Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

And that again brings up the question I asked you and you subsequently ignored........@Deeje insists that speciation occurs and all changes within taxonomic families are just fine. Do you disagree?

No, that may be true. But pakicetus, for example, is not the forerunner of whales!

 

[Jose Fly]

Did I not state that I do not approve of lying?

Then you do not approve of Wells, correct?

You must've missed my point about fighting fire with fire, there have been many people who've lied to further evolutionary theory...Haeckel's drawings and Piltdown were among the first. So, if your opponent "fights dirty", what would that incline you to do? With lying, it just destroys credibility.

First, we're not talking about unnamed "many people"; we're specifically discussing Johnathan Wells. Second, if your opponent is lying then you point that out. You most certainly do not use that as an excuse to start lying yourself.

Finally, has Wells corrected the record on his statements about the resting locations of peppered moths? For that matter, has anyone within ID creationism done so?

Although I've never known any moth species to not rest on trees, I don't know the validity of the study, either. You'd trust it, no doubt, but too many studies have been slanted to support MACROevolution. (That's the real issue.)

Vague, baseless accusations are exactly that....vague and baseless.

Like this disingenuous piece:

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

It was not multicellularity, it was single cells forming a colony!
The comments section is telling!

Interesting.

No, that may be true.

So you accept evolutionary change within taxonomic families?

But pakicetus, for example, is not the forerunner of whales!

Why, because you say so? Why do you think anyone should just take your assertions about evolutionary biology as unquestioned gospel?

 

[Sapiens]

'Got my education from TV', huh?

That's what you said, "Watching ‘Perry Mason’ taught me how easy it is for evidence to seem to support a certain “theory”, but then in the end, it has no bearing on the truth."

If you need to change your story ... feel free.

You've just can't help but slant the conversation with an ad hominem, can you? (Just like the majority of pro-CDers
on this board I've noticed.)

It is not an ad hominem, I am not attacking the person (e.g., you) I am questioning the value, based on the self-identified source of the person's (your) information (Perry Mason, a TV show).

My education extends quite further than that.

Do tell.

Evolution within species occurs, even genera, but there's no conclusive evidence that organisms mutate into higher taxa, forming new body plans. Stating otherwise is not truthful. Like, "pakicetus is the ancestor of whales." What a doozy.

That's just Claim CC216.1

Once more: the Cambrian Explosion stands by itself as evidence for creation, several creative acts for that matter!

That's just claims CC300 and CC301.

The sheer magnitude of functional information in the cell is evidence, also.

3.5 Billion years is a more than enough time to accumulate the data, after all, theh best estimates put the information in the DNA of a single human cell at about 1.5 Gigabytes ... kinda like a single streaming HD movie.

And on, and on.

You do go on and on and on.

Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on evolution, would you mind answering these questions?

1. Is the mutation rate volatile enough to enable the beneficial change required to form all the varied organisms that have ever lived? Or has it manifested stability enough to maintain form and consistency?
2. How significant must a change be, in order to impact on survival and thus, subject the organism to the influence of natural selection?
3. Are the required states “logically inconsistent” - that is, can there be a mutation rate that satisfies the mix of stability and volatility required for evolution by mutation?
4. Aren’t the vast, overwhelming majority of mutations, as an expression of the inexorable march of entropy, detrimental to survival and prone to inefficient formlessness, rather than efficient, purposeful form?
5. How significant must a micro-mutation be before it swamps an organism’s motivation to adapt? And if a micro mutation is not significant enough, won't the equal likelihood of back-mutation annihilate any desirable, chance, positive increment?

When you are plagiarizing lists it might serve you better to plagiarize from credible sources, the Institute for Creation Research is not one. I find use of this list by a crackpot named Stephen Springette back as far as 2003 on the Evolutionary Psychology List, but I do not know which came first, the ICR of Springette.

1. There is no ironclad "mutation rate" so the question is idiotic. Mutations are a function of many things and many of the causes are quite variable.

2. The question is a tautology itself. Obviously it must be significant enough to impact on reproduction (not just survival) and thus, subject the organism's access to the gene pool of succeeding generations.

3. As noted, the idea of a constant mutation rate is horse pucky.

4. It appears that a specific form of mutation known as Gene Duplication is the major force in evolution. This form is free from the deleterious effects of single point mutation and creates an entirely new functional block that can evolve novel functions without sacrificing the functionality of the original.

5. The question is idiotic, there is no "organism’s motivation to adapt" and even with point mutations there is no equal likelihood of back-mutation, that would be the old saw of being struck by lightning twice.

 

[Profound Realization]

ID's answer is useless. Goddidit has no explanatory value and cannot be used for anything. "It did it by itself" is just as useless if left at that. I'm sure that you would reject such an answer for its emptiness since you're always requiring evidence of others, so why offer one equally empty?



No, that's what faith based thinkers believe - whatever they want to believe. The reason and evidence based thinker's conclusions are compelled by the proper application of reason to evidence. That is why the faith based thinker feels free to believe in a supernatural deity for which there is no evidence, whereas the reason and evidence based thinker does not.



That's one of your signature bad faith disputation techniques as I indicated to you on this thread yesterday, and you ignored it again. So, I'll repeat what I posted then:

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 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.

The "barrier" argument is misleading. If you're claiming that barriers were broken, it is on you to provide evidence. "Given enough time the current impossible becomes possible" is not evidence. Enough time didit is not evidence nor is explanatory value.

Including a mechanism is also little to no explanatory power. Systems use information for them to do things. How did the first "living" organism "know" how to reproduce?

 

[Deeje]

I have to urge you, yet again, to read up on comparative genomics. It helps to know what you're actually talking about, when discussing a topic. The evidence is right there in the article, and yet you still can't see it because you don't seem to recognize evidence for what it is.
Comparative Genomics | Learn Science at Scitable

What did that link tell us ST? "Comparative Genomics" means what?

What Are the Benefits of Comparative Genomics?

Here are their conclusions.....

"Dramatic results have emerged from the rapidly developing field of comparative genomics. Comparison of the fruit fly genome with the human genome reveals that about sixty percent of genes are conserved (Adams et al. 2000). That is, the two organisms appear to share a core set of genes. Researchers have also found that two-thirds of human genes known to be involved in cancer have counterparts in the fruit fly."

How dramatic! We humans share 60% of our genes with fruit flies! And two thirds of genes that are known to cause cancer in humans' "have counterparts in fruit flies"!

I have to ask...so what? Do you see a striking resemblance to fruit flies in humans or vice versa? What about bananas? Perhaps you shouldn't answer that.....

"In addition to its implications for human health, comparative genomics may benefit the broader animal world and ecological studies as well. As sequencing technology grows easier and less expensive, it will find wide applications in agriculture, biotechnology, and zoology as a tool to tease apart the often-subtle differences among animal and plant species. Such efforts might also lead to the rearrangement of our understanding of some branches of the evolutionary "tree of life," as well as point to new strategies for conserving rare and endangered species."

So....."As sequencing technology grows easier and less expensive, it will find wide applications in agriculture, biotechnology, and zoology as a tool to tease apart the often-subtle differences among animal and plant species. Such efforts might also lead to the rearrangement of our understanding of some branches of the evolutionary "tree of life..."......
What wider applications could these be? More GMO's....? More excuses as to why in this day and age of genomic understanding, and sophisticated technology, there is as yet no cure for cancer in orthodox medicine?
Every intelligent doctor knows that the cure for any disease is not in drugs concocted in a lab for huge monetary gain.....it is in supporting and enhancing the human immune system to allow the body to heal itself as it was designed to.
It will be interesting to see what "rearrangements" will be necessary in the "tree of life"...
.....interesting terminology.

I have a question. How do you think paternity tests work? And do you think they're accurate?

By comparing human DNA with other human DNA.......they are apparently accurate enough. Not determining if the person is related to a fruit fly though.

Last time I checked, the one and only viable explanation for the diversity of life on Earth has been the theory of evolution, for well over a century now. It's hard to see when you clamp your eyes and ears closed though.

The last time you checked, you were obviously looking for information that confirmed what you already believe.....what's new? The theory of evolution has been around for like 5 minutes compared to how long the Bible has been in existence. What makes humans think they are so smart all of a sudden? The Creator has been around way longer and knows way more than ego driven scientists who think they are too intelligent for God.

I guess we'll have to wait and see who has the final word on this issue....you'd better hope it is you.

 

[Deeje]

When you are plagiarizing lists it might serve you better to plagiarize from credible sources, the Institute for Creation Research is not one.

Not credible to whom? You evolutionists? We do not recognize your science gods, nor do we believe in their writings which are like 'scripture' to you.....we have our own equally verifiable beliefs (in our view). We believe that you have a highly inflated view of evolutionary science's importance and the credibility of its evidence....if you want to call it that.

1. There is no ironclad "mutation rate" so the question is idiotic. Mutations are a function of many things and many of the causes are quite variable.

How many mutations are beneficial compared to how many are detrimental? When you hear the word "mutation" does something beneficial spring to mind? Since evolution is based on beneficial mutations, l guess there must be a whole string of these beneficial mutations that can be verified? Right? I haven't seen any though.....because they are just an assumption.

2. The question is a tautology itself. Obviously it must be significant enough to impact on reproduction (not just survival) and thus, subject the organism's access to the gene pool of succeeding generations.

If it "must" then there should be verifiable evidence that it actually happened? Never seen that either.
Another suggestion pretending to be fact.

3. As noted, the idea of a constant mutation rate is horse pucky.

The idea that life popped out of nowhere, for no apparent reason and mutated itself into all the lifeforms we see on this planet is horse pucky.

4. It appears that a specific form of mutation known as Gene Duplication is the major force in evolution. This form is free from the deleterious effects of single point mutation and creates an entirely new functional block that can evolve novel functions without sacrificing the functionality of the original.

What is known about gene duplication.....?

"Gene Duplication and Evolution

In the transmittance of genetic material from parent to offspring, accidents occasionally happen. Such accidents may result in the duplication of a chromosomal segment that then becomes separated from the original segment, ending up in a different chromosomal location. A number of human genetic disorders are known to be associated with the increased expression of genes contained within such duplications. However, evolutionary biologists have long been enthralled with the idea that duplicate genes could provide the ultimate substrate on which evolution could work."

Gene Duplication and Evolution | Science

Interesting terms used in this explanation......it seems as if there are examples of such gene duplication but in human diseases like those inherited from an affected parent. The effect is hardly beneficial. If it meant a death sentence for the parent, likewise it would probably result in the same outcome for the offspring. I am personally acquainted with diseases from mutated genes, so this is an area that interests me greatly.

Does science have evidence for beneficial examples of this or is it only a "could" be scenario like we always see?

5. The question is idiotic, there is no "organism’s motivation to adapt" and even with point mutations there is no equal likelihood of back-mutation, that would be the old saw of being struck by lightning twice.

Really? What about the Peppered Moth, once haled as a prime example of evolution.....it reverted back to its original color after the pollution problem was fixed....and it remained a Peppered Moth even after its color change.

"If you’re an evolutionist, this is now becoming at best a case of oscillating selection, much like what has been observed in the oscillating sizes of beaks of the Galapagos finches, which grow slightly larger during a drought but revert back to their original size when the drought is over. . . .

To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a “new species of finch” might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.

(Phillip Johnson, “The Church of Darwin,” Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999.)"

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/07/peppered_moth_now_reverts_back/

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....What about bananas? Perhaps you shouldn't answer that....

That was FUNNY! Reading it, I almost woke my wife up. Lol...literally

 

[Sapiens]

Not credible to whom? You evolutionists? We do not recognize your science gods, nor do we believe in their writings which are like 'scripture' to you.....we have our own equally verifiable beliefs (in our view). We believe that you have a highly inflated view of evolutionary science's importance and the credibility of its evidence....if you want to call it that.

Not creditable to almost each and every professional scientist on the planet. The faith based presuppositional opinions of those whose biological education came no closer to truth than art school can safely be ignored.

How many mutations are beneficial compared to how many are detrimental? When you hear the word "mutation " does something beneficial spring to mind? Since evolution is based on beneficial mutations, l guess there must be a whole string of these beneficial mutations that can be verified? Right? I haven't seen any though.....because they are just an assumption.

Since what "springs to mind" is entirely an effect of mistaken belief pretending to be fact, it can be ignored ... especially when the mind belongs to one with no formal training in genetics. Here, for your edification are three beneficial point mutations: apolipoprotein AI-Milano, low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5,
and tetrachromatic vision.

If it "must" then there should be verifiable evidence that it actually happened? Never seen that either. Another suggestion pretending to be fact.

It is only hard to verify because that's virtually every allele in your body.

The idea that life popped out of nowhere, for no apparent reason and mutated itself into all the lifeforms we see on this planet is horse pucky.

So you keep claiming but can only support with pretty pictures, arguments from personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance. Not a very substantial showing.

What is known about gene duplication.....?

"Gene Duplication and Evolution

In the transmittance of genetic material from parent to offspring, accidents occasionally happen. Such accidents may result in the duplication of a chromosomal segment that then becomes separated from the original segment, ending up in a different chromosomal location. A number of human genetic disorders are known to be associated with the increased expression of genes contained within such duplications. However, evolutionary biologists have long been enthralled with the idea that duplicate genes could provide the ultimate substrate on which evolution could work."

Gene Duplication and Evolution | Science

Aren't you ever going to get out of the quote mine and read the entire article and some of the referenced papers? No I guess you won't, because if you did you'd have to face the truth.

Interesting terms used in this explanation......it seems as if there are examples of such gene duplication but in human diseases like those inherited from an affected parent. The effect is hardly beneficial. If it meant a death sentence for the parent, likewise it would probably result in the same outcome for the offspring. I am personally acquainted with diseases from mutated genes, so this is an area that interests me greatly.

Please, off the top of your head, name three and elucidate their precise cause.

Does science have evidence for beneficial examples of this or is it only a "could" be scenario like we always see?

This is fairly new stuff, but even so, unambiguous evidence for adaptation by gene duplication has been shown (Zhang et al. 2002; Hittinger and Carroll 2007; Conant and Wolfe 2008; Deng et al. 2010; Nasvall et al. 2012; Ross et al. 2013)

Really? What about the Peppered Moth, once haled as a prime example of evolution.....it reverted back to its original color after the pollution problem was fixed....and it remained a Peppered Moth even after its color change.

Of course it did. All light moth morphs did not die out and when the situation flipped back to normal, the natural advantage of light color reasserted itself.

"If you’re an evolutionist, this is now becoming at best a case of oscillating selection, much like what has been observed in the oscillating sizes of beaks of the Galapagos finches, which grow slightly larger during a drought but revert back to their original size when the drought is over. . . .

To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a “new species of finch” might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.

(Phillip Johnson, “The Church of Darwin,” Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999.)"

Johnson is a retired Law Professor with no background in biology but a long track record of lying and misstatement in support of ID ... in fact, he invented ID, not out of biological fact but as legal ploy to shove creationism into the public school science curriculum in a misguided attempt to "save America."

Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State described Johnson's vision as: "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" He is as deluded as you are.

 

[Deeje]

Not creditable to almost each and every professional scientist on the planet.

LOL.....

You say that like we should be impressed....I find those who support the theory of evolution to be the unprofessional scientists. Fudging interpretation of evidence and hiding behind a lot of jargon to make evolution sound like verified fact is not professional...then using bullying tactics to make the unconvinced feel like fools is just childish IMO.

The faith based presuppositional opinions of those whose biological education came no closer to truth than art school can safely be ignored.

As you wish. If a scientific education gives people an over inflated opinion of themselves and their place in the world, then you are welcome to that. Self righteousness is not really any true measure of a person IMO.
An educated jerk is still a jerk strangely enough.

an effect of mistaken belief pretending to be fact, it can be ignored ... especially when the mind belongs to one with no formal training in genetics. Here, for your edification are three beneficial point mutations: apolipoprotein AI-Milano, low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5,
and tetrachromatic vision.

I can Google beneficial mutations too......

"Most random genetic changes caused by evolution are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population."

Read that statement and see how the language is used to mask the truth. Most genetic changes are neutral, meaning that they do not change the organism significantly at all.

"Some are harmful".....that's not true....many are harmful....in fact here is a list of harmful mutations just in humans....
List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia

A "few" turn out to be beneficial....? A very few indeed.....and they "may, in time," grow wings and fly.

"apolipoprotein AI-Milano"...."for removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."

"low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5".... is a gene that promotes stronger bone density.
This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average....
As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases."

Did you miss the "malaria resistance" on purpose?

Then there is the "tetrachromatic vision"....."theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. . . .
And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."

4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now

Wow!! Out of all the beneficial mutations that science claims "must have" taken place over all those millions of years of evolution....how many did it come up with that it could actually prove....? FOUR?

How many of those did they find in the general population? One family? One individual?

Now compare that list with the harmful genetic mutations.....that tells the real story, doesn't it?

It is only hard to verify because that's virtually every allele in your body.

"Hard to verify", yet presented as if it were fact.....why? Because you have real evidence?....or because you just need it to prop up your theory?

So you keep claiming but can only support with pretty pictures, arguments from personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance. Not a very substantial showing

My arguments are faith based but easy to see with your own eyes. Its hard to deny something that is right under your nose, which is why I use images. It is logical that design requires a designer and the 'empirical evidence' is fully available to the senses in real life, requiring no scientific education or concocted storyline to sell a really stupid idea that seemed feasible over 100 years ago.

if you did you'd have to face the truth.

Something you have difficulty doing yourself apparently.

Please, off the top of your head, name three and elucidate their precise cause.

You mean like your beneficial mutations? I can tell you of two that affect my immediate family....Huntington's Disease and Muscular Dystrophy. Both are inherited conditions that I can assure you do not result in any benefits to the ones receiving the mutant genes. If there is an expansion of the mutation the victim will suffer a worse case of the condition than the parent. I am well acquainted with gene expansion.

All light moth morphs did not die out and when the situation flipped back to normal, the natural advantage of light color reasserted itself.

That doesn't explain the finches beaks.

Johnson is a retired Law Professor with no background in biology but a long track record of lying and misstatement in support of ID ... in fact, he invented ID, not out of biological fact but as legal ploy to shove creationism into the public school science curriculum in a misguided attempt to "save America."

Typical response. Character assassination is the first port of call with you lot. Call into question the person's academic background and no matter how valid their arguments are, they will be treated with contempt.

He is as deluded as you are.

Delusion is not only in the creation camp......science has stretched itself beyond the limits of solid evidence but still maintains it superiority....an undeserved self-appointment if you ask me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What did that link tell us ST? "Comparative Genomics" means what?

How about instead of parsing and butchering this article, as you tend to you, let’s continue with the topic at hand. My comment about comparative genomics was directed toward your post that said:

’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'.”


I implored you to seek knowledge about comparative genomics, because if you were aware of it the field of research you would know that your comment that I bolded (“there is not a single shred of solid evidence that this is true. It is assumed to be true and therefore presented as fact”) is an erroneous one. It’s not an assumption that living organisms share a common ancestor; rather it’s based on the EVIDENCE, some of which is derived from the study of comparative genomics. That’s not to say that there aren’t many other avenues of research involved in that assessment, so don’t even bother trying that one. By definition, a conclusion drawn from the available evidence is not an assumption.

Here are their conclusions.....

"Dramatic results have emerged from the rapidly developing field of comparative genomics. Comparison of the fruit fly genome with the human genome reveals that about sixty percent of genes are conserved (Adams et al. 2000). That is, the two organisms appear to share a core set of genes. Researchers have also found that two-thirds of human genes known to be involved in cancer have counterparts in the fruit fly."

How dramatic! We humans share 60% of our genes with fruit flies!

style='font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2; widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px' alt="" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie9" unselectable=on v:shapes="_x0000_i1025"> And two thirds of genes that are known to cause cancer in humans' "have counterparts in fruit flies"!

It doesn’t really matter that you find it amusing. Is that all you wanted to tell me?

The point here Deeje, is that common ancestry is not simply assumed without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, as you keep asserting over and over. Let’s address the actual point instead of going off on one of your tangents.

I have to ask...so what? Do you see a striking resemblance to fruit flies in humans or vice versa? What about bananas? Perhaps you shouldn't answer that.....

You’re “so what” is included in the very paragraph you have cited, right here:

"In addition to its implications for human health, comparative genomics may benefit the broader animal world and ecological studies as well. As sequencing technology grows easier and less expensive, it will find wide applications in agriculture, biotechnology, and zoology as a tool to tease apart the often-subtle differences among animal and plant species. Such efforts might also lead to the rearrangement of our understanding of some branches of the evolutionary "tree of life," as well as point to new strategies for conserving rare and endangered species."

So....."As sequencing technology grows easier and less expensive, it will find wide applications in agriculture, biotechnology, and zoology as a tool to tease apart the often-subtle differences among animal and plant species. Such efforts might also lead to the rearrangement of our understanding of some branches of the evolutionary "tree of life..."......

What wider applications could these be? More GMO's....? More excuses as to why in this day and age of genomic understanding, and sophisticated technology, there is as yet no cure for cancer in orthodox medicine?

There are a ton of potential applications. If you actually care about finding a cure for cancer, you should support this type of research. Why you expect us to have all the answers and cures for everything that ails us is a mystery to me.

Every intelligent doctor knows that the cure for any disease is not in drugs concocted in a lab for huge monetary gain.....it is in supporting and enhancing the human immune system to allow the body to heal itself as it was designed to.

It will be interesting to see what "rearrangements" will be necessary in the "tree of life"...
.....interesting terminology.

Instead of taking us off on another one of your tangents, how about let’s get back to the point about common ancestry that you now seem to want to brush off.

You’re not a doctor, so excuse me if I’m not interested in your medical advice.

By comparing human DNA with other human DNA.......they are apparently accurate enough. Not determining if the person is related to a fruit fly though.

style='font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2; widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px' alt="" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie12" unselectable=on v:shapes="_x0000_i1027">

Why not?

Why do you think it only works between human family members?? All living organisms on the planet store genetic information using RNA and DNA. So when the researchers in that article compare genomic sequences among organisms, what do you think is going on there? Are they just making it up? Why do the results indicate that all living organisms are genetically related, to varying degrees? Your position on this doesn't appear to make any sense.

The last time you checked, you were obviously looking for information that confirmed what you already believe.....what's new?

Um, no. That’s a factually accurate statement that I made there. We certainly don’t teach creationism in science classrooms, now do we? That’s because the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation in town. I will point out again too, that acceptance of the theory of evolution doesn’t mean a person can’t also believe in god(s). I don’t see why some super intelligent being wouldn’t be able to design something like evolution. I’m not sure why you don’t think a god could or would be able to do so, though.

The theory of evolution has been around for like 5 minutes compared to how long the Bible has been in existence.

And other folklore has been around for much longer. What makes the Bible so special?

Isn’t it funny that in all this time since the Bible was written, nobody has yet been able to provide demonstrable evidence for the specific god of the Bible (or any god, for that matter). What are they waiting for? And in only the last 150+ years or so, the theory of evolution has been proposed and subsequently backed up with mountains of evidence. I’ve said it to you before and I’ll say it again: If it’s so obvious that evolution is false, why hasn’t anyone yet managed to provide any evidence that would falsify it?

What makes humans think they are so smart all of a sudden? The Creator has been around way longer and knows way more than ego driven scientists who think they are too intelligent for God.

Science works. Everything we know about everything in the natural world has come from rigorous scientific study and inquiry.

I guess we'll have to wait and see who has the final word on this issue....you'd better hope it is you.

When it comes to science, evolution is demonstrable, creationism is not.

I'll be fine, please save your religious threats for someone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL.....

You say that like we should be impressed....I find those who support the theory of evolution to be the unprofessional scientists. Fudging interpretation of evidence and hiding behind a lot of jargon to make evolution sound like verified fact is not professional...then using bullying tactics to make the unconvinced feel like fools is just childish IMO.

As you wish. If a scientific education gives people an over inflated opinion of themselves and their place in the world, then you are welcome to that. Self righteousness is not really any true measure of a person IMO.
An educated jerk is still a jerk strangely enough.

I can Google beneficial mutations too......

"Most random genetic changes caused by evolution are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population."

Read that statement and see how the language is used to mask the truth. Most genetic changes are neutral, meaning that they do not change the organism significantly at all.

"Some are harmful".....that's not true....many are harmful....in fact here is a list of harmful mutations just in humans....
List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia

A "few" turn out to be beneficial....? A very few indeed.....and they "may, in time," grow wings and fly.

"apolipoprotein AI-Milano"...."for removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."

"low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5".... is a gene that promotes stronger bone density.
This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average....
As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases."

Did you miss the "malaria resistance" on purpose?

Then there is the "tetrachromatic vision"....."theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. . . .
And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."

4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now

Wow!! Out of all the beneficial mutations that science claims "must have" taken place over all those millions of years of evolution....how many did it come up with that it could actually prove....? FOUR?

How many of those did they find in the general population? One family? One individual?

Now compare that list with the harmful genetic mutations.....that tells the real story, doesn't it?

"Hard to verify", yet presented as if it were fact.....why? Because you have real evidence?....or because you just need it to prop up your theory?

My arguments are faith based but easy to see with your own eyes. Its hard to deny something that is right under your nose, which is why I use images. It is logical that design requires a designer and the 'empirical evidence' is fully available to the senses in real life, requiring no scientific education or concocted storyline to sell a really stupid idea that seemed feasible over 100 years ago.

Something you have difficulty doing yourself apparently.

You mean like you beneficial mutations? I can tell you of two that affect my immediate family....Huntington's Disease and Muscular Dystrophy. Both are inherited conditions that I can assure you do not result in any benefits to the ones receiving the mutant genes. If there is an expansion of the mutation the victim will suffer a worse case of the condition than the parent. I am well acquainted with gene expansion.

That doesn't explain the finches beaks.

Typical response. Character assassination is the first port of call with you lot. Call into question the person's academic background and no matter how valid their arguments are, they will be treated with contempt.

Delusion is not only in the creation camp......science has stretched itself beyond the limits of solid evidence but still maintains it superiority....an undeserved self-appointment if you ask me.

r your nose, which is why I use images. It is logical that design requires a designer and the 'empirical evidence' is fully available to the senses in real life, requiring no scientific education or concocted storyline to sell a really stupid idea that seemed feasible over 100 years ago.

Something you have difficulty doing yourself apparently.

You mean like you beneficial mutations? I can tell you of two that affect my immediate family....Huntington's Disease and Muscular Dystrophy. Both are inherited conditions that I can assure you do not result in any benefits to the ones receiving the mutant genes. If there is an expansion of the mutation the victim will suffer a worse case of the condition than the parent. I am well acquainted with gene expansion.

That doesn't explain the finches beaks.

Typical response. Character assassination is the first port of call with you lot. Call into question the person's academic background and no matter how valid their arguments are, they will be treated with contempt.

Maybe don't quote lawyers as scientific authorities then. Sheesh. His argument was not valid and that poster pointed out why. People who are known liars should be exposed for lying.

Delusion is not only in the creation camp......science has stretched itself beyond the limits of solid evidence but still maintains it superiority....an undeserved self-appointment if you ask me.

Nonsense. Science maintains its superiority because it's the only evidence-based methodology available that has been demonstrated to be effective in producing accurate information about the reality we find ourselves in.

 

[scott777]

All due respect back to you, but you keep going on about fractals as if they connect in some way to evolution. We are not talking about fractals here......we are not including mathematical design, which is as appealing as a kaleidoscope was to me when I was a kid. What are you trying to prove? That pretty things can exist without being designed? Can mathematics be explained without being designed? Aren't fractals based on mathematics?

"Pretty" is not at issue here.....its functionality....deliberate purpose to something that cannot be explained away as something "accidental". There is purpose to design which involves planning....you do understand this?

What has this got to do with anything? The "simple rules" are mathematical are they not? Did mathematics invent itself? Did the human brain just accidentally "get" math? Did Fibonacci numbers, evident in so many things in nature, just happen for no apparent reason? I'm sure that science thinks they did. Good 'ol Mr Nobody....what a clever fellow.....pity he will never be recognized for the genius that he is.......

No one said your patterns had to be planned. What purpose do they serve apart from their aesthetics? I am speaking about the reasons why humans appreciate beauty in nature in a completely different way to animals. Why are there flowers of every color?....what is color anyway? Why does it exist?.....why do birds sing songs that make us feel good?......why do scenes of waterfalls take our breath away? Why would we find the sight of falling water so attractive? What is water? How did it come to be?

What about the air we breathe? Was it just a fortunate accident too? Is it a co-incidence that trees breathe out what we breathe in and vice versa? If I keep going will I run out of fortunate coincidences....?
How many coincidences are too many to be believable?

I never suggested mathematics or the laws of physics invented themselves. I already said let’s assume they came from God.

To clarify (I thought that was already done), fractals show that a pattern that appears complex and beautiful can arise through a non-intelligent process from a simple pattern or rule.

Your argument for intelligent design has consistently been that if something appears to be designed then it must have been designed. Fractals prove that is not the case.

 

[Sapiens]

LOL.....

You say that like we should be impressed....I find those who support the theory of evolution to be the unprofessional scientists.

You are, by your own admission, ill equipped to attempt to make that judgement. Remember, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall, and your willingness to pontificate from ignorance is the height of hubris.

Fudging interpretation of evidence and hiding behind a lot of jargon to make evolution sound like verified fact is not professional...then using bullying tactics to make the unconvinced feel like fools is just childish IMO.

Already said and applicable a second time.

As you wish. If a scientific education gives people an over inflated opinion of themselves and their place in the world, then you are welcome to that. Self righteousness is not really any true measure of a person IMO.

As ST wrote: "Nonsense. Science maintains its superiority because it's the only evidence-based methodology available that has been demonstrated to be effective in producing accurate information about the reality we find ourselves in."

An educated jerk is still a jerk strangely enough.

And an ignorant jerk is still ignorant and a jerk ... nothing strange about that.

I can Google beneficial mutations too......

You should do so on a daily basis, perhaps repetition would help you learn.

"Most random genetic changes caused by evolution are neutral, and some are harmful, but a few turn out to be positive improvements. These beneficial mutations are the raw material that may, in time, be taken up by natural selection and spread through the population."

Read that statement and see how the language is used to mask the truth. Most genetic changes are neutral, meaning that they do not change the organism significantly at all.

That's just respectful science speak, it is the way that we communicate with each other. I would be every bit as correct to say: "Random genetic changes are often neutral though they can be harmful, helpful, or depending on conditions, both at the same time. Beneficial mutations have been shown to spread through the population as a result of natural selection as negative mutations have been shown to be eliminated from the population. - there, does that make you feel better?

"Some are harmful".....that's not true....many are harmful....in fact here is a list of harmful mutations just in humans....
List of genetic disorders - Wikipedia

A "few" turn out to be beneficial....? A very few indeed.....and they "may, in time," grow wings and fly.

Yes, some are harmful, but it is hardly the case that a "few" turn out to be beneficial. Consider the number of beneficial mutations of many sorts that have occurred in what you would style "the progress from goo to you." If the number of positive mutations had no far exceeded the number of harmful mutations you would not be here.

"apolipoprotein AI-Milano"...."for removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."

"low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5".... is a gene that promotes stronger bone density.
This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average....
As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases."

Did you miss the "malaria resistance" on purpose?

Then there is the "tetrachromatic vision"....."theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. . . .
And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat."

4 Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations That Humans Are Undergoing Right Now

Wow!! Out of all the beneficial mutations that science claims "must have" taken place over all those millions of years of evolution....how many did it come up with that it could actually prove....? FOUR?

No, you said: "I haven't seen any (positive mutations) though.....because they are just an assumption."

I showed that your claim, "... they are just an assumption" is, as usual, demonstrably false, just more of your usual jabber that does not hold up to minor scrutiny. This is also a clear demonstration of your typical tactics, you never admit that you are wrong, that you have misstated, try to shift the attention to something else pretending that your ignorance or lie (I'll be generous, take your pick) were not exposed.

How many of those did they find in the general population? One family? One individual?

What does it matter? My claim is supported and your's is rejected, even if it is only one mutation in one person.

 

[Sapiens]

Now compare that list with the harmful genetic mutations.....that tells the real story, doesn't it?

The real story is that you have no idea of what you are talking about, you are making it up as you go and you are failing to admit to your error when you are caught with your hand in cookie jar.

"Hard to verify", yet presented as if it were fact.....why? Because you have real evidence?....or because you just need it to prop up your theory?

The evidence is quite clear, the entire field of genomics demonstrates it, yet you claim, without evidence, to know better. Just more hubris.

My arguments are faith based but easy to see with your own eyes.

That is a non sequitur, faith is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Its hard to deny something that is right under your nose, which is why I use images.

I submit that you use images because you went to art school and more comfortable with images and fuzzy thinking than you are with science and fact.

It is logical that design requires a designer and the 'empirical evidence' is fully available to the senses in real life, requiring no scientific education or concocted storyline to sell a really stupid idea that seemed feasible over 100 years ago.

You are stating, without evidence, what is know as, "The Argument From Design" of the "Teleological Argument," that in summary states: "When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed."

But the comparison of two objects and the drawing of similar conclusions based on inferred similarities that are identified whilst ignoring important differences (e.g., the tiger is self replicating and the watch is not) is a prime example of a false analogy.

Something you have difficulty doing yourself apparently.

Your response is bereft of evidence or for that matter anything but a kindergartenish response of, "am not, but so are you," is quite telling all by itself. it sums up your entire approach to argumentation, rhetoric and debate. I said:

Aren't you ever going to get out of the quote mine and read the entire article and some of the referenced papers? No I guess you won't, because if you did you'd have to face the truth

But clearly, I am not quote mining, I read the entire article and even some of the referenced papers, while you did not. You attempt to distract from these failures on your part, not by rectifying them but by pretending that we are standing on an even plane and that bullying tactics you learned on the school playground will serve you here.

You mean like you beneficial mutations? I can tell you of two that affect my immediate family....Huntington's Disease and Muscular Dystrophy. Both are inherited conditions that I can assure you do not result in any benefits to the ones receiving the mutant genes. If there is an expansion of the mutation the victim will suffer a worse case of the condition than the parent. I am well acquainted with gene expansion.

Huntington's does not have a simple mutational cause involving as it does molecular genetic origins, selective neuronal vulnerability, excitotoxicity of neurons, mitochondrial dysfunction, apoptosis, and transcriptional dysregulation. Similarly Muscular Dystrophy also does not have a simple mutational cause but also involves molecular genetic origins, as well as errors in the dystrophin-glycoprotein complex that links the extracellular matrix to the cytoskeleton, together cause Duchenne muscular dystrophy, while errors the in laminin or collagen VI, muscle matrix proteins, cause a congenital type of muscular dystrophy. It is not only the primary genetic defects in the structural or matrix proteins, but also the primary mutations of enzymes involved in the protein glycosylation pathway that disrupt the matrix-cell interaction. This group of diseases is caused by the secondary functional defects of dystroglycan, a transmembrane matrix receptor.
(thanks to PubMed)

FYI: for both diseases. A recent paper in: CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009 Winter;15(1):65-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00065.x. Titled: Cannabidiol: a promising drug for neurodegenerative disorders?

Suggests that: neurodegenerative diseases represent, nowadays, one of the main causes of death in the industrialized country. They are characterized by a loss of neurons in particular regions of the nervous system. It is believed that this nerve cell loss underlies the subsequent decline in cognitive and motor function that patients experience in these diseases. A range of mutant genes and environmental toxins have been implicated in the cause of neurodegenerative disorders but the mechanism remains largely unknown. At present, inflammation, a common denominator among the diverse list of neurodegenerative diseases, has been implicated as a critical mechanism that is responsible for the progressive nature of neurodegeneration. Since, at present, there are few therapies for the wide range of neurodegenerative diseases, scientists are still in search of new therapeutic approaches to the problem. An early contribution of neuroprotective and antiinflammatory strategies for these disorders seems particularly desirable because isolated treatments cannot be effective. In this contest, marijuana derivatives have attracted special interest, although these compounds have always raised several practical and ethical problems for their potential abuse. Nevertheless, among Cannabis compounds, cannabidiol (CBD), which lacks any unwanted psychotropic effect, may represent a very promising agent with the highest prospect for therapeutic use.

I am sorry that your family suffers from these defects, I have lost close friends to both of them so I understand (but do not excuse) the easy way out. Blaming some supernatural punishment rather than accepting the deleterious effects of chance mutation in combination with the many chemicals that have recently entered the environment and not grasping the "cosmic roulette wheel" that protects some of us, equips some of us to be able to deal the insult and yet condemns others is only natural. But it is atavistic to seek agency in such situations, especially when ill equipped to grasp the realities. It is the old rustle in the bushes issue ... "is it a lion or just the wind?"

That doesn't explain the finches beaks.

No explanation is required, what is observed is exactly what is expected in a fluctuating environment where there is no filter that eliminates the previously dominant phenotype.

Typical response. Character assassination is the first port of call with you lot. Call into question the person's academic background and no matter how valid their arguments are, they will be treated with contempt.

Contempt comes not from your lack of academic background but rather from your hubris that is evident in your willingness to engage in character assassination on a genocidal scale, pitting your self-admitted lack of biological knowledge against the accumulated wisdom of all of biological science based solely on your invocation of previously delineated logical fallacies.

Delusion is not only in the creation camp......science has stretched itself beyond the limits of solid evidence but still maintains it superiority....an undeserved self-appointment if you ask me.

I didn't ask you ... for reasons that should by now be self-evident.

 

[Deeje]

You are, by your own admission, ill equipped to attempt to make that judgement. Remember, pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall, and your willingness to pontificate from ignorance is the height of hubris.

I'm sorry, but that is downright hilarious. I am sure others will see the humor in your use of the word "pontificate"....
.....and in your attempt to quote that particular scripture.....

Science maintains its superiority because it's the only evidence-based methodology available that has been demonstrated to be effective in producing accurate information about the reality we find ourselves in."

No one is saying that science hasn't contributed much in our understanding of the natural world. When it looks at the here and now, it is dealing with the real world as it is. Marvelous things have been studied and we all benefit from their amazing discoveries. But when science goes into unchartered territory, into the distant past, with a broken compass, its 'due north' is actually pointing 'due south'. With that kind of perspective, how could it ever reach proper conclusions?

If the first premise is flawed, everything you build on it will be flawed as well. This is what I see.....you can see whatever way you wish.

That's just respectful science speak, it is the way that we communicate with each other

Another hilarious cover up. "Respectful science speak" or the language of "I don't know, so I'll fudge it until I can think up a better explanation". It is a ruse to cover up the fact that you have no real facts. You have manufactured facts....but nothing you can actually prove. Why is that so hard to admit? I think we know.

Beneficial mutations have been shown to spread through the population as a result of natural selection as negative mutations have been shown to be eliminated from the population. - there, does that make you feel better?

If they have been "shown"...then show them to us. We know that negative mutations have a way of eliminating themselves, but where can we see positive mutations being demonstrated? If all science can come up with are four good mutations that have not spread into the general community, then I think we can see how many straws you guys try to grasp in your attempt to sound "scientific".
Where are all these supposedly beneficial mutations? They are assumed, not proven to have ever existed.

Yes, some are harmful, but it is hardly the case that a "few" turn out to be beneficial. Consider the number of beneficial mutations of many sorts that have occurred in what you would style "the progress from goo to you." If the number of positive mutations had no far exceeded the number of harmful mutations you would not be here.

What is the "goo to you" process and how are positive gene mutations demonstrated in this?
You'll have to be more specific about this point.

This is also a clear demonstration of your typical tactics, you never admit that you are wrong, that you have misstated, try to shift the attention to something else pretending that your ignorance or lie (I'll be generous, take your pick) were not exposed.

Another statement that brings a smile.....others will know why.

What does it matter? My claim is supported and your's is rejected, even if it is only one mutation in one person.

So ner nerny ner ner....

Your claim is ridiculous. Evolution is not built on cholesterol levels, bone density in one specific family in one isolated location, resistance to malaria, or the ability to see enhanced color. Try again.

That is a non sequitur, faith is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

You have no proof....that is what you evolutionists keep telling me....so where does that leave you?

Your elaborate castle is built on sand IMO.....

I submit that you use images because you went to art school and more comfortable with images and fuzzy thinking than you are with science and fact.

Those images connect straight to the brain via a different set of wiring....the wiring was designed to transmit those images at a level we can more easily understand. When you have complex speech that not everyone understands, it is easy to get away with so much....as we have seen.

But the comparison of two objects and the drawing of similar conclusions based on inferred similarities that are identified whilst ignoring important differences (e.g., the tiger is self replicating and the watch is not) is a prime example of a false analogy.

The watch has a designer and maker and is replicated by a largely mechanical process......the tiger is self replicating.....but it has always been a tiger. The cat family has much variety in size, shape, color and habitats....but they are all felines and all reproduce "according to their kind". It is an assumption they have a common ancestor....not a fact. Science has no way of knowing that any member of the cat family was a common ancestor of the present species. They cannot prove that all these varieties were not individually created to be just as they are. They cannot prove that early cats were not part of the same process. Its all in the interpretation of the "evidence".

I read the entire article and even some of the referenced papers, while you did not. You attempt to distract from these failures on your part, not by rectifying them but by pretending that we are standing on an even plane and that bullying tactics you learned on the school playground will serve you here.

You read what you want to read and see what you want to see.....so do we all. Don't pretend that you have proof for any of your claims when we all know that you don't. All you have is science's reputation to back up your story....but what if science's reputation was shown to be undeserved and unreliable....a sham built on unsubstantiated fake evidence? That would be a great blow to people like you wouldn't it?

You have a lot to lose in this argument.

I am sorry that your family suffers from these defects, I have lost close friends to both of them so I understand (but do not excuse) the easy way out. Blaming some supernatural punishment rather than accepting the deleterious effects of chance mutation in combination with the many chemicals that have recently entered the environment and not grasping the "cosmic roulette wheel" that protects some of us, equips some of us to be able to deal the insult and yet condemns others is only natural.

If you understand that the human immune system is designed to keep out all invaders, then it should work at peak capacity to prevent illnesses of any sort from even beginning. What humans have done to contaminate the environment (largely thanks to science) has happened only in the last 100 hundred years that science has been experimenting with its capacity to destroy the planet one way or another. People have been getting sick, getting old and dying since they were created.
Science has also discovered in this last 100 years that there is no discernible reason for the aging process in humans. Theoretically, human cell reproduction and replacement should continue on indefinitely, but for some inexplicable reason, it stops doing its job and we begin to age and eventually die. Science can tell us 'how' the process works...but not 'why' cell replacement slows down and eventually ceases. The Bible explains why. It also explains why we have a collective desire to go on living, despite the fact that we know death is inevitable....and why age is a state of body, not necessarily a state of mind.

Contempt comes not from your lack of academic background but rather from your hubris that is evident in your willingness to engage in character assassination on a genocidal scale, pitting your self-admitted lack of biological knowledge against the accumulated wisdom of all of biological science based solely on your invocation of previously delineated logical fallacies.

The 'character assassination' is not 'genocidal' just because someone puts science under its own microscope. You just don't want to face what has been exposed.
That science is questioned at all is an affront to people like you. As we see from your avatar, accolades from others in your community are very important for your status in it. Your accumulated knowledge, if it is built on a false premise to begin with, is worth what then? Not much as far as I can see. It is simply error built on error.
A magnificent house of cards.....but I believe its collapse is inevitable.

Falling at the feet of science is the worshipping of human intellect, which the Creator will soon show you has led you all willingly down the wrong path. It is a futile exercise trying to show egos a simple truth, so I will just expose the weak foundation upon which evolution is built and allow the readers here to make up their own minds.

 

[Deeje]

Your argument for intelligent design has consistently been that if something appears to be designed then it must have been designed. Fractals prove that is not the case.

All your fractals prove is that undesigned things "can" look pretty. But they have no function apart from looking pretty. That is not the point.....

Nature exhibits design and functionality that cannot be "accidental"......that is the point. The fact that beauty is even appreciated by human beings is a function of the eyes and its interaction with the brain.
One cannot exist for any logical reason, without the other. It is very evident to me that they were made for each other....in much the same way that greenery can be beautiful and enhance any landscape, but it also serves a function...to feed the creatures who live there. Functionality is the product of design. Design, when it serves a specific function is planned and requires a planner. That the planner made things beautiful is a bonus. He didn't have to....we can exist without beauty. That is what is logical to me.

 

[gnostic]

Not credible to whom? You evolutionists? We do not recognize your science gods, nor do we believe in their writings which are like 'scripture' to you.....

You sounding more absurd each day.

There are biologists, who are theistic, who accept evolution for changes as in biodiversity, Christians, Jews and Hindus, not just atheists and agnostics.

In fact the numbers of theists exceed outnumbered atheists in the biology department. That because these theists are able to separate their religion from their works in science, as any professional should do.

The Bible doesn’t teach science any more than it can teach people how to fish, farm, make furniture, or how to build houses, roads, bridges, chariots, wagons, ships. Your scriptures cannot teach people even the most rudimentary biology or astronomy.

Even the laws, morals and ethics that the bible teaches are outdated, and most of them only applied to Jews.

So your accusations of using evolutionary science as being a religion, it is nothing more than a shameless and hollow straw man.

Your paranoid conspiracy theory is just that, your delusion.

 

[Deeje]

It’s not an assumption that living organisms share a common ancestor; rather it’s based on the EVIDENCE, some of which is derived from the study of comparative genomics. That’s not to say that there aren’t many other avenues of research involved in that assessment, so don’t even bother trying that one. By definition, a conclusion drawn from the available evidence is not an assumption.

There is no proof that any creature is a common ancestor of any living thing....that is an assumption. Finding a fossil that existed thousands or even millions of years ago and seeing similarities to later species is not proof that they are related except perhaps by taxonomy. If earlier species of that family died out or were eliminated from existence for some reason, science can use guesswork all it wants....but it cannot prove any of its assumptions are true...not by any means.

If however, all living things share a common Creator, using the same genetic material to fashion all of his creatures, would we not also expect to find DNA in common? If a basic physical framework worked well, what was to stop him from using it in different creatures as it suited his plan?

The point here Deeje, is that common ancestry is not simply assumed without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, as you keep asserting over and over. Let’s address the actual point instead of going off on one of your tangents.

The only corroborating evidence is similarities (sometimes only in an earbone) and some shared DNA....that proves what exactly? Not much from my perspective.

There are a ton of potential applications. If you actually care about finding a cure for cancer, you should support this type of research. Why you expect us to have all the answers and cures for everything that ails us is a mystery to me.

Since science claims to be so advanced, it beggars belief that something like cancer, that decimates large chunks of the world's population annually, is still not understood enough genetically to have been conquered by now. Perhaps less concentration on lucrative pharmaceutical drugs and more on the role of the body's immune system and its relationship to diet and chemical pollution might help?

There are plant based medicines that have shown incredible potential for the curing of many diseases.... but governments arrest people for daring to take them, or even revoke medical licences for doctors who dare to recommend them. Is science implicated in that problem? How can it not be?

You’re not a doctor, so excuse me if I’m not interested in your medical advice.

Perhaps it would benefit a lot of people to examine the current orthodox medical system whilst investigating the role of science in a world bent on making us extinct....or at least helping to cull the increasing population. Heaven forbid that science should be made to clean up the mess it has been complicit in creating on this planet.

I don't have to be a doctor to see that.

All living organisms on the planet store genetic information using RNA and DNA. So when the researchers in that article compare genomic sequences among organisms, what do you think is going on there? Are they just making it up? Why do the results indicate that all living organisms are genetically related, to varying degrees? Your position on this doesn't appear to make any sense.

They are seeing what they want to see. If you want to see a relationship between humans and bananas.....what can I say?
Sapiens has confirmed that he believes his ancestors were bananas.

The mind boggles....

I will point out again too, that acceptance of the theory of evolution doesn’t mean a person can’t also believe in god(s). I don’t see why some super intelligent being wouldn’t be able to design something like evolution. I’m not sure why you don’t think a god could or would be able to do so, though.

Can you tell me why an all-powerful Creator would use something as hit and miss as evolution to produce anything? I believe that he crafted creation with deliberate precision and that the "kinds" we see in today's world are the kinds he created to be as they are. Science cannot disprove that.

What makes the Bible so special?

I don't have the space to tell you all the details.....suffice it to say, when you read it with the right attitude, it all makes perfect sense. Its a complete story that does not leave questions unanswered for enquiring minds. The what, where, why and how are all answered logically and completely.

Isn’t it funny that in all this time since the Bible was written, nobody has yet been able to provide demonstrable evidence for the specific god of the Bible (or any god, for that matter). What are they waiting for? And in only the last 150+ years or so, the theory of evolution has been proposed and subsequently backed up with mountains of evidence. I’ve said it to you before and I’ll say it again: If it’s so obvious that evolution is false, why hasn’t anyone yet managed to provide any evidence that would falsify it?

Here we go again...."mountains of evidence"? There are no "mountains".....there are pathetic molehills with no real supporting evidence whatsoever. You have a belief system, just like we do.
If you want to base your whole belief system on what science "really" knows as opposed to what it "thinks" it knows...then that is entirely up to you. I know what makes more sense to me.

Science works. Everything we know about everything in the natural world has come from rigorous scientific study and inquiry.

Science works in many areas, it is true and no one can dispute that. We have scientists in our own ranks.....but as far as predicting how life arose and how things led to all that we see on this planet today......it falls way short. It stumbles around in the dark, throwing guesses at all questions in order to support its precious theory. You can believe it if you wish....I cannot.

When it comes to science, evolution is demonstrable, creationism is not.

In your opinion that might be correct, but evolution is not demonstrable at all with any real evidence. It has nothing but assumption to back up its story. When did guesses get to take the place of facts?

 

[gnostic]

Science can tell us 'how' the process works...but not 'why' cell replacement slows down and eventually ceases. The Bible explains why.

That’s absurd.

It doesn’t even know what a cell is, let alone HOW it work, or WHY it work in that way.

Ok, then showed where cell replacements slow in the bible.

Science explain detail how it work, then you should show the bible explain in clear, explicit details as to WHY.

If you show only one or two verses (like allegory or parable), with no mention of the “cell”, then you are talking useless rubbish.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The "barrier" argument is misleading.

Yes, I know. But it's not my argument. It's the creationists arguing for such a barrier

If you're claiming that barriers were broken, it is on you to provide evidence.

I make no such claim. My claim is that there is no known barrier to evolution. Those who say there is need to explain or demonstrate what it is if they wish to be believed.

How did the first "living" organism "know" how to reproduce?

The same way a rock knows how to fall.