The Big Bang and Evolution

[Thumper]

"After its kind" is science that is proved thousands of time every day and can't be falsified. The Bible is not a sciendce book, but where it touches on science it is right.
It is called genetics. What determines what characteristics the child will get?

Genesis 30:37-39
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

And you don't want me to get into Biblical cosmology with the Tehom and the Leviathan and all of that silliness.

 

[ArtieE]

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

Where do Muslims fit in? And Hindus?

 

[omega2xx]

What would stop the accumulation of small changes from making a change that is arbitrarily large?

Genetics. Do you really not understand what determine the characteristics of the offspring? How an a mutatin add a characteristic the kid would not have gotten without the mutation"

Once you admit that mutations can cause advantageous small changes (like the examples given and the classic peppered moth example - the exact mutation for which has now been identified and dated), then it's down to those who think there is a limit to explain what it is...

Give me a brake. Anyone who has looked a the peppered moth claims, know it was a fraud. There was no gene that caused what happened.

If you do some study on mutations, instead of accepting by faith alone, what evolutionists say about them, you will realize they can NEVER change a species. You can't give me even one example of a mutation making a small change that could result in a big change causing a change of species.

A nose becoming a blowhole is not a small change. In fact it is genetically impossible.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Geography and environment CANNOT overcome the laws of genetics. I don't thek they demonstrated HOW thosoe 2 elements were responsible. It was speculation. The most likly cause for the inability to breed was excessive interbreeding.

Again, please pay attention, as we are talking about a study that demonstrates objectively that it indeed does... The environment doesn't physically alter the genetic makeup of an individual. (I really hope you're already aware of that.) What it does, by proxy, is influence the survivability of certain characteristics. For example, those offspring prone to thrive in a slightly wetter environment are going to prosper in wet locales, and have a significant disadvantage in dry locales. This is one of the changes that occurred to the salamander populations as they migrated away from their parent population and environment. Over a few generations, factors in the environment "favored" certain features so much that the eventual balance of like-features between the expanding population and the parent population were no longer the same. They had developed different physical features, similar to their parent population but just different enough that interbreeding, while possible, was no longer the norm. This process continued as the populations kept expanding into new geographies and environments until, eventually, the resulting population known as Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi could no longer mate with the original E. eschscholtzii eschscholtzi population.

This process is known as Natural Selection, and it's absolutely observable.

Natural Selection
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl səˈlekSHən/
noun
BIOLOGY

1. the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

"Whoever ceases to be a student has never been a student..."
-George Iles.

What is so hard to accept that salamanders remaining salamanders is not evidence of evolution?

You say this because you do not understand the biology of evolution. Your understanding of the definition of evolution seems to be limited to "Men didn't come from monkeys!", which is both short-sighted and inaccurate.

I don't need you to fully grasp the whole of the Science. But I do want to talk away from this conversation with you having at least a basic grasp of the concepts which drive natural selection in species. For example, your first statement in this response is demonstrably false. If we can remove that mental barrier to help you see how physical and biological processes are intertwined, then you'll be much better off in future conversations on this topic. "Micro-Evolution", as you guys call it, is Evolution. The same forces and factors that influence salamander offspring to the point of no longer being able to interbreed, influence all life and environmental processes on Earth. It's an intricately beautiful thing once you understand the complexities of it - and I personally think it would do more to strengthen your faith and expand your god if you'd spend time studying it.

Time cannot overcome the laws of genetics and you have no evidence small changes over time will change a species. That is pure, necessary speculation. To have a nose become a blowhole needs some major changes, plural, not many small ones. In fact that is genetically impossible.

Remember that you are the one who first cited the study which shows that small changes over time do, in fact, change species.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

I'm here to testify that that is false. I am godless, seek no god, and am very happy.

 

[ChristineM]

Then defend mutations are a mechanism for a change of species.

Your ignorance of real science will be proven by your inability to defend a basic evolution doctrine preached by the disciples of Darwin.

I can show you where it is scientifically false.


There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

There is no point in discussing with you, your mind is closed but i will offer some facts that you may wish to research but it's very doubtful

Darwin's work was published over 150 years ago, it is recognised to be flawed but is essentially correct and a good starting point for the 150+ years of observation and research that followed. Today's theory of evolution is not Darwin's origin of species so why must you insist on outdated conclusions jt justify moderrn day knowledge?

And then you drop into stupid hyperbole mode as a defence using a quote that is over 360 years old all because your religion teaches you to lie about and hate what is beyond your comprehension.

Ok, put your money where your mouth is and repeat your refuted claims about evolution. Go on... Waiting

 

[ChristineM]

Do you not have the intellect to do that without being inslting?

Says the godbot who insults while claiming incredulity.

Hypocrisy becomes you

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is so hard to accept that salamanders remaning salamanders is not evidence of evolution?

You don't seem to know what evolution is. Orangutans, gorillas, chimps and man all descended from a single ancestral great ape, and they are all still great apes after millions of years of divergent evolution.

When one species of salamander becomes two, we call that evolution. That genus of salamander just grew. The evolutionary tree just branched again.

When a single species of salamander changes into two distinct populations of salamanders even before they become separate species, evolution has occurred.

You still haven't offered a mechanism preventing lesser degrees of evolution over shorter periods of time from accruing to larger changes over larger times. Without such a mechanism, nothing will stop it from occurring.

Is there a reason you prefer to evade that question? You really can't make much progress in your effort until you explain why we shouldn't expect the tree of life to evolve over deep time. Simply calling it macroevolution and declaring it impossible accomplishes nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

If you think asking for evidence for what you said is threatening, that is your problem, and it is irratgional

So we are all waiting for your evidence of god dun it with god magic

 

[omega2xx]

Genesis 30:37-39
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

What is so hard to believe that when they gathered to eat, they also mated? The Bible doesn't say what they ate caused characteristics, only that he mating did,

And you don't want me to get into Biblical cosmology with the Tehom and the Leviathan and all of that silliness.

I am willing to get into anything in the Bible. I I can defend it better than you can defend what is in the TOE.

You are not the final authority on what is silliness.

 

[ratiocinator]

Give me a brake. Anyone who has looked a the peppered moth claims, know it was a fraud. There was no gene that caused what happened.

Are you serious?

Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed (BBC)

To zero in on the gene behind this so-called "industrial melanism", Dr Saccheri's team started with traditional genetic mapping. They crossed black and pale moths in the lab and tracked which genetic "markers", dotted along each chromosome, seemed to be linked to the black colouring.

This focussed their attention on a stretch of the moth genome containing 400,000 bases, the individual links in the chain of DNA.

"We knew that within that 400,000 bases, there was some sequence that had to... cause the actual difference between the black type and the typical type," Dr Saccheri explained.

"So we went about an excruciatingly tedious process of identifying every single difference between the two types."

Once there was a final shortlist of 87 DNA differences between the black and pale lab moths, he and his colleagues tested whether each variation, one by one, was present in the wider variety of white moths found in the wild.

"After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one, which then had to be the causal mutation...

...They used the fact that the genome, over time, gets scrambled around as pieces switch between chromosomes in a process called "recombination". A close look at the stretches right next to the cortex mutation showed very little scrambling; this was a recent event.

"You can take a sample of chromosomes in the present population, identify all the sequence variance around the mutation, and infer… the number of generations that it would take for that amount of scrambling to occur in the flanking sequence," explained Dr Sacchieri.

Specifically, they estimate the DNA jump happened in a 10-year window centred on 1819 - a date that fits perfectly with a gradual spread of the mutation through the population, until black moths were first spotted in 1848.

Here is the paper:-

The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element (Nature)

Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record. We have begun to dissect the mode of action of the carbonaria transposable element by showing that it increases the abundance of a cortex transcript, the protein product of which plays an important role in cell-cycle regulation, during early wing disc development.

 

[omega2xx]

I said "...explain how creationism can be used to develop new biological disease modifiers to improve human health outcomes? (I'm out of a wheelchair today because of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.)

To which omega responded:

And yet our modern understanding of biology which relies on biological evolution does create all manner of biological disease modifiers, and enhancements in crop production, and countless other advances that help humans live longer, more productive lives. It's getting better at this all the time.

Results are what matters. If any other "alternatives" produced usable results, it would be worth consideration. But nothing else has ever produced one shred of actual results.

And if we don't get serious about teaching our children this difference, this country will continue to be left behind in all the scientific pursuits. Setting our children and grandchildren up to fail is child cruelty.[/QUOTE]

You guys can't seem to get you mind around the FACT that a virus remaining a virus is not evidence of evolution.

Only teaching one possibility that can't be proved will set our kids up for failure. If they are only offered one thing, they are not required to think

 

[ChristineM]

...

I am willing to get into anything in the Bible. I I can defend it better than you can defend what is in the TOE.

You are not the final authority on what is silliness.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...

Oh wonderful, that's the best laugh I've had in a few days.

So defend genocide, mas murder, slavery, abduction, rape, child abuse, child murder, subjugation, theft etc.. etc... etc....

This i have to see.

 

[omega2xx]

Where do Muslims fit in? And Hindus?

I quoted someone far more intelligent than anyone in the forum. If you don't beliveh him that is fine with me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You can tell me a gazillion times, but until you offer some evidence, it is of no value.

Evidently you don't understand what evidence is. Be specifica and post some evidence I have been presented. Hint. It can be duplicated and observed.

I think people realize the futility of offering you evidence. You've made it clear enough that you aren't actually interested in it despite your repeated calls for it. You have Google at your disposal and are therefore capable of finding the evidence yourself.

But you're so uninterested in evidence that you won't even click on a link provided to you to look at it. What message do you think that sends? You're interested in participating in RF threads, so you seek those out and click on links to get to them, but you won't click on a link that provides the evidence you claim that you seek.

Also, keep in mind that it is understood that you didn't come to your present position using evidence, and using evidence is not how you make decisions. You make them by faith. No evidence could move you from your creationist position.

You may be unaware of that, but others see it plainly.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Do you not have the intellect to do that without being inslting?



If you think asking for evidence for what you said is threatening, that is your problem, and it is irratgional.



That is also your problem and should not play a part in this discussion.



You continue to show your rudeness, so have a nice day. If you ever acquire the intellect to discuss without being insulting, get back to me.


There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

I'm just really over it all with religion, man. That and the abuse that comes with it. I'm no professional scientist, but i grew up with a choice you apparently never had. I grew up to graduating HS with fossils and minerals all around me and was taught real math and real earth sciences. When i compared this to what was being said in church, it irritated me when i realized these people really didn't believe any of what i learned in school and my fossils were all lies?! Tyrannisaurus Rex, skeleton standing in a museum of natural history was entirely "made of pig bones" according to a christian teacher from a sunday school, who for some reason took us on an outing there. THAT pissed me off and turned me away from church and Ignorance for good! I'VE SEEN T REX FOSSILS IN THE GROUND!
I've seen the morphic change in fossil specimens of species that have changed over time!
YOU WILL NEEEEVEEERRR TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME AND i WILL fight some over it,MANO A MANO!
Its MY LIFE'S EXPERIENCES!
HOW F'n DARE YOU!
You non-believers in the face of evidence will be the END of all life on Earth!
You are associated with people who would destroy all of us by a nuclear war because you just NUTS enough to go with the authoritarian choice every time and creationism=AUTHORITARIANISM=LIES to make murder legal!.
People who reject religion typically tend toward humanitarianism, science and PEACE. Religion is the wolf in sheep's clothing, but i spot every single one of you by your energy emissions. Your emissions tell me You're just looking for victims and you have no idea what's watching folks like you with a better plan of action that still includes religious freedom.
Did you see... oh nevermind, you're the one who never opens links, and the one who says Koko can't really speak.
YOU WILL POST EVIDENCE THAT KOKO the Gorilla CAN'T REALLY SPEAK or
YOU WILL CEASE AND DESIST YOUR TROLLING INSULTS AND DISRESPECT of ALL LIFE!

You HATE Jesus Christ and you would kill him for what he says as soon as you figured out He's addressing YOU. He's the ONLY 'real' thing in that stupid buybull and i wish HE had taken us kids to that natural History Museum instead!

I just went off on you like a bomb because you frighten me as much as a nuclear bomb and i will not allow anything like you to exist in my real life without something to slow it way down.
I will teach you NOTHING but real life.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

I think people realize the futility of offering you evidence. You've made it clear enough that you aren't actually interested in it despite your repeated calls for it. You have Google at your disposal and are therefore capable of finding the evidence yourself.

But you're so uninterested in evidence that you won't even click on a link provided to you to look at it. What message do you think that sends? You're interested in participating in RF threads, so you seek those out and click on links to get to them, but you won't click on a link that provides the evidence you claim that you seek.

Also, keep in mind that it is understood that you didn't come to your present position using evidence, and using evidence is not how you make decisions. You make them by faith. No evidence could move you from your creationist position.

You may be unaware of that, but others see it plainly.

He just GOT what message he sends to others.

 

[omega2xx]

Again, please pay attention, as we are talking about a study that demonstrates objectively that it indeed does... The environment doesn't physically alter the genetic makeup of an individual. (I really hope you're already aware of that.) What it does, by proxy, is influence the survivability of certain characteristics. For example, those offspring prone to thrive in a slightly wetter environment are going to prosper in wet locales, and have a significant disadvantage in dry locales. This is one of the changes that occurred to the salamander populations as they migrated away from their parent population and environment. Over a few generations, factors in the environment "favored" certain features so much that the eventual balance of like-features between the expanding population and the parent population were no longer the same. They had developed different physical features, similar to their parent population but just different enough that interbreeding, while possible, was no longer the norm. This process continued as the populations kept expanding into new geographies and environments until, eventually, the resulting population known as Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi could no longer mate with the original E. eschscholtzii eschscholtzi population.

If the environment cant alter the genetic makeup, then it can't alter the species. If what you say is true and the study did not say it was, or at least did not explain how it was, the species might not become extinct, but it would NEVER become a different species, and it would continue to produce after its kind.

This process is known as Natural Selection, and it's absolutely observable.

Natural Selection
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl səˈlekSHən/
noun
BIOLOGY

1. the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Natural selection CAN'T be proved. Survival is not a mechanism for a change of species.

"No one has evef producedd a species b y mechanism of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it.."
Colin Patterson.

"Whoever ceases to be a student has never been a student..."
-George Iles.

Sounds nice but it simply isn't true.



You say this because you do not understand the biology of evolution. Your understanding of the definition of evolution seems to be limited to "Men didn't come from monkeys!", which is both short-sighted and inaccurate.

don't need you to fully grasp the whole of the Science. But I do want to talk away from this conversation with you having at least a basic grasp of the concepts which drive natural selection in species. For example, your first statement in this response is demonstrably false. If we can remove that mental barrier to help you see how physical and biological processes are intertwined, then you'll be much better off in future conversations on this topic. "Micro-Evolution", as you guys call it, is Evolution. The same forces and factors that influence salamander offspring to the point of no longer being able to interbreed, influence all life and environmental processes on Earth. It's an intricately beautiful thing once you understand the complexities of it - and I personally think it would do more to strengthen your faith and expand your god if you'd spend time studying it.

That comment is insulting and self serving. I have as much ability to read and understand as you do. When you can prove natural selelctin, get back to me. Colin Patterson is much more knowledable of science than you and I put together.

Remember that you are the one who first cited the study which shows that small changes over time do, in fact, change species.

I cited it for one reason---salamanders remaing salamander is not evidence of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

NSTA News

Why are you afraid to cut and paste?

 

[ratiocinator]

Natural selection CAN'T be proved.

Oh, don't be so silly. How can organisms better suited to survival and reproduction in their environment NOT survive and reproduce more than those less suited?

Natural selection is a statement of the obvious.