Care to put a reference next to that claim?
I've never read about anyone doing that experiment.
It would interest many biologists as, (from memory) chimps are the only other ape with the same chromosome count as us. It would probably work!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Questions for creationists who understand evolution?
- Thread starter FDRC2014
- Start date
Care to put a reference next to that claim?
I've never read about anyone doing that experiment.
It would interest many biologists as, (from memory) chimps are the only other ape with the same chromosome count as us. It would probably work!
idea
Question Everything
read the article - it was not a "mutation" and it was not "random" - all changes followed the same direction...
random = goes in any direction possible
non-random = unidirectional = this is what is observed.
HGT is an example of designed change. The invading info was designed by the parasite, the host conscientiously fights it and grows/changes/learns/progresses through fighting it.
HGT is why evolution is now considered "fact"
"What elevated common descent to doctrinal status almost certainly was the much later discovery of the universality of biochemistry, which was seemingly impossible to explain otherwise. But that was before horizontal gene transfer (HGT)" - Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
even if you think natural selection (selected out of what random pool again?) there is a defined goal / direction to it all - to survive - what causes life to try and survive? We try to survive, grow, learn, progress - unlike a bouncing ball - because we are endowed with a mind/spirit/intelligence/conscience - call it what you will - but our mind is behind it all - if there was no mind, there would be no running from predators, no fighting, no mating - none of it.
McBell
Unbound
I understand you are confused.
BUt that is one price you pay when you do not understand the differences between facts, beliefs, and faith.
Who is trying to do that?
I understand in your desperate need to preach that you have completely lost track of the thread.
McBell
Unbound
Yes, I have noticed your desperate need for redundancy.
I also understand your desperate need to confuse faith, facts, and beliefs.
Not to mention your desperate need to sound mystical.
And your desperate need to preach.
And your desperate needto convince yourself you are right.
Yes, it is plain to see that you are desperate.
idea
Question Everything
your pool consists of
- unchanged moth
- changed moth
all the changes happened in the same direction... this is not "random" mutation... if it was:
-unchanged
an equal amount of
-lighter moths
-darker moths
-green/white/grey/black moths
that would be random...
unidirectional = pro-active...
chameleons can change their color at will... why not moths?
or do chameleons just "randomly" change their color, and it "just randomly" happens to change to green - the color that lets them blend in the leaves...
obviously it is a conscience pro-active color choice and change.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Because natural selection is not random.
Nonsense. How, exactly, does an organism "design" it's own genetic makeup?
I've already explained this. Don't make me go over it again.
What relevance does that have? Evolution is the process by which populations of organisms diversify. Life tries to survive because that is merely it's natural function - to survive and replicate. It's just the way the system works.
Again, this is completely irrelevant. You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that a human being - or any other organism - is capable of changing their own genetic code purely through thought.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it doesn't. It consists of millions of moths, all of whom are very slightly different from eachother and a handful who are very different to the rest, and no "unchanged moths". Once again, you need to go back and relearn basic biology and genetics.
Because of natural selection, which is a non-random unconsious process.
Let me draw an analogy. If you got millions of rocks of various different sizes and colours, then ran them through a sieve which allowed only rocks smaller than 1cm to get through and so you end up with several thousand rocks that are all less than 1cm, does that mean that the rocks "consciously" or "pro-actively" sorted themselves into that order?
Because we're talking about changes in genetic code, not a specific creatures ability to change the coloration of it's skin.
How do you not understand how natural selection works yet?
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You're joking right......?
Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?
If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?
Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow.
Why then, oh why can't I?
If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I?
FDRC2014
WHY?
You don't need to be a couple to reproduce.
Asexual reproduction came first.
FDRC2014
WHY?
Apparently all the creationists think so, as none have successfully taken even an educated guess at all the questions.
newhope101
Active Member
By nature science changes and evolves, as new evidence comes about they adapt hypothesise. Within the theory of evolution there are hypothesis.
The overall theory by natural selection and gene drift has not changed since Darwin's days, just some hypothesise (mostly to do with molecular genetics), that obviously are still in research. i.e. the theory is being refined. Unlike creationists we don't just stick to what someone said thousands of years ago.
If someone came out tomorrow and presented strong evidence that the theory of evolution was incorrect, then i would be happy that science had advanced. Creationism does not present evidence.
The problem is you have not produced this evidence. Remember LUCA, the great infallable evidence for creation. Well she is dead with HGT. Your science is flawed and no better than flavour of the month, Todays evidence is tomorrows foley.
I agree, the first moment a cell became living is obviously irreducibly complex. But this is not evolution. Evolution doesn't consider the creation of life itself, just speciation. All cells thereafter the original cell are reducibly complex back to the first simple cell. For example a complex eukaryote was thought to be formed by endosymbiosis of two more simple cells.
It is obvious to creationists why evos have separated out biogenesis from TOE. It makes them look silly. In this day, if it were possible they would have accomplished it by now. They haven't. It is impossible for life to arise out of non life and this is one of the best evidences for the creation. No wonder evos do not want to get into it.
Darwin never said DNA was everything! But this does not in any way hinder Darwin's theory (epigenetic characteristics also can evolve just as genetics).
Also, this is not really Lamark's theory, as it it what i would call an environmental stress (e.g. increased temperature), on the embryo itself. I think there are other epigenetic factors such as drought resistance when an embryo forms arid conditions. This is not really Lamark's theory, as the embryo has already been conceived.
Your evo researchers do not understand epigenetic inheritance, they hardly can explain anything without maybe, probably, likely. Show me any research that omits these words. You will struggle!
viably? The whole point is that the offspring would need to be fertile. Hybrids are not fertile. For a species to form, interbreeding of separate sections of the population needs to stop, or they will be the same species. The morphological difference between a species is not what makes it a species. Im sure you couldn't tell the difference between two bacteria species, and most people cant tell the difference between two plants (obviously you can if you look carefully). Cryptic species aren't genetically the same species, therefore are different species. If they live in a similar environment they may well adapt to look similar to another species. You should wiki mimicry.
I know about mimicry. Do you know about your 'species problem'? See wiki. Species is just another name for variations within kind, so creationists do not have a problem with this stuff. It is an evo muddle. Elephants are all elephants and the same kind. It is your problem to explain why two identical species are so genetically different. For me it demonstrate your researchers do not have a clue what they are on about.
Just because you cant stop the differences between the birds. Also there are sometimes complete differences throughout a species, male and female. Look at a cockerel. But then many species look the same, as i mentioned above. It is the ability to interbreed viably that makes us the same species. I suppose you could call races subspecies, but then you do get interbreeding between races, so you would have lots of subspecies. I suppose you could call me Homo sapiens sapiens caucasian.
Before boats, they were geographicslly isolated and would fit one of the plethora of species definitions made up to address the fact that the basic species definition is contradicted many times.
I don't see how this relates to the above. The human and chimp DNA is very similar, I think about 95%. THe chromosome structure is different, in that chimps have 24 pairs and we have 23 pairs. The extra pair can be seen to have come from one set splitting. I can demonstrate how they can see this:
I have heard all this. Really your researchers have little clue what it all means and they are guessing in the dark. Did you know in actual fact the fussion site is missing lots and is not identical at all.
Original Chromosome:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Human Chromosome:
abcdegfhjiklmnopqrtsuvwxzy
Chimp Chromosome:
nogqrstuvxywz bcadefghijkml
You should be able to see how you can match them up. But this matching is ~96% (i exaggerated the mutations here).
I think your researchers are kidding themselves and grabbing at any straw to uohold their theory. This is why flavour of the month changes. They really have no clue!
As i stated above, a single cell is not irreducibly complex. You get cells that are more complex than others. As i mentioned before evolution doesn't tackle the creation of the original cell per se just the creation of species. Also, just because you understand something doesn't mean you can create it in the lab!
Secondly, we can create our own life code (DNA), which can be translated to proteins using cells (essentially our own design of a life form). Craig Ventor did it. This is very useful for drug production etc, but who is going to fund anyone to create a life form? if we can create our own design for one, then put it into a cell, why do we need to create a cell? It would be a waste of money.
Anyway, even if we could make it in the lab, this would only show that we could, not it wasn't irreducibly complex. A computer is irreducibly complex, but we made that.
Creating a design from an already living cell does not count, obviously. A living cell has much in it, it is alive, it is a factory within itself. Really evos can go on about this forever and excuse themselves. They will never make a living cell, this is the domain of GOD.
This was a question designed for people who had understood the first parts. As to explain this you need to understand how evolution actually works.
I think I understand better than most here. The problem is many of you are back in the 80's, when this stuff looked more convincing.
Who designed gods reasoning-ability and perception? And ability to design fairness into a species. etc.????
There is a whole branch of biology called social evolution. It tackles how we have evolved to have altruistic behaviour, as well as all our other emotions and reasoning. Obviously being kind to people give advantages to a species, hence it evolves. If everyone killed each-other it would be bad for our selfish genes.
and this lot know less that the other
Continued...
This is an easy question. Mankind was created in the image of GOD and therefore has high level reasoning and perceptive ability, including compassion, jealousy, caring for the less fortunate and disabled. Hence we are not animals. It is only desperation that poofs mankind into an ape.
McBell
Unbound
Nice declaration of belief.
Now until such time as you can actually support your declaration of belief it is nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
So, are you going to support you zombie beliefs?
FDRC2014
WHY?
[/QUOTE]
Your quote is completely out of context, and the article is relevant to non-random natural selection. As stated before, natural selection is non-random, mutations are random (well relatively random).
The benefit of the mutation causes the direction of trend.
newhope101
Active Member
Darwin dressed his little boy like a girl. What is the social evolutionary process going on here.
Debate Guide: Evolutionary logic - NewgonWiki
FDRC2014
WHY?
What? There is no infallible evidence, please link me to a scientific paper.
And give me an example of a theory that changes from month to month, please find the two contradicting scientific papers...
Although small parts of evolution are being researched, the over all theory doesn't change from correct to not. Again, no papers here.
p.s. in a proper journal please.
How do you have any basis for saying this. The existence of you and I shows that we must have come from non-life. We regenerate many of our cells throughout our life - from non-living chemicals. Please again, provide some evidence that either falsifies evolution, or provides evidence for an alternative hypothesis. Or do you just have a 'strong inner conviction'?
Your evo researchers do not understand epigenetic inheritance, they hardly can explain anything without maybe, probably, likely. Show me any research that omits these words. You will struggle!WHAT! The genetics researchers found this stuff out, they hardly were told it by god!
Science is always maybe, probably, likely. Only an an idiot would say they were 100% about anything. I believe what the evidence points towards, not what is said. You cant say scientists are wrong because they use the work likely. It is likely that when i throw a ball at a wall it will not go through it, but its not physically impossible.
Lets just read that again, 'I know about mimicry'.
And again... 'I know about mimicry'
And then, 'It is your problem to explain why two identical species are so genetically different'.
Hmm
I'm not sure if you intended the error above, as this gives rise to two separate answers.
If you mean why are a single species genetically diverse, this is just because if mutations occur in a region which does not affect fertility, they will remain the same species. If you mean why are two similar species (not the same) unable to interbreed, this is because a mutation has occurred that prevents fertility. And as to why they look the same, this is mimicry and co-evolution. It's like asking why is a dolphin a mammal and a bat a mammal.
Also, please don't use word 'kind', its a made up, oh that looks similar to that, approach. Clearly it has no substance, or can be defined (oh wait, creationists thought it up).
What, please explain this more. The definition is obviously adapted as new research comes in (scientists don't stick believing a 2000 year old paper!).
Read the post again, they weren't identical, just quite similar.
And yes, actually they are quite similar, though I do stand corrected with the fact that the original ancestor had the two chromosomes and ours fused together forming chromosome 2, which is homologous to their chromosome 2a and 2b. There are plenty of papers that support this.
- De Grouchy J. 1987. "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1-2): 37–52.
- Ynish, JJ., Prakash, O. 1982. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 19;215(4539): 1525-1530.
- King, M.C.. Wilson, A. C.. 1975. Evolution at two levels in Humans and Chimpanzees. Science, New Series. 188(4184): 107-116.
Edit: Just noticed the picture now. It is hardly compelling evidence of either argument. It is an unsupported picture that could mean anything. Besides, obviously the Y will be slightly different due to it's high mutation rate.
I can't argue against your opinion, especially one which is unsupported. I think goblins ruled the world 100 years ago. I just presented contradictory evidence, but you can still think it!
There is no need for us to create a living cell, nature does it quite efficiently and cheaply. But i am sure people would say the same thing a few years ago if i said humans could design their own genetic code, and proteins.
More convincing, what now makes it less convincing. Nearly all current research supports evolution. Please find some that doesn't. Evolutionary scientists are still working now on evolution, especially the genetic side which has come on loads since the 80s. Anyway, I do find it ironic that you are stuck in the BCE!
Oh dear, do you really think we are not animals
The power drill isn't a tool because its more complex?
Anyway, so as usual, no evidence here, or logic, surprise!
Please search around yourself for papers and books on how logical evolution can produce love, jealousy, caring, much more simply than God creating it.
Anyway, who created gods love and compassion, surely he would have to know what it was to give it to us?
Last edited:
FDRC2014
WHY?
Please find me a definition that does not water down to this?
If it doesn't then it will be being used in a different context. This is what biological fitness is defined as.
Well, i can disagree with the structure of DNA, looking at the evidence. I can also disagree that the earth is round, looking at the evidence. You can disagree with anything. It is what is generally accepted which is important, as there are obviously people who are confused and ignorant out there.
This is a very interesting article. It is good that current beliefs are challenged, to refine scientific knowledge. But this doesn't contradict evolution, it just states that birds may have not evolved form a certain type of dinosaur. I don't think any scientist would deny that the evolutionary pathway of any animal is simple, there are complex differences between each species and it's ancestors, understanding this is understanding evolution. This is purely a refinement of an evolutionary pathway, and does not contradict evolution in any way. As I stated above, if the evidence is good, then the general scientific opinion will change, this is a good thing. Science doesn't just tell people to believe one thing or go to hell.
Well we could just say God put all the animals on earth, that would be much much more simple (oh wait, it wound't as it requires someone to create the creator). And besides, it is completely unsupported. I think that quantum mechanics is woffle, but it still works.
Sorry, I'm the one who understands evolution here, you don't even believe we are animals.
FDRC2014
WHY?
No its not
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Let's say I answer your questions correctly...then what?
Last edited: