The Strange Thing about Creationism

[outhouse]

If you throw out the data because of the source, I'll take that as concession.



Here is an article that shows that Junk DNA isn't exactly Junk.

One Scientist's Junk Is a Creationist's Treasure

more pseudoscience nonsense



you also keep refusing to provide a replacement hypthesis

 

[Shermana]

So, the Cheeata isn't a cat then? They do not have retractable claws.

Also retractable claws are found in other species closely related to cats, such as the Foosa.

The first ture cats (such as Proailurnus) had only semi-retractable claws, not nearly as advanced as modern cats.

If you are genuinely interested in felid evolution I would suggest reading The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives.
Amazon.com: The Big Cats and Their Fossil Relatives (9780231102292): Mauricio Anton, Alan Turner, F. Clark. Howell: Books

wa:do

BTW... you still seem to misunderstand the term Macroevolution... speciation is macroevolution and it has been observed several times both in the lab and in the wild.

Only the Grey Fox has anything halfway close to a "retractable" claw and its not really all that.

The Cheetah's paws are far more retractable than the Grey Fox. Are you implying that the Cheetah can't retract them whatsoever? They simply have a different "Sheath" structure so that they're always visible, where did you learn that they can't use them like other cats?

Does that book explain how the retractability mechanism even developed?

PS Please show this speciation you refer to and that its not SUB speciation. I hope I don't have to repeat my statements on observed Microevolution over again.

Fruit fly speciation is MICROevolution at best. Macro-evolution, is when bats get their wings.

The Fossa's retractable claws are expected for something that can directly be referred to as feline, if part mongoose seeming. I want one as a pet.

 

[outhouse]

Only the Grey Fox has anything halfway close to a "retractable" claw and its not really all that.

The Cheetah's paws are far more retractable than the Grey Fox. Are you implying that the Cheetah can't retract them whatsoever? They simply have a different "Sheath" structure so that they're always visible, where did you learn that they can't use them like other cats?

Does that book explain how the retractability mechanism even developed?

LOL wild goose chases

is all you have.


this amounts to playing chess with pigeons.

 

[outhouse]

you should make yourself aware of this word

pros·e·lyt·ize

   http://app.dictionary.com/signup/po...lbackAction=addToFav&domaindest=reference.com/ˈprɒs

ə

lɪˌtaɪz/ Show Spelled[pros-uh-li-tahyz] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -ized, -iz·ing. to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.



because thats all your doing with your creationist tactics of posting garbage links over and over again

 

[outhouse]

I often see the Evolution vs Creation debate, but one thing I cannot help notice is that Creationism seems to be less about proving a creation, and more about proving the Bible's account of creation as literally true.

Surely if Creationism was only about proving a creator it would be inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, and others with other creation myths. Instead all I see is an attempt to prove the Bible's account as science.

That brings me to the question of the thread- is Creationism more about proving a creator, or more about Creationists wanting to believe that the Bible should be taken entirely literally?

this is the OP's post

it was not yours to hijack and derail

 

[painted wolf]

Wow... the math in that was really wonky. 4 offspring per couple? Really?
Drosophilla lay between 10 and 20 eggs per mating and can do this many many times in their lifetime.

And why is the population restricted to a cap of 5,000 ?

There are several unsupportable assumptions being made by your source.

Also, the mutation rate and ratio of deleterious, neutral and beneficial mutations are way off. For example each of us humans has between 100 and 200 mutations that make us different from our parents.
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing

The vast majority of these mutations are neutral (aka silent). Again showing the flaws in your sources numbers.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

this is the OP's post

it was not yours to hijack and derail

My bad, I thought that showing the legitimate arguments against Macro-Evolution and how Macroevolutionists do exactly what the OP is accusing Creationists of (except against the Bible) had something to do with the OP.

 

[Shermana]

Wow... the math in that was really wonky. 4 offspring per couple? Really?
Drosophilla lay between 10 and 20 eggs per mating and can do this many many times in their lifetime.

And why is the population restricted to a cap of 5,000 ?

There are several unsupportable assumptions being made by your source.

Also, the mutation rate and ratio of deleterious, neutral and beneficial mutations are way off. For example each of us humans has between 100 and 200 mutations that make us different from our parents.
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing

The vast majority of these mutations are neutral (aka silent). Again showing the flaws in your sources numbers.

wa:do

Unless I'm mistaken, the 4 per couple ratio is for consideration of that mutation-generation's severely reduced fertility (and survivability) due to being a down-the-generation result of weakened offspring..sounds right.

I may have posted a few links on Human Microevolution on this thread.

 

[painted wolf]

Only the Grey Fox has anything halfway close to a "retractable" claw and its not really all that.

The Foosa, African Palm Civit, have retractable claws... indeed most of the Viverids have retractable or semi-retractable claws. I could go on but you get the idea.

The Cheetah's paws are far more retractable than the Grey Fox. Are you implying that the Cheetah can't retract them whatsoever? They simply have a different "Sheath" structure so that they're always visible, where did you learn that they can't use them like other cats?

I'm saying that cats are more varied than you implied. There are cats that are still transitional in their ability to retract their claws. Thus your claim that cats claws are beyond anything else in the mammal family tree is false.

Does that book explain how the retractability mechanism even developed?

Try reading it.

PS Please show this speciation you refer to and that its not SUB speciation. I hope I don't have to repeat my statements on observed Microevolution over again.

Do you understand what a subspecies is? Somehow I think you understand this term as well as you do macroevolution.

Fruit fly speciation is MICROevolution at best. Macro-evolution, is when bats get their wings.

No it isn't... I've explained this to you several times. Speciation is macroevolution, it is the very definition of macroevoluton... what you are insisting on is a false definition.

The Fossa's retractable claws are expected for something that can directly be referred to as feline, if part mongoose seeming. I want one as a pet.

The Fossa is not a cat, it is a Viverid. And no, you wouldn't want one as a pet, unless you want a pet that will happily maul/kill you.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Unless I'm mistaken, the 4 per couple ratio is for consideration of that mutation-generation's severely reduced fertility (and survivability) due to being a down-the-generation result of weakened offspring..sounds right.

I may have posted a few links on Human Microevolution on this thread.

Except that it is totally unsupportable in reality.

It only "sounds right" if you want it to... as opposed to "sounding right" because you know something about genetics.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

My bad, I thought that showing the legitimate arguments against Macro-Evolution and how Macroevolutionists do exactly what the OP is accusing Creationists of (except against the Bible) had something to do with the OP.

Only unless you want to prove the OP correct... that creationists have no positive evidence of their own theory and must resort to desperately trying to poke holes in evolution.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

http://home.comcast.net/~mkent595/Microevolution.html

"If we want absolutely bona fide evidence for the reality of microevolutionary change and speciation in nature, the cases of the circumpolar overlaps and the fruit fly of Hawaii come very close ..."

 

[Shermana]

Only unless you want to prove the OP correct... that creationists have no positive evidence of their own theory and must resort to desperately trying to poke holes in evolution.

wa:do

The OP is trying to imply that Creationists have no reason for their belief except to prove the Bible. Well if I wanted to prove the Bible I'd go to other sources.

For example: The perfection of the Earth's distance to the sun (and the moon for Tidal movements) and Atmosphere. If you want to believe that happens by chance, you're welcome to.

You say there's no positive evidence, but you say Macro-evolutionists have positive evidence? If that's so, that you think Macro-evolutionists have positive evidence, well then, you prove my rebuttal to the OP.

The fact that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer already in place first (not even Cyanobacteria) kinda proves the order of Creation correct ("plants" first, unless you can prove how Cyanobacteria survived the initial UV).

But as for Creationists, the theory they have is that the Great Spirit made it, why is that not a valid theory? Because Atheists don't allow Intelligent Design as a Theory? Oh well, but they're allowed to say whatever they want without evidence...because...? Why doesn't that count? Do you not believe the Great Spirit even designed it? Why aren't they allowed to not believe in Evolution without having a belief in the Biblical account? Is this basically an Atheist rant against the Creationist belief in Intelligent Design with an attempt to stack the deck and try to force the conclusion that Macro-evolution explains everything as if there's no good reason to question it? Where have you proven that Micro-speciation events can cause Macro-level changes like bats developing wings? Where has anyone shown how retractable claws develop on their own? Or lungs and fins and legs and wings? Those are major gaps you can choose to say don't exist.

And as I've shown ,the term "MIcroevolution" and "Speciation" is yet another muddied concept, since the Speciation involved from Micro-evolution" should be referred to as Sub-speciation and Micro-speciation, just like the word "Evolution" should be divided into Macro and Sub/Micro.

So the Theory is that the Intelligence of the Universe itself crafted the Earth and "Galaxy" particularly for life. What's wrong with that? Are you saying it all happened by coincidence? Where is the proof that a Planetesmal can even develop into a mid-sized Planet like Earth? Do you attribute the atmosphere and distance from the moon for stable tides pure chance? What are the odds of that happening? Do you think Venus spins differently because asteroids hit exactly the right spot to make it rotate the other way?

Can Stellar Evolution be discussed or only Biological evolution? If you're saying that Creationists have no theory of their own and only "poke holes in evolution", then what are you saying about Macro-evolutionists? You are assuming the balloon will still fly even after it has many holes poked.

 

[outhouse]

The fact that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer already in place first (not even Cyanobacteria) kinda proves the order of Creation correct ("plants" first, unless you can prove how Cyanobacteria survived the initial UV).

I happen to know cyano and have it growing now.

to grow one needs water, this indicates a atmosphere FIRST


another one of your wild goose chases that go nowhere

 

[outhouse]

But as for Creationists, the theory they have is that the Great Spirit made it, why is that not a valid theory?

are saying magic is better???? then a scientific theory based on observable facts, DNA and fossil evidence?????????????


quite the stretch there when its obvious there is ZERO evidence of a sky daddy

 

[outhouse]

an attempt to stack the deck

im sorry but logic reason and reality do that not science

 

[outhouse]

And as I've shown ,the term "MIcroevolution" and "Speciation" is yet another muddied concept

you have not shown anything

the only thing you have proven is a severe lack of education, quote mining and prostetylizing

 

[outhouse]

So the Theory is that the Intelligence of the Universe itself crafted the Earth and "Galaxy" particularly for life and t

not even a hypthesis let alone a theory

the univsere is nature, not intelligent

 

[Gunfingers]

The OP is trying to imply that Creationists have no reason for their belief except to prove the Bible. Well if I wanted to prove the Bible I'd go to other sources.

For example: The perfection of the Earth's distance to the sun (and the moon for Tidal movements) and Atmosphere. If you want to believe that happens by chance, you're welcome to.

Besides being puddle logic, the odds of their being a planet somewhere in the universe that falls into the Goldilocks zone is pretty damned good. There are, after all, more stars out there than there are atoms on earth. I think. I can't remember if that was the comparison used. Point is, there's a buttload of stars out there, so the odds are pretty good that at least one would have a planet the right distance to keep liquid water.

You say there's no positive evidence, but you say Macro-evolutionists have positive evidence? If that's so, that you think Macro-evolutionists have positive evidence, well then, you prove my rebuttal to the OP.

Your rebuttal was that evolution has evidence?

The fact that nothing can exist without an Ozone layer already in place first (not even Cyanobacteria) kinda proves the order of Creation correct ("plants" first, unless you can prove how Cyanobacteria survived the initial UV).

Cyanobacteria are known to be at least 3.5 billion years old, by contrast plansts, depending on how one defines them, appeared between 1.2 and .5 billion years ago.

But as for Creationists, the theory they have is that the Great Spirit made it, why is that not a valid theory? Because Atheists don't allow Intelligent Design as a Theory? Oh well, but they're allowed to say whatever they want without evidence...because...? Why doesn't that count? Do you not believe the Great Spirit even designed it? Why aren't they allowed to not believe in Evolution without having a belief in the Biblical account? Is this basically an Atheist rant against the Creationist belief in Intelligent Design with an attempt to stack the deck and try to force the conclusion that Macro-evolution explains everything as if there's no good reason to question it? Where have you proven that Micro-speciation events can cause Macro-level changes like bats developing wings? Where has anyone shown how retractable claws develop on their own? Or lungs and fins and legs and wings? Those are major gaps you can choose to say don't exist.

"God did it" is not discarded out of hand just because. It's discarded because it doesn't explain anything. How did god do it? What processes were involved? What evidence is there?
That is how science works. It seeks to explain the world. Deities are ignored because whether or not there is a supernatural power working behind the scenes doesn't matter, the physical processes by which the universe functions are still going to be what they are.
Nor is evolution incompatible with your deity. Painted Wolf is not an atheist, nor is Ken Miller, a well known biologist and catholic. In fact, only about 60% of scientists are atheists. Science is not about disproving religion, it is about explaining the natural world.

And as I've shown ,the term "MIcroevolution" and "Speciation" is yet another muddied concept, since the Speciation involved from Micro-evolution" should be referred to as Sub-speciation and Micro-speciation, just like the word "Evolution" should be divided into Macro and Sub/Micro.

I'm sure biologists will be more than happy to change their terminology based on your opinion.

So the Theory is that the Intelligence of the Universe itself crafted the Earth and "Galaxy" particularly for life. What's wrong with that? Are you saying it all happened by coincidence? Where is the proof that a Planetesmal can even develop into a mid-sized Planet like Earth? Do you attribute the atmosphere and distance from the moon for stable tides pure chance? What are the odds of that happening? Do you think Venus spins differently because asteroids hit exactly the right spot to make it rotate the other way?

There's nothing wrong with believing in the supernatural, it's just not relevant to science.

Can Stellar Evolution be discussed or only Biological evolution? If you're saying that Creationists have no theory of their own and only "poke holes in evolution", then what are you saying about Macro-evolutionists? You are assuming the balloon will still fly even after it has many holes poked.

The point people make in that statement is that there's no natural evidence for divine creation, so creationists spend their time trying to disprove evolution. That's not how science is normally done.

 

[Shermana]

The Cyanobacteria you refer to is not "known about", there is no way of proving it is as old as claimed. Why don't you quote something conclusive form that article. And quote how they survived the UV.

So are you saying that the word "Microspeciation" is not used? I am saying that the ones presenting the information need to be more honest about what is MAcro and Micro.

Microspeciation of polypeptides - The Journal of Physical Chemistry (ACS Publications)

And as I've shown , Fruit fly speciation is in the MICRO category.

As it stands, only MICROevolution has ever been observed, Macro-evolution has not been observed.

Does science normally involve pushing a theory as fact without evidence? If so, that says a lot.

If you think the odds of everything falling perfectly into the Goldilocks zone is "pretty damned good", you're welcome to believe that. The odds of Shakespeare-typing Monkeys is probably higher.