• 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!

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This is a somewhat limited analogy, but let’s use it:
What does a freezer do? It gets items colder, faster / quicker.
So we should observe evolutionary advances under controlled conditions, quicker.

No. You just took the analogy to a place where it is no longer analogous. And the way you did it wasn't even sensible.

I predict those E. coli, will always be bacteria.

Evolution predicts that too.

Maybe a new species will arise, which I’ve never said isn’t possible.

It's even factual.
Speciation factually occurs.


But they will always stay within their taxonomic family.

As evolution says. It's the low of monophy. Species never outgrow their ancestry.
This is why humans are still apes. And primates. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.

Cats don't produce dogs in evolution. Cats produce more cats and subspecies of cats. Felines.

And in agreement w/ the Bible: “according to their kind.”
Which isn't exactly an impressive statement as it is quite easily observed that individuals always produce more of their own, with slight variation.

The "trick" of evolution, is to understand what it means to continuously accumulate those variations over generations, and understanding the processes that govern which variations will spread throughout the population and why (=natural selection).
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That’s bullocks. I suppose you think the Cambrian Explosion supports evolution? Or any of the other radiations?

Off course they do.

Were they predicted?

Not "ahead" of time, no, since nobody was around then :rolleyes:

Are such things predicted by the current understanding of these processes? Yes.
In times of environmental and ecological stability, natural selection will favor the status quo and evolutionary change, while it will still take place, will be slowing down.

Changes in environment (in its broadest meaning) are going to impact selection pressures.
Especially when the changes are drastic, natural selection will no longer favor the status quo. Evolutionary change will now accelerate. This will continue until a new point of environmental / ecological stability has been reached.

These effects are very easily demonstrated in lab-experiments as well as in computer models.

No. Unfortunately, interpreting the evidence through an ID framework, isn’t where the money is.

Because there's nothing there.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That’s bullocks. I suppose you think the Cambrian Explosion supports evolution? Or any of the other radiations?
Were they predicted?

Yes, the various radiations fully support the modern theory of evolution. In fact, they are very good evidence that species change over evolutionary time: evolution.

No. Unfortunately, interpreting the evidence through an ID framework, isn’t where the money is.

Garbage. The ID people make money by selling their books and doing speaking tours to people who don't know any better. In fact, that is the only way they do publish: popular accounts promoting their particular lies.

In contrast, the typical scientific researcher makes almost no money at all.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Off course they do.
No they don’t, lol.

(Now here come the suppositions … “must’ve happened”s, “more than likely”s, “probably”s, etc.)

Saying ‘these effects are demonstrated in models’…..”models” can be programmed to demonstrate how Thor’s Hammer can destroy the world. It ain’t gonna happen.

Now, a lab experiment is another puppy altogether… it can reflect reality. But no lab experiments have ever provided support for the rise of the Cambrian diversity through evolutionary mechanisms or pressures! (It’s still an enigma to evolutionary biologists).

Such big assumptions and interpretations, but no solid evidence to support them.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Yes, the various radiations fully support the modern theory of evolution.
Oh my goodness! What an unfounded presumption. How did you arrive at such a conclusion, when many paleontologists consider the Cambrian Explosion, “a challenge” to explain?
“Forgotten Origins: Rescuing Order from Chaos”
by J. Douglas Kenyon

A far cry from saying evidence in the CE ‘fully supports’ the ToE.

I think my replies are irritating you, and you’re just “digging in your heels,’ as they say.
In fact, they are very good evidence that species change over evolutionary time: evolution.
Oh grief. The orders of trilobites in the Cambrian Explosion, for example, didn’t exhibit “change”; they “appeared suddenly”. They probably evolved within their orders, but the earliest species are found in the fossil record ‘abruptly’.

Garbage. The ID people make money by selling their books and doing speaking tours to people who don't know any better. In fact, that is the only way they do publish: popular accounts promoting their particular lies.
I was talking about grants….that is where the real money is. And you won’t disagree with that. Probably.


So-long.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No they don’t, lol.

Except that they do.

(Now here come the suppositions … “must’ve happened”s, “more than likely”s, “probably”s, etc.)

As in any other scientific paper in any field on any subject.
Somehow though, you only consider it a problem when it concerns subject that contradict your religious beliefs.

Saying ‘these effects are demonstrated in models’…..”models” can be programmed to demonstrate how Thor’s Hammer can destroy the world.

No. Your model must be based on observable reality. No model based on observable reality is going to demonstrate the effects of magic hammers.

The models I was talking about, are based on observable reality. It's called genetic algorithms.

Now, a lab experiment is another puppy altogether… it can reflect reality. But no lab experiments have ever provided support for the rise of the Cambrian diversity through evolutionary mechanisms or pressures! (It’s still an enigma to evolutionary biologists).

Hold the phone!

So you're telling me that no lab experiment ever has resulted in evolutionary change that nature takes 25 million years to accomplish???? :rolleyes:

That is correct.
However, lab experiments do demonstrate the principle mechanism of punctuated equilibrium. Which is as I already explained: in times of environmental / ecological stability, evolutionary change will slow down as species approach their local optimum. It will speed up when things destabilize and get disrupted, as that makes selection pressures shift.


This is not rocket science.
It's pretty straight forward. One does not need a phd to understand this basic notion.

Such big assumptions and interpretations, but no solid evidence to support them.

Not assumptions. Not even interpretations.
Instead, demonstrable facts.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh my goodness! What an unfounded presumption. How did you arrive at such a conclusion, when many paleontologists consider the Cambrian Explosion, “a challenge” to explain?
“Forgotten Origins: Rescuing Order from Chaos”
by J. Douglas Kenyon

A far cry from saying evidence in the CE ‘fully supports’ the ToE.

I think my replies are irritating you, and you’re just “digging in your heels,’ as they say.

On the contrary, they show the typical creationist misunderstandings of how evolution works.

Oh grief. The orders of trilobites in the Cambrian Explosion, for example, didn’t exhibit “change”; they “appeared suddenly”. They probably evolved within their orders, but the earliest species are found in the fossil record ‘abruptly’.

1. After the 'initial appearance', they diversified quite extensively. That *is* evolution. And, in fact, they were more diverse than mammals are today.

2. The development of *shells* vastly increased the likelihood of fossilization. This is why the first examples of many lines (not all) are in the Cambrian, where hard shells first developed.

3. We expect the 'initial population' to be small and probably isolated (founder population), so would be very unlikely to be fossilized. This is very common and is not at all contrary to what evolution predicts.

4. The first trilobites, as expected, are simpler than the later ones. That again fits into the evolutionary scenario.

5. ALL of this is contrary to the creationist ideas.


I was talking about grants….that is where the real money is. And you won’t disagree with that. Probably.

The scientist themself gets very little of the grant money. it tends to go to equipment and paying for graduate students (who don't make much).

 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
No they don’t, lol.

(Now here come the suppositions … “must’ve happened”s, “more than likely”s, “probably”s, etc.)

Saying ‘these effects are demonstrated in models’…..”models” can be programmed to demonstrate how Thor’s Hammer can destroy the world. It ain’t gonna happen.

If you write in Thor's hammer, of course. But that is the point. The rise of complexity is NOT written into the code. What is written in is the ability to reproduce, the existence of mutations, and competition for resources.

Once those exist, a rise in complexity is almost inevitable. This has been models in a wide range of possible variations and the outcome is almost universal (the exceptions are when everything goes extinct).

So, no, the models were NOT programmed to give Thor's hammer to destroy the world. Instead, no matter what parameters are given in a wide variety of different models, Thor's hammer appears and destroys the world.

Do you see the difference?

Now, a lab experiment is another puppy altogether… it can reflect reality. But no lab experiments have ever provided support for the rise of the Cambrian diversity through evolutionary mechanisms or pressures! (It’s still an enigma to evolutionary biologists).

Actually, the lab results show that mutations and selection are enough over the short run to provide new functionality. Since the Cambrian 'explosion' lasted tens of millions of years and we can't (yet) do million year long experiments in the lab, we should not be surprised to see the diversity from a lab obtained over the time period of the Cambrian.

Such big assumptions and interpretations, but no solid evidence to support them.

We are now talking mechanisms. But the basic fact that species change over time (evolution) is shown in all of this. And the amounts of change you allow in a 'kind' is plenty enough to explain the diversity of all mammals including humans in an evolutionary scenario.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I’ve just now got some time to answer, sorry for the delay….
1. After the 'initial appearance', they diversified quite extensively. That *is* evolution. And, in fact, they were more diverse than mammals are today.

We agree on that. Evolution has played a part in the diversification of all organisms within their respective Family / Order taxon.

But other than suggestion, we see no solid evidence to substantiate that mechanisms of evolution can create new functional genes… IOW, it explains the survival of every life form we see (through mutation & selection), but not the arrival of the first representatives of those Families, each with their own unique features.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I’ve just now got some time to answer, sorry for the delay….

We agree on that. Evolution has played a part in the diversification of all organisms within their respective Family / Order taxon.

But other than suggestion, we see no solid evidence to substantiate that mechanisms of evolution can create new functional genes… IOW, it explains the survival of every life form we see (through mutation & selection), but not the arrival of the first representatives of those Families, each with their own unique features.


Except that we *do* have large amounts of evidence that new functional genes do arise. The primary mechanism is duplication of the original gene and subsequent mutations that differ. We see this in every protein family: globins (hemoglobin, myoglobin, etc), serine proteases (all based on the same basic structure, but wildly different in specific activities), G-proteins (again, a wildly variant group of proteins, all based on a similar structure). In many cases, we can even follow the duplication and subsequent diversification of the genes.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
That’s bullocks. I suppose you think the Cambrian Explosion supports evolution? Or any of the other radiations?
Yes of course - eagerly awaiting the rehashed plagiarized/copy-pasted quotes about how it doesn't. Meyer maybe? The guy that now does little more than write God essays.
Were they predicted?
Did ID creationism predict them?
No. Unfortunately, interpreting the evidence through an ID framework, isn’t where the money is.
Have you ever done evolution-related research? Known anybody who has?
Clearly not.
Douglas Axe, when director of the failed 'Biologic Institute', had a larger budget annually (and produced next to nothing - certainly not any IDC-related research) than my grad school advisor did, cumulatively, for the 5 years I was in his lab. And most of the grant money he had was in collaborations with with people doing health-related research. In fact, most of my advisor's grant money was itself in health-related fields, and our evolution-related research was produced primarily from data derived doing the health-related stuff.

You people have your little conspiracies about money and that is about it.
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Now, a lab experiment is another puppy altogether… it can reflect reality. But no lab experiments have ever provided support for the rise of the Cambrian diversity through evolutionary mechanisms or pressures! (It’s still an enigma to evolutionary biologists).

Such big assumptions and interpretations, but no solid evidence to support them.
Interesting.
I eagerly await your triumphant dissemination of the multitude of IDC lab experiments that have indicated Design/Creation .

I mean, who would demand that from others which they can not produce themselves?
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
But other than suggestion, we see no solid evidence to substantiate that mechanisms of evolution can create new functional genes…

Look at these "suggestions":

Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.



Common exon duplication in animals and its role in alternative splicing
Abstract
When searching the genomes of human, fly and worm for cases of exon duplication, we found that about 10% of all genes contain tandemly duplicated exons. In the course of the analyses, 2438 unannotated exons were identified that are not currently included in genome databases and that are likely to be functional. The vast majority of them are likely to be involved in mutually exclusive alternative splicing events. The common nature of recent exon duplication indicates that it might have a significant role in the fast evolution of eukaryotic genes. It also provides a general mechanism for the regulation of protein function.



Evolutionary history of exon shuffling
Abstract
Exon shuffling has been characterized as one of the major evolutionary forces shaping both the genome and the proteome of eukaryotes. This mechanism was particularly important in the creation of multidomain proteins during animal evolution, bringing a number of functional genetic novelties. Here, genome information from a variety of eukaryotic species was used to address several issues related to the evolutionary history of exon shuffling. By comparing all protein sequences within each species, we were able to characterize exon shuffling signatures throughout metazoans. Intron phase (the position of the intron regarding the codon) and exon symmetry (the pattern of flanking introns for a given exon or block of adjacent exons) were features used to evaluate exon shuffling. We confirmed previous observations that exon shuffling mediated by phase 1 introns (1-1 exon shuffling) is the predominant kind in multicellular animals. Evidence is provided that such pattern was achieved since the early steps of animal evolution, supported by a detectable presence of 1-1 shuffling units in Trichoplax adhaerens and a considerable prevalence of them in Nematostella vectensis. In contrast, Monosiga brevicollis, one of the closest relatives of metazoans, and Arabidopsis thaliana, showed no evidence of 1-1 exon or domain shuffling above what it would be expected by chance. Instead, exon shuffling events are less abundant and predominantly mediated by phase 0 introns (0-0 exon shuffling) in those non-metazoan species. Moreover, an intermediate pattern of 1-1 and 0-0 exon shuffling was observed for the placozoan T. adhaerens, a primitive animal. Finally, characterization of flanking intron phases around domain borders allowed us to identify a common set of symmetric 1-1 domains that have been shuffled throughout the metazoan lineage.



Point Mutations with Positive Selection Were a Major Force during the Evolution of a Receptor-Kinase Resistance Gene Family of Rice
ABSTRACT
The rice (Oryza sativa) Xa26 gene, which confers resistance to bacterial blight disease and encodes a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) receptor kinase, resides at a locus clustered with tandem homologous genes. To investigate the evolution of this family, four haplotypes from the two subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were analyzed. Comparative sequence analysis of 34 genes of 10 types of paralogs of the family revealed haplotype polymorphisms and pronounced paralog diversity. The orthologs in different haplotypes were more similar than the paralogs in the same haplotype. At least five types of paralogs were formed before the separation of indica and japonica subspecies. Only 7% of amino acid sites were detected to be under positive selection, which occurred in the extracytoplasmic domain. Approximately 74% of the positively selected sites were solvent-exposed amino acid residues of the LRR domain that have been proposed to be involved in pathogen recognition, and 73% of the hypervariable sites detected in the LRR domain were subject to positive selection. The family is formed by tandem duplication followed by diversification through recombination, deletion, and point mutation. Most variation among genes in the family is caused by point mutations and positive selection.

I also looked at a couple papers on the Titin gene, as I had remembered from some years ago a discussion on that on a forum, but I could not find the paper I had used before. I did, however, come across this figure - all the red blocks are identical or nearly identical Ig-like domains:

62704_51e64f27a2855df9e782fb71f305720a.jpeg



Largest protein we make. LOTS of what we are told is not 'new information' and just 'copies of what is already there' jammed together to make a gene that makes an important protein.


This paper documents an insertion event (a mutation in which a large chunk of DNA is inserted in one event) within the promoter region of a gene which causes the gene to be over-transcribed, i.e., just more of the same protein is made. No 'new' protein, just "information" that makes more of it. And it confers an adaptive benefit:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."
Now please explain why 'new functional' genes would not be required at the infraorder level as you have allowed for macroevolution there to rescue creationist science from pure idiocy.

Also please define "new functional gene" and explain why 'new functional' genes are needed for speciation. Do you consider the Cyp6g1 gene to be a 'new functional gene'? Why or why not?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Look at these "suggestions":

Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation
Abstract
Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch1,2,3. This behavioral variation raises the possibility that different selective pressures have acted on amylase, the enzyme responsible for starch hydrolysis4. We found that copy number of the salivary amylase gene (AMY1) is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein level and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have, on average, more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets. Comparisons with other loci in a subset of these populations suggest that the extent of AMY1 copy number differentiation is highly unusual. This example of positive selection on a copy number–variable gene is, to our knowledge, one of the first discovered in the human genome. Higher AMY1 copy numbers and protein levels probably improve the digestion of starchy foods and may buffer against the fitness-reducing effects of intestinal disease.



Common exon duplication in animals and its role in alternative splicing
Abstract
When searching the genomes of human, fly and worm for cases of exon duplication, we found that about 10% of all genes contain tandemly duplicated exons. In the course of the analyses, 2438 unannotated exons were identified that are not currently included in genome databases and that are likely to be functional. The vast majority of them are likely to be involved in mutually exclusive alternative splicing events. The common nature of recent exon duplication indicates that it might have a significant role in the fast evolution of eukaryotic genes. It also provides a general mechanism for the regulation of protein function.



Evolutionary history of exon shuffling
Abstract
Exon shuffling has been characterized as one of the major evolutionary forces shaping both the genome and the proteome of eukaryotes. This mechanism was particularly important in the creation of multidomain proteins during animal evolution, bringing a number of functional genetic novelties. Here, genome information from a variety of eukaryotic species was used to address several issues related to the evolutionary history of exon shuffling. By comparing all protein sequences within each species, we were able to characterize exon shuffling signatures throughout metazoans. Intron phase (the position of the intron regarding the codon) and exon symmetry (the pattern of flanking introns for a given exon or block of adjacent exons) were features used to evaluate exon shuffling. We confirmed previous observations that exon shuffling mediated by phase 1 introns (1-1 exon shuffling) is the predominant kind in multicellular animals. Evidence is provided that such pattern was achieved since the early steps of animal evolution, supported by a detectable presence of 1-1 shuffling units in Trichoplax adhaerens and a considerable prevalence of them in Nematostella vectensis. In contrast, Monosiga brevicollis, one of the closest relatives of metazoans, and Arabidopsis thaliana, showed no evidence of 1-1 exon or domain shuffling above what it would be expected by chance. Instead, exon shuffling events are less abundant and predominantly mediated by phase 0 introns (0-0 exon shuffling) in those non-metazoan species. Moreover, an intermediate pattern of 1-1 and 0-0 exon shuffling was observed for the placozoan T. adhaerens, a primitive animal. Finally, characterization of flanking intron phases around domain borders allowed us to identify a common set of symmetric 1-1 domains that have been shuffled throughout the metazoan lineage.



Point Mutations with Positive Selection Were a Major Force during the Evolution of a Receptor-Kinase Resistance Gene Family of Rice
ABSTRACT
The rice (Oryza sativa) Xa26 gene, which confers resistance to bacterial blight disease and encodes a leucine-rich repeat (LRR) receptor kinase, resides at a locus clustered with tandem homologous genes. To investigate the evolution of this family, four haplotypes from the two subspecies of rice, indica and japonica, were analyzed. Comparative sequence analysis of 34 genes of 10 types of paralogs of the family revealed haplotype polymorphisms and pronounced paralog diversity. The orthologs in different haplotypes were more similar than the paralogs in the same haplotype. At least five types of paralogs were formed before the separation of indica and japonica subspecies. Only 7% of amino acid sites were detected to be under positive selection, which occurred in the extracytoplasmic domain. Approximately 74% of the positively selected sites were solvent-exposed amino acid residues of the LRR domain that have been proposed to be involved in pathogen recognition, and 73% of the hypervariable sites detected in the LRR domain were subject to positive selection. The family is formed by tandem duplication followed by diversification through recombination, deletion, and point mutation. Most variation among genes in the family is caused by point mutations and positive selection.

I also looked at a couple papers on the Titin gene, as I had remembered from some years ago a discussion on that on a forum, but I could not find the paper I had used before. I did, however, come across this figure - all the red blocks are identical or nearly identical Ig-like domains:

62704_51e64f27a2855df9e782fb71f305720a.jpeg



Largest protein we make. LOTS of what we are told is not 'new information' and just 'copies of what is already there' jammed together to make a gene that makes an important protein.


This paper documents an insertion event (a mutation in which a large chunk of DNA is inserted in one event) within the promoter region of a gene which causes the gene to be over-transcribed, i.e., just more of the same protein is made. No 'new' protein, just "information" that makes more of it. And it confers an adaptive benefit:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"...Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that over-transcription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene."
Now please explain why 'new functional' genes would not be required at the infraorder level as you have allowed for macroevolution there to rescue creationist science from pure idiocy.

Also please define "new functional gene" and explain why 'new functional' genes are needed for speciation. Do you consider the Cyp6g1 gene to be a 'new functional gene'? Why or why not?
Frankly, alleles or no alleles -- it is clear to me that brains are open to functional change when exposed to various factors. For instance, some people like to think about music, others like to look at microscopes, and this can be due in part to parental or personal exposure at an early age, possibly and likely changing the response system of a child. Other possibilities of brain change influencing the person are too numerous to mention. I have no proof of this except that it happens that musicians often produce musical kids, and scientists produce offspring that may be bent in another area of life. While it is true that certain populations manifest some rather distinct characteristics setting them physically apart from other sets of people, they all remain people.Since this is the current truth (with nothing to refute it except for - conjecture) this can mean that the theory of evolution just isn't so. And then, what would that lead to? Genes are still genes, alleles are still alleles, and gorillas (currently) remain gorillas. :) So here's a question -- what definitely, without doubt, led to gorillas? Here's what I found -- see what you think --
Gorilla Evolution - Gorilla Facts and Information
"Possibly the Gigantopithecus were ancestors of modern gorillas, but also other apes could be. Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas shared a common ancestor in a lineage where orangutans were not there anymore. Gorillas are closely related to Homo sapiens, but less than chimpanzees. However, the closest relatives of the Gorillas are chimpanzees."
(In other words -- no one knows, but the phrase is that the closest relatives are chimpanees. But close or not, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS who that "common ancestor" is. And, I might say, no one has yet exposed or discovered any intermediary organisms leading anywhere. But they say, the closest relative is the chimpanzee. :) Like they know as if one evolved, but maybe didn't, because -- no one really knows. In real time or -- fossils. So where does that leave us? Something got lost there. The gorilla picture in that website looks like he's looking eagerly around, but either way, whether he is or not, he can't mate with a homo sapien or chimpanzee, can he? No because the theory is -- someone, somewhere got lost.
Gorilla Evolution - Gorilla Facts and Information (gorillas-world.com)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)

""Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes"
"The brain is a very elastic organ..."​

Yup, seems to me that's true. But! yes, as usual -- human brains remain human brains and not gorilla brains.​
 

gnostic

The Lost One
“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*
Intelligent Design isn’t science, and have nothing to do with science.

So if someone “believe in” ID, then that is just their personal beliefs or personal opinions.

Sciences aren’t “religion”, there are no gods (call god by Creator, Designer) in sciences, to pray to or to worship.

And praying and preaching during researches or working in labs, they are not working, and it is unprofessional to do so in work place. What you do in your free time is personal free time, but it is unprofessional to bring the idiocy of preaching in the workplace, as those testimonials have done.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The orders of trilobites in the Cambrian Explosion, for example, didn’t exhibit “change”; they “appeared suddenly”. They probably evolved within their orders, but the earliest species are found in the fossil record ‘abruptly’.
You are forgetting that fossilization only occurred under the certain circumstances, but it have been discovered that more fossils are found among marine life than those occur on land.

And marine life during the Cambrian period are more extensive than those of the Precambrian eras and periods, because the trilobites are essentially arthropods, with hard exoskeleton shells instead of bones, which are good to start fossilized crystallization when they are around sediments (this starting process of fossilization is known as “permineralization”, look it up).

Actually, multicellular began before the Cambrian period, in the the very late Precambrian period called Ediacaran period.

If you recall what both @Polymath257 and @TagliatelliMonster said, that in stable environment, evolution Selection slow down, while disruptive changes in the environments will cause accelerated diversification.

Well, that what happened between the Ediacaran period and Cambrian period - there was a period of glaciation - called Baykonur glaciation - which triggered the Cambrian radiation of newer species.

TagliatelleMonster & Polymath257 were right, the fossil records in the Cambrian Explosion were evidence for Evolution, particularly for Natural Selection.

You have to remember that Charles Darwin was only a pioneer of evolutionary biology, and just getting started, so he didn’t quite understand the Cambrian Explosion, but over decades and century that follow, there are more paleontologists with better investigative tools and techniques to test the theory about Cambrian Explosion.

The only rubbish I see are creationists burying their heads (including your own) in the sand on subject that you brought up yourself.
 
Top