out exactly what they were.

The body is not designed like current reptiles and they are also different from their fossil ancestors which fossilized skeletal remains resemble modern reptiles.

Because of the information gathered from the fossilized heart the dinos have also been compared to mammals.

To be honest one link will not do it because everything is in contention. Hell by the time they are done they may decide that Dinos were human

There is a lot of information out there on the subject and the one thing we do know is they were not reptiles and unless we radically change the definition of reptile they will never be reptiles.

OK,
mammels are not related to dinosaures

Ive seen an article about the fossilised heart, it has 4 chambers, they ware warm blooded. so what? we already know that. there are still examples of some partially warm blooded reptiles today. crocodiles have 4 heart chambers.

I think that you are confusing reptiles with "modern reptiles" (sauria)



IL make it easyer for you, give me 1 descent article that proves that im wrong about something I said.

EDIT

and please tell me what exactly in the definition of a reptile shows that dinosaures can't be reptiles?

 

[McBell]

Because it would actually require you to use that space between your ears. You must research it, I can't do it for you.

I can provide dozens on links and you would have to read every one and then put 2 + 2 together which you evidently can't do.

I see.
So you want everyone else to do your homework.

You made the claim.
It is on YOU to support your claim.

It isn't like you are being asked to put it in your own words.
You are being asked to show your source.
Or in other words, where you got the idea for your claim.

Now since you think so lowly of your claim, why should I think any more of it?

 

[Autodidact]

Yup; I sure do. Unlike many I am willing to accept that there are alternate explanations.
As I said it is not provable either way. There is a great case for evolution and a weak case for God but just because something can not be proved does not mean it can not be just like a single cell evolving into a human. It can't be proven.

BTW: don't think me so foolish as to think I do not know the how from A to Z as I probably know more than you about it.

Actually, your post indicates that you do not in fact know what ToE says, since it has nothing to do with whether God created all things, and is perfectly compatible with the idea that He did.

In other words, your understanding seems to be wrong.

Therefore you are opposing something else altogether, possibly atheism?

Would you like to learn what ToE actually says?

If you disagree, I am happy to provide ample cites to support my assertion.

Further, it also appears that you do not know some basic things about how science works, as for example that it never asserts anything about whether God exists or created all things, one way or the other, and it is never about proof; it is always about evidence.

So again I ask, would you like to learn, or do you prefer to remain misinformed?

 

[Autodidact]

Why does a newly discovered fossil confirm a theory. Isn't ID supporting the very same thing. Only the mystery is in the Creator not the confounded theory that needs lots of faith and belief ( as in "origin" and process).
Last time I checked the mystery'belief is still there.
In fact, after all these years I havent heard a great explanation on how exactly the "environment" (stressors that help mutate or drive a new adaptive function) transfer that stress and adaption to the sex cells so you can do something useful like pass it on to your prodigy.
Example: Cool weather causing my differentiated (end organ cells) to be stressed enough to want to form thicker hide/more hair/wings/whatever. Once those end organ cells get mutated with whatever DNA/RNA "damage" you can imagine that would be functional later on. How exactly does that "disturbance" to my homeostasis
get transferred to the cells that actually matter for evolution. The sex cells.
Remember, the information is coded in a cryptic language that is very guarded.
With evolution, these mutations just occurred and worked out very well, thank you very much. No more questions about these things, lets talk fossils.
With ID, these "timed" functions/implementation of a complex data system is logical.
Think of punctuated evolution, explosion of varied life forms that survived.
Remember Crick, co discoverer of all things evolution bases their "belief" on.
His knowledge at the time was limited compared to genetic engineers now, but he realized chance didn't work at this high of complexity. He believed in Panspermia, which by definition has an "outside" influence.

You're confusing ToE with Lamarkism, its opposite.

 

[Autodidact]

Your not confused.
Neither evolution (the theory that is being taught today) or ID can be tested.

Evolution can be tested, has been tested, passed the test, and that is why it was accepted by science. That's how science works.
ID is not a theory, in the scientific sense, and cannot be tested. That's one of the reasons it is not scientific.

Some of the systems can be looked at.
Bias in interpretation will occur on your side and mine.

Science doesn't have a side. It is an effort to uncover the truth.

We discover the perfect mutation mechanism and TOE will jump for joy.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you think that we don't know how or why mutations occur? Because we do.

Unfortunately, so will ID, because we are looking at the FORD MUSTANG together, the vehicle of our ancestry. You are saying it was all an "accident", I am saying, "awesome job".

No, you are mistaken, ToE does not assert that it's an accident.

No one will scientifically "prove" anything concerning our deep "beliefs" : which I will boldly state for you, correct me if I am wrong.

Science never proves anything, and it's not about proof; it's about evidence. Evolution is not a belief; it's a scientific theory, based on the evidence.
[qutoe]Your belief is no outsider/intelligent/mystical force caused or directed our DNA.
My belief is there was an Intelligent Influence, the Creator.[/quote] No, that is not what ToE says. ToE says nothing about whether God or any God-substitute has anything to do with anything. ToE merely says it happens, not who designed it. That's why ID is not science; it's philosophy or theology.

 

[Autodidact]

Your not confused.
Neither evolution (the theory that is being taught today) or ID can be tested.
Some of the systems can be looked at.
Bias in interpretation will occur on your side and mine.
We discover the perfect mutation mechanism and TOE will jump for joy.
Unfortunately, so will ID, because we are looking at the FORD MUSTANG together, the vehicle of our ancestry. You are saying it was all an "accident", I am saying, "awesome job".
No one will scientifically "prove" anything concerning our deep "beliefs" : which I will boldly state for you, correct me if I am wrong.
Your belief is no outsider/intelligent/mystical force caused or directed our DNA.
My belief is there was an Intelligent Influence, the Creator.

Science wants to be removed from is brother/sister branches of metaphysics, and rightly so.
But we are not talking about organic or biochemistry.

Are you saying that Biology is not science?

Hard for me to bring a mystical discussion about jolting electricity into water and causing H2 and O2.
But, come on, what argument are you afraid of.

None, what makes you think I'm afraid of argument? On the contrary, I welcome it. I am afraid of teaching children things that are not true.

TOE can stand on its own,

And it does.

ID will discuss and argue its "beliefs".

No problem, but not in a high school science class, where it doesn't belong.

Your arguments are no more scientifically provable than mine, but lets put them on the table.

It's not my argument, it's the foundational theory of modern Biology. It was put on the table, examined, passed and accepted around 100 years ago. No do-overs.

Do you like having such a fearful/politically correct environment that inhibits free thoughts. I think thats what the church did to Galileo and others.

No one is inhibiting your thoughts. We're merely making sure that kids get taught science in science class.

Our whole "western civilization" is based on open discussion, despite I think your wrong (and other names I want to call you , and we all live happily ever after.

And look, here we are, having an open discussion, so what's the problem?

 

[Autodidact]

Touche wrong and you know it.

No, actually, you are. ToE is not about God. You say it is. Therefore, either you're ignorant, or lying. Which?

I do know what I am talking about and the fact is you can have all the bones and DNA you want but all you have is assumption (I won't say you are wrong and definitely wont say you are 100% correct).

No, it's not assumption, it's conclusion--exactly the opposite.

Basically what you're saying here is that science doesn't work. But it does, doesn't it?

Here is part of it and why you get so much resistance from the churches and Christians. When evolution was proposed many jumped on it as fact and used it as a tool against the church.

This is false. The people who argue that religion and evolution are in conflict are the Christians, not the pro-science people.

In the beginning evolutionists were going on an educated guess and passing it off as fact and it was nowhere near provable back then. Times change but people are people and will resist when forced.

It is a fact. We know it as well as we know the earth is round. It's also a theory, a scientific theory that explain something very important--how we get the diversity of species on earth.

So what I am saying is there is really no precedent for the formation of a mammal.

I don't even know what this means. It's gibberish.

There is evidence that recent evolution happened, last several hundred million years, where a fish turned to a land crawler that turned to dino that turned to reptile and mammal. There is evidence that cells and bacteria can mutate rapidly and pass on\retain traits (evolve).

The trick is how do the two go together.

They all go together in a single smooth process called Evolution.

I guess one thing that could be looked at is embryonic development.

What a thought! Do you think maybe thousands of Biologists having been doing just that for decades, doing thousands of research projects and writing thousands of scientific papers that explore and explain in detail the relationship between embryonic development and evolution, in an entire new field called Evolutionary Development, or evo/devo, or they're idiot who have been waiting all this time for Archer to come along and suggest it?

DNA combines in the nucleus of the egg and replication of stem cells begins. This mass of cells goes through a series of programed mutation, replication and change. Kind of like evolution, though this is preprogrammed.

A little bit.

Our code was written in a very specific way. I am saying that chance was not the writer; God was.

And I'm saying the answer to this question has nothing to do with ToE, and the fact that you do shows that you do not know what ToE is.

 

[Autodidact]

I just look at the same evidence you do and I see programming not just randomness.

If you don't understand that ToE is not about randomness, then you either:
(1) don't understand ToE or
(2) are a liar.

Where are the two and three celled organisms?

Well, it's not really important, since that doesn't seem to be the way it happened, but here's a couple:

Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus (Margulis and Schwartz 1982, 100). The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. As noted above, this may not be relevant to the evolution of multicellularity.

[talkorigins]
Do you think that Biologists are too stupid to ask these questions, or that they haven't?

Now I admit this is from the ID playbook which much of creation science is simply speculation and baseless at that but many of the things that they bring up are too far out there for me.

They're good at propaganda; lousy at science.

I will put it this way. I am not so ignorant to accept the premise that God may not exist but I am also convinced that he is real. I have said this before and I will say it again: I am basically an Agnostic Christian.

You really need to erase from your mind the idea that evolution is an alternative to the Christian God. They are totally different things. One is science, and tells us how the world works. The other is religion, and is about the supernatural. ToE is correct, robust, well-supported science. I suggest you adopt a theology that does not rely on rejecting it.

I believe there is much more to the universe than we will ever know. Even in 10 billion years we will be infantile in knowledge compared to the greatness of creation.

Absolutely. And a good way to advance that knowledge is through science, don't you agree?

I have several issues with the denial of God. I believe in God and I live the Christian philosophy. I guess that is why I am so hard on them (Christians). I read the Bile without the Dogmatic pressures and find that what is taught in many Churches it counter to the Bible and there is much that is not taught that should be.

You are arguing against atheism. Atheism ! = evolution. It's that simple. They are two totally different things. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REJECT GOD TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION. Which is a good thing for you, because evolution is correct.

Someone has been lying to you--creationists.

 

[Autodidact]

You can call it what you will friend but when it comes down to it chance is the best word for it. HMMMM?

No, it's not. This is the sort of thing that causes us to say either (1) you don't understand it OR (2) you're deliberately lying about it.

This adaptation worked and if I can live lone enough to spread my DNA I will evolve. (I being my genetic line)

Natural selection = the opposite of chance.

Mutations are random. That is a fact about the world. Do you deny that mutations happen, or happen randomly?

 

[Autodidact]

What part of science are you talking about?

Biology, obviously.

You can study anything objectively.

Yes, and when you use the scientific method and study living things objectively, you get ToE.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote:
In summary, your science beliefs are valid or not valid. They are not true or not true.
Currently, your arguments are valid but not provable.
Are you saying you have found the Nobel prize winning proof for evolution?
That was done over 100 years ago. You must have missed it.
Okay, bs flag thrown.
Stop everything.
What proof do you have professor?
Let's be scientific and give me references and I will read it with others to finally put this argument to rest.
Finally, we can stop. We have proof!

First, science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. Do I understand that you are interested in reviewing the extensive, mountainous, cumulative, irrefutable evidence that caused the entire field of Biology to accept ToE as its foundational theory over 100 years ago?

O.K., I'll do it, but it's a BIG project. It will take dozens of posts and many pages, because there is so much of it. If I go through the trouble, I expect you to stick around, read it, and try to understand. Is that what you want?

 

[Autodidact]

Because it would actually require you to use that space between your ears. You must research it, I can't do it for you.

I can provide dozens on links and you would have to read every one and then put 2 + 2 together which you evidently can't do.

No, here at RF, our quaint custom is that if you make a claim, it is your burden to support it; otherwise we will regard it as an unsupported assertion we can legitimately disregard.

 

[micrurus]

Quote:
You can study anything objectively.
Yes, and when you use the scientific method and study living things objectively, you get ToE.

correct me if im wrong, but didn't we create the scientific method because we cannot study anything objectivly?

doesn't the scientific method act as a filter that seperates the truth from our subjective interpretation of things?

 

[Autodidact]

correct me if im wrong, but didn't we create the scientific method because we cannot study anything objectivly?

doesn't the scientific method act as a filter that seperates the truth from our subjective interpretation of things?

I think your beef is with Onlooker, not me.

 

[micrurus]

I think your beef is with Onlooker, not me.

I stand corrected, I think I misinterpreted your explenation.:run:

 

[Archer]

Gradual change through adaptation and most is micro in scale but there are cases or macro most notably in some moth somewhere which is disputed by some.

Hair, feathers varied hearts. Did some sweat? Did some have skin? Some say bird some say anatomically mammal like. It will be a classification of it's own.

 

[micrurus]

Gradual change through adaptation and most is micro in scale but there are cases or macro most notably in some moth somewhere which is disputed by some.

what are you talking about?

 

[Autodidact]

Gradual change through adaptation and most is micro in scale but there are cases or macro most notably in some moth somewhere which is disputed by some.

I'm sorry, could you clarify what you're saying here? What do you mean by "micro" and "macro"?

Hair, feathers varied hearts. Did some sweat? Did some have skin? Some say bird some say anatomically mammal like. It will be a classification of it's own.

What? What will?

Let's start with the basics. You've got it that ToE is not about God one way or the other, right?

 

[micrurus]

Hair, feathers varied hearts. Did some sweat? Did some have skin? Some say bird some say anatomically mammal like. It will be a classification of it's own.

your statement is meaningless without context, give me context and I wil be happy to prove you wrong.