Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Sorry, Guy Threepwood and Deeje.

Even after all these years, you are both still are incapable of understanding the differences between Evolution and Abiogenesis, which does speak well your formal education in biology-related science.

Abiogenesis is a field of study that tried to replicate the origin of life through turning non-living matters, like inorganic chemicals into living matters. Hence converting basic chemical into biological matters.

One the most basic elements of living matter that biochemists are trying to recreate is amino acid (NH2 + COOH), a compound found in proteins. Proteins like nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA) are found in genes, tissues, etc. In metabolism, proteins are used to cause catalysting chemical reactions (hence enzymes). In genetics, proteins are important in causing replicating DNA.

The importance of amino acids in proteins, is that different proteins can only be distinguished from each other, by how the amino acids are sequenced.

Now, amino acid may not seem much to either of you, scientists should start with something very basic, before experimenting something more complex.

Evolution is actually all biological, requiring the parent to pass on genes or genetic characteristics to the child. Changes in genes required generations of parents and offspring.

In Abiogenesis, there are no hereditary genes being pass from parent to offspring. So there are no ancestors and descendants in the origin of life.

Evolution covered changes to life, from any one of less than half-a-dozen possible mechanisms (eg natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, etc), and it required passing on the genes. In abiogenesis, there are no passing of genes.

Evolution also don’t require to focus on first life, it just to focus, where and when the changes had occurred.

For instance, WHEN did the polar bears diverge from brown bears? And WHAT causes the changes between the sister-species and HOW did it come about? And WHAT changes or differences between the two (genetics or physical characteristics)?

Here, in this example of the two bear species, we are only focusing on the changes to bears, about 70,000 years ago, not on the very first primordial life, some billions of years ago. There are no need for any biologist to go that far back time with evolution.

Yeah....let's explain it once more for the dummies who can see through the whole evolutionary scenario as being totally reliant of the testimony of learned scientists who are all equally on the same page.....all taught by equally indoctrinated fellows eager to pat one another on the back.....no bias there.....no interpreting the 'evidence' to support their theory.

Nooo....science would never do that...right?

They all have one agenda to uphold.....to present their ideas in a way that makes it look like it's fact.
We know they can't prove any of it, so they have to keep insinuating that those of us "unbelievers" are just uneducated and stupid.....

It can't be that the evidence is just unconvincing....?

Do we need science's interpretation of science to swallow the kool-ade?
Is there a collective 'intoxication' of some sort going on here?

 

[gnostic]

Yeah....let's explain it once more for the dummies who can see through the whole evolutionary scenario as being totally reliant of the testimony of learned scientists who are all equally on the same page.....all taught by equally indoctrinated fellows eager to pat one another on the back.....no bias there.....no interpreting the 'evidence' to support their theory.

Nooo....science would never do that...right?

They all have one agenda to uphold.....to present their ideas in a way that makes it look like it's fact.
We know they can't prove any of it, so they have to keep insinuating that those of us "unbelievers" are just uneducated and stupid.....

It can't be that the evidence is just unconvincing....?

Do we need science's interpretation of science to swallow the kool-ade?
Is there a collective 'intoxication' of some sort going on here?

And you are never biased, rude and obnoxious?

 

[Deeje]

Creationists......they love to spout off on subjects they know little about.

How did the giraffe get its long neck? Clues now revealed by new genome sequencing

Let's look at that link.......seeing as how you are shouting now.....

"The evolutionary changes required to build the giraffe's imposing structure and to equip it with the necessary modifications for its high-speed sprinting and powerful cardiovascular functions have remained a source of scientific mystery since the 1800s, when Charles Darwin first puzzled over the giraffe's evolutionary origins," said Cavener, a professor of biology and the Verne M. Willaman Dean of the Eberly College of Science at Penn State. The giraffe's heart, for example, must pump blood two meters straight up in order to provide an ample blood supply to its brain. This feat is possible because the giraffe's heart has evolved to have an unusually large left ventricle, and the species also has blood pressure that is twice as high as other mammals.

To identify genetic changes likely to be responsible for the giraffe's unique characteristics, including sprints that can reach 37 miles per hour (60 km/h), Cavener and Agaba compared the gene-coding sequences of the giraffe and the okapi to more than forty other mammals including the cow, sheep, goat, camel, and human. "Okapi's gene sequences are very similar to the giraffe's because the okapi and giraffe diverged from a common ancestor only 11-to-12 million years ago -- relatively recently on an evolution timescale," Cavener said. "In spite of this close evolutionary relationship, the okapi looks more like a zebra and it lacks the giraffe's imposing height and impressive cardiovascular capabilities. For these two reasons, Okapi's genome sequence provides a powerful screen that we have used to identify some of the giraffe's unique genetic changes."

The readers are free to read the rest......but just to concentrate on these opening statements.....

So, despite the giraffe's imposing size, (up to 15 feet tall) it can sprint at 37 MPH ! Imagine the size of the heart needed to pump blood to a brain over 6 feet away, and uphill......and add to that its capacity to maintain its blood pressure standing still, let alone during a 37 MPH sprint. Then it needs to lower its head to drink, whilst pumping water uphill to its stomach. What are the odds that evolution could engineer such a fete? The giraffe is clearly designed to maintain its vital body functions in order to accommodate its size and shape. Engineering doesn't just happen......engineering is design. This design is way too complex to have just designed itself. It should also be noted that giraffes do not lie down to give birth, so their young must survive a 6 foot fall to the ground, head first. Imagine giving birth to a baby with such incredibly long legs!

Here is a You Tube video to illustrate the point.

Now what about that gene sequencing? This admission stands out to me.....

"Okapi's gene sequences are very similar to the giraffe's because the okapi and giraffe diverged from a common ancestor only 11-to-12 million years ago -- relatively recently on an evolution timescale," Cavener said. "In spite of this close evolutionary relationship, the okapi looks more like a zebra and it lacks the giraffe's imposing height and impressive cardiovascular capabilities."

Now the average reader would not see in those words what we see....probably because they have learned to gloss over certain aspects of evolution like science does. The sentence stating that the gene sequence is "very similar" BECAUSE "okapi diverged from a common ancestor" is very misleading BECAUSE there is not one single shred of solid evidence that this is true. It is assumed to be true and therefore presented as fact. Being "very similar" means what? There are many creatures that appear to be similar but are unrelated.

"Common ancestors" are a figment of evolutionary imagination. You have to believe that evolution is true to even accept what they are saying about the very beginnings of their 'process'.

Then it is admitted that in spite of them being incredibly dissimilar in their appearance and capabilities, they are still virtual 'cousins' on the evolutionary tree. Who says?

I hope that people here are seeing the incredible gullibility that is being played on in these assumptions masquerading as facts. There are no facts backing up a single claim. Their "evidence" is not real.......it is a made up fairy story fed to gullible people who want God to disappear.

I hate to have to tell you this...but he isn't going anywhere.

 

[Deeje]

And you are never biased, rude and obnoxious?

I don't know....am I? I am biased, but with good reason IMO. Is disagreeing with someone who can't be told, rude and obnoxious?

I guess it can be.......if you have no defense. You act as if we don't understand, but we do and that is what gets up people's noses. I think we understand better than you guys do.

Hang onto your pet theory all you wish, but if the truth hurts, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your position instead of acting all wounded?

I don't 'tip-toe' very well, as I have mentioned quite a few times. I just tell it like it is. "Rude and obnoxious" are all in your interpretation of what I say.

 

[osgart]

Yeah....let's explain it once more for the dummies who can see through the whole evolutionary scenario as being totally reliant of the testimony of learned scientists who are all equally on the same page.....all taught by equally indoctrinated fellows eager to pat one another on the back.....no bias there.....no interpreting the 'evidence' to support their theory.

Nooo....science would never do that...right?

They all have one agenda to uphold.....to present their ideas in a way that makes it look like it's fact.
We know they can't prove any of it, so they have to keep insinuating that those of us "unbelievers" are just uneducated and stupid.....

It can't be that the evidence is just unconvincing....?

Do we need science's interpretation of science to swallow the kool-ade?
Is there a collective 'intoxication' of some sort going on here?

first it's random variation, chance, then it's the laws of physics dictate life should be inevitable only by those laws. and yet those laws are driven by chance according to them. why? because it happened naturally. the a priori starting assumption, whereas anything else is magic.

then they lead you far down the line to natural selection, survival of the fittest which is off topic.

they must start at the starting point, abiogenesis, and prove gene mutations are begun by only the laws of physics, without any intelligence whatsoever.

they are asserting chance, changing it to something other than chance, and every argument they make is on shifting sand, changeable as pleases.

that's a hard place to argue a point. I don't see the honesty in the opposition you are facing. or perhaps they are just blind to the good points you make.

how many alternatives are there to intelligent design besides chance?

perhaps simplicity of laws, or inevitability due to a tight iron clad , natural cause and effect chain.

maybe if they defined their terms according to your questioning, using simple language, this whole debate would be anything but an endless round and round.

it feels like to me they are condescending, and coercive. it's like talking to walls.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....learned scientists who are all equally on the same page......

Fortunately, not all; while almost everyone in academia agrees that evolution within species occurs, there are many in differing scientific fields who secretly acknowledge that deception is rampant in the "modification with descent" category. Some even openly state it. Have you read "Icons of Evolution", by Jonathan Wells?

I know we're busy people, but it's worth an in-depth look.

Take care.

 

[metis]

All their "evidence" relies on one factor......you have to "believe" that evolution actually happened to believe their story.

One doesn't "believe" in the basic ToE any more than one would "believe" Earth has a moon-- either one accepts the reality based on observations and common sense or they don't-- "belief" is for theists.

All material items appear to change over time and genes are material items-- that's the reality that we see daily, thus "evolution" continues on and on and on....

 

[Jose Fly]

they have to keep insinuating that those of us "unbelievers" are just uneducated and stupid.

No insinuation required......your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, despite the giraffe's imposing size, (up to 15 feet tall) it can sprint at 37 MPH ! Imagine the size of the heart needed to pump blood to a brain over 6 feet away, and uphill......and add to that its capacity to maintain its blood pressure standing still, let alone during a 37 MPH sprint. Then it needs to lower its head to drink, whilst pumping water uphill to its stomach. What are the odds that evolution could engineer such a fete? The giraffe is clearly designed to maintain its vital body functions in order to accommodate its size and shape. Engineering doesn't just happen......engineering is design. This design is way too complex to have just designed itself. It should also be noted that giraffes do not lie down to give birth, so their young must survive a 6 foot fall to the ground, head first. Imagine giving birth to a baby with such incredibly long legs!

We're all familiar with your reliance on the fallacy of "I can't imagine how it could have happened, therefore it didn't".

The sentence stating that the gene sequence is "very similar" BECAUSE "okapi diverged from a common ancestor" is very misleading BECAUSE there is not one single shred of solid evidence that this is true.

And we're all familiar with your reliance on the fallacy of "I'm unaware of the data, therefore it doesn't exist".

Or I suppose a more accurate characterization of your approach is "I'm not allowed to acknowledge that the data exists, therefore it doesn't". It's sad to see what the Jehovah's Witnesses does to people.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fortunately, not all; while almost everyone in academia agrees that evolution within species occurs, there are many in differing scientific fields who secretly acknowledge that deception is rampant in the "modification with descent" category.

@Deeje insists that speciation occurs and all changes within taxonomic families are just fine. Do you disagree?

Have you read "Icons of Evolution", by Jonathan Wells?

I have. Wells is a blatant liar. Are you interested in seeing how?

 

[Deeje]

We're all familiar with your reliance on the fallacy of "I can't imagine how it could have happened, therefore it didn't".


And we're all familiar with your reliance on the fallacy of "I'm unaware of the data, therefore it doesn't exist".

Or I suppose a more accurate characterization of your approach is "I'm not allowed to acknowledge that the data exists, therefore it doesn't". It's sad to see what the Jehovah's Witnesses does to people.

How easily you fob off the difficult questions with personal insinuations.......is this all you have.....? Pathetic IMO.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have. Wells is a blatant liar. Are you interested in seeing how?

Yes, please tell me. I’m interested! I’ve seen some of his school science book accusations, and those books served to verify what he stated, but I haven’t seen researched them all. Enlighten me.

But it better be concrete evidence, not the circumstantial kind that permeates the evolutionary sciences!

 

[Sapiens]

We know they can't prove any of it, so they have to keep insinuating that those of us "unbelievers" are just uneducated and stupid.....

"Stupid" is your word, not one that I have used. "Uneducated" is something that you claim with pride ... or are you changing your stance on your educational status?

 

[Deeje]

"Stupid" is your word, not one that I have used. "Uneducated" is something that you claim with pride ... or are you changing your stance on your educational status?

Educational status means a lot to you obviously Sapiens.....it is never the measure of a decent human being however.
I am quite happy with my educational status. Thank you.

 

[Sapiens]

Educational status means a lot to you obviously Sapiens.....it is never the measure of a decent human being however.
I am quite happy with my educational status. Thank you.

Then please refrain from complaining when people indicate that you are uneducated and that as a result you fail to comprehend. You claimed that description and boasted that you prefered it that way.

 

[gnostic]

Educational status means a lot to you obviously Sapiens.....it is never the measure of a decent human being however.

Not the status, but actual education and research done in the fields that of utmost importance.

I think you are missing another important factor: experiences.

Experiences in the workplaces, whether that be working in office, in the field or in the laboratory.

Education just don’t come from schools, colleges and universities, people learn from their workplaces, especially those working in the scientific fields.

For instance, in astrophysicist or astronomer, you learn far more than any classroom or from lecture, if you can work in optical or radio observatory, or at ESA or NASA, because then you would be getting raw data.

If your education in biology only consist of high school biology, then no one will take your words seriously versus those who who do have both qualification and experiences.

Yes, higher education is better, but it is far better to have experiences plus qualification.

In many of the links, articles, books and webpages that theistic creationists have published or posted up, many of those authors, have no experiences in the labs or in the fields, and often if they do have degrees or even PhD, these qualifications have nothing to do with fields they professed to have knowledge.

Many times, those claiming to have knowledge of “this” or “that”, (eg the global flood), they have PhD in theology, but none to do with qualification or experiences in geology, meteorology, archaeology or anthropology. Some claimed to be biblical archaeologist, but are not qualified as archaeologist or historian.

Qualification are only good if you have right ones, or you are qualified to work in that fields.

 

[Deeje]

Qualification are only good if you have right ones, or you are qualified to work in that fields.

It doesn't alter the fact that the evidence they present, regardless of their field, and regardless of their experience, is an interpretation geared to support their pet theory. They believe that evolution happened and all evidence is then forced to fit that 'fact'. How many assumptions does it take to make a fact?

If you guys had any proof at all for what you claim, it would have been presented by now. Nothing concrete is ever forthcoming. You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't. They are logical and you have no come back.

 

[ArtieE]

It doesn't alter the fact that the evidence they present, regardless of their field, and regardless of their experience, is an interpretation geared to support their pet theory. The believe that evolution happened and all evidence is then forced to fit that 'fact'. How many assumptions does it take to make a fact?

If you guys had any proof at all for what you claim, it would have been presented by now. Nothing concrete is ever forthcoming. You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't. They are logical and you have no come back.

"BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation."
What We Believe

"Evolution is a scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Some Christians fear that accepting the theory means rejecting God as creator. But that just doesn’t follow. Christians accept scientific theories about the weather, the formation of mountains, and even the conception and development of individual human beings while still acknowledging that God is the creator and sustainer of these things. So giving a scientific description for a process does not rule out a legitimate theological description of the process as well.

This article summarizes multiple independent lines of evidence that evolution is the best scientific description of the process by which life has diversified. Think of each of these lines of evidence as a clue to the past, all of which together form a compelling picture of the relatedness of all species."
What is the evidence for evolution?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It doesn't alter the fact that the evidence they present, regardless of their field, and regardless of their experience, is an interpretation geared to support their pet theory.

No, that's the faith based method - beginning with what you hope is true and then sifting through the evidence to see which of it you might be able to use while rejecting the rest, trying to construct what appears to be an argument leading to a conclusion that is actually a faith based premise (pseudo-conclusion).

Science goes in the other direction. It starts with all the relevant evidence available and attempts to derive generalizations that account for it all. When it finds that those generalizations can now be used to make accurate predictions, the conclusions are deemed useful.

If you guys had any proof at all for what you claim, it would have been presented by now.

If you were capable of learning, you would have stopped thinking that scientific theories can be proven years ago.

What you have been given is evidence, which you invariable subject to the creationist two-step - demand evidence (calling it proof), don't even look at it let alone make a good faith effort to evaluate it critically and open-mindedly, then claim that there is no "proof" again.

It's my opinion that evidence should not be offered to faith based thinkers. They didn't arrive at their present position using it, and they can't be budged from it by evidence.

You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't.

That's one of your signature bad faith disputation techniques.

How many times have I asked you with no answer forthcoming from you why we would throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for mountains of data, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that? You are silent because you have no answer.

How many times have you been asked what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Crickets.

How many times have you been asked to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it? Sound of a pin dropping.

How many times have you been asked to define what a kind is so that we may know exactly what you are saying never happens - one kind evolving into another? Sound of distant rooster crowing.

Incidentally, these are all rhetorical questions now - statements in the form of a question that really expect no answer. In every case, the question is actually a statement : there is no reason to exchange a sterile idea for one that can be put to use, nothing prevents large scale evolution from occurring over geological time, and cells are more likely to exist undesigned and uncreated than gods.

 

[scott777]

This is for people who are convinced that something complex and beautiful cannot come from something which is not complex and beautiful.

This is a single image (Mandelbrot Set) which I have produced using Javascript and have zoomed into various sections. The whole image is produced by the result of iterating this function:

f(z) = z(squared) + c (where c is a narrow range of values and f(0) = 0)

For example, starting at 0, with c = 1 we get


0 squared + 1 = 1

1 squared + 1 = 2

2 squared + 1 = 5

5 squared + 1 = 26

26 squared + 1 = 677


The function is:

NOT designed
NOT complex
NOT beautiful

Yet the resulting pattern appears to be all three.

Some will say this does not count because it is produced by a computer which is designed. BUT that is irrelevant, because the computer does NOT follow a complex rule. It follows the function above, which anyone can learn to follow and is simple in comparison to the pattern it produces. The complexity derives entirely from simple mathematics.