Thief
Rogue Theologian
Last edited:
-
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
FDRC2014
WHY?
newhope101
Active Member
Correct. It is only controversial, because creationists have an alternative hypothesis, and believe this based on faith.
You also require a huge leap of faith to believe in your ridiculous models that change like the wind. Todays evolutionary support is tomorrows foley
You didn't answer the question, really. you are not identical to mum and dad, nor mum+dad. Also there is no biological irreducible complexity.
Indeed this is rubbish based on desperation. The first living cell was irreduceably complex, you do not need to look to the eye with all the likely possiblies and probably's that ensue.
NO! Wrong. The article supports darwinian natural selection. Lamark's hypothesis is disproven. It doesn't work biologically.
Oh yes it does. You need to get with the program
Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything
You clearly do not understand evolution.
This is not really speciation. The whole thing about a species is that they cant bread viably. Hence genetic exchange cannot take place!
Rubbish....you have many differenct species that can interbreed not only at species level but at higher levels also. You also have species of bird that are almost identical genetically and morphologically but cannot interbreed eg cryptic species (wiki).
This is disruptive selection, yes, and that is speciation, correct.
That is assortative mating, that you mate with like things. But a black bunny can mate with a white bunny, and therefore they are the same species.
Im not sure the genotypes of bunny colour.
You sort it out. This stuff is your mess, not mine. The bottom line is it is all ridiculous. If two genetically similar birds have a slightly different beak you call them different species names. Likewise mankind are different colours with different noses, heights etc. Your researchers would appear biased and silly to call them all different species so you use races. However you carry the silliness into other classifications, call all sorts of thing speciation and then use it to misrepresent the possibility of macroevolution. It is nonsense.
Evolution does predict. I can predict that if I put a selection on some bacteria (say an antibiotic), some may become resistant. I can predict if there is a major pandemic, the surviving humans will likely have better immunity to that disease. Evolution is falsifiable, as darwin said himself. The sudden strong evidence of the alternative hypothesis (a creator), or finding something that is irreducible complexity (and know that it is, actually irreducible complexity. Evolution is based upon lots of evidence, both fossil, and phylogenetic. It has as much evidence as many other theories. And i dont understand e.g. y chromosome?
The human and chimp chromosome is remarkably different, so much so that a plethora of theories have arisen to explain it, one is accelerated evolution.
A single living cell is irredueably complex. This is why your researchers are unable to create life from nonlife in a controlled laboratory setting that can mimic every factor in nature.
This wasn't what i was getting at. Hence why you don't understand evolution.
How can you evolve an infertile offspring. And obviously, bees did evolve.
And what's the whole thing about convergent evolution, of course it happens.
This is a stupid question that you yourself have answered for both evos and creationists alike. It is not a mystery.
Not what i was after, but it is a good point. I was more talking about why we have evolved to care for unfit people.
Because mankind was made in the image of God, with highly developed reasoning ability and perception, the ability to evoke fairness and kindness as well as rage and jelousy, just like God. To care for the weak and allow them to reproduce is anti evolutionary.
Explain what biological fitness is.
Your researchers are not sure exactly what biological fitness is. It is unlikely a creationist will guess correctly
Fitness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):no:Biological fitness is the ability for an organism to pass is genetic information on from one generation to another.
Well then you wil be able to sort out the dilemma spoken to in the link I provided.
The problem of defining fitness remains. Or at any rate, it does so for now if biology cannot live with a definition of fitness in terms of over-all design-problem solution.
Fitness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
NO NO NO NO NO
No no no :no:
When reading your above comments i thought you understood a little bit about evolution. But I am now convinced you don't understand it at all.
That is certainly NOT evolution!
The sad fact is that even if you were to answer your own questions I can easily find plenty of challenges, refutes, contradictory research to every question you answer. There is no black and white here...just a bunch of maybe's and probabaly's and likely's, with opposing researchers seeking news headlines and more grant money. Your out of Africa proponents versus the multiregionalists are just one example of two scientists hitting each other over the head with a dead fish.
The biggest demonstration of you evos lack of knowledge is simple answers that reflect your lack of expertise.,,and for me to spot that, you must be seriously lacking!
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
So your argument rests on Behe's thoroughly debunked pseudoscientific claims of 'irreducible complexity'?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
You have made all of the assumptions so far in this dialog.
Now, can you answer my question, or will you admit that your position is baseless?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Aside from the fact that you're incapable of answering a simple question or responding to people asking for you to provide a basis for practically all of your claims?
McBell
Unbound
Empty retort.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You might say her argument is irreducibly simple. :sarcastic
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You have read this thread?
And your rebuttals are nothing....too many assumptions.
I understand evolution.
Having faith doesn't mean I have made assumptions about a Creator.
Evolution is His handiwork in motion.
God did it.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Attempting to use my technique of criticism?
And you had it coming....then.
And again ...now.
McBell
Unbound
Seems your ego is even greater than your need to sound mystical.
I was merely stating a fact.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Yep.
You're the one whose made assumptions, and when I ask for a basis for them you ignore me.
I love how you claim to not have made assumptions, then make an assumption.
FDRC2014
WHY?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
Continued...
Last edited:
FDRC2014
WHY?
...continued
Obviously we don't know everything now, therefore we will discover new things. But at the present time evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory with very strong evidence. I don't say i don't believe in gravity, just because newton was slightly off. Anyway, evolution is accepted and there are no scientific papers or evidence disputing it with hard evidence. As I stated time and time again, small facets of evolution change as new evidence is presented, but it all is still evolution! If its a multiregionalist view, or and out of africa view. This is the same with any science, you have to look at the evidence, and falsify one hypothesis. Though evolution is a theory now, so is quite well undisputed.
A simple answer? You must be very simple then.
Biological fitness is defined, i cant see any other definition for it, other than too increase ones chances of passing on your genes.
Welcome to science, where questioning is allowed, and evidence is used.
Obviously we don't know everything now, therefore we will discover new things. But at the present time evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory with very strong evidence. I don't say i don't believe in gravity, just because newton was slightly off. Anyway, evolution is accepted and there are no scientific papers or evidence disputing it with hard evidence. As I stated time and time again, small facets of evolution change as new evidence is presented, but it all is still evolution! If its a multiregionalist view, or and out of africa view. This is the same with any science, you have to look at the evidence, and falsify one hypothesis. Though evolution is a theory now, so is quite well undisputed.
A simple answer? You must be very simple then.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And you wish to discuss creation without a Creator?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I wish to discuss why you assume the universe requires a creator, and why you further assume that it is better to have faith than be skeptical.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Believing in God is not always an assumption.
I have my reasons.
That's another topic.
Skepticism has it's place....but is not a virtue.
It is a tool.
It's all fine and good to doubt what you cannot see or touch.
But there is a great deal you do believe in.....without having done so.
That you have failed to find a cause to believe in God.....
makes me wonder if you know HOW to be skeptical.