The Strange Thing about Creationism

[Gunfingers]

You do realize that even if I'm wrong about the evolutionary history of lactation evolution is still correct, right?

 

[outhouse]

You can go ahead and ignore that Technology Review article if you wish. You can go ahead and ignore the Sciencedaily article too.

Epigenetics: 100 Reasons To Change The Way We Think About Genetics

It's not my fault if you don't keep up to date.

doesnt have anything to do with creation

the article is not new information, just a more in depth study of what we already know.


it doesnt discount all genetic changes and speciation

 

[Skwim]

Well, that's a lot of "Fast forwarding". Let Painted Wolf prove that milk comes from sweat.

Why would he bother? And even if he did your next question would simply be along the same lines. "Well, then prove that the Geico lizard came from fish." or "Prove that nasal mucus came from eating too many oysters."

 

[Shermana]

Why would he bother? And even if he did your next question would simply be along the same lines. "Well, then prove that the Geico lizard came from fish." or "Prove that nasal mucus came from eating too many oysters."

Why would he bother? So he could prove that milk comes from sweat peraps? You can start with one of the hundreds of 'missing links' that apparently account for the "theory" which is presented as "fact" despite the utter lack of evidence.

Why should a Theist bother answering any Atheist questions if they're just going to ask more and more?

Chow down some spinach, and get some links and help him out, things like sweat turning into milk are a big deal that you apparently just put a rug over and hope no one looks. (Don't forget the absorption ability of said milk, you'll have to show that babies drank the sweat and it gave them essential nutrients like Calcium and describe how it happened).

Otherwise, it's clear as day that Macro-evolution is one big theory squarely aimed against the Bible that wouldn't hold water if it wasn't so implicit in an anti-Bible agenda.

 

[Shermana]

doesnt have anything to do with creation

the article is not new information, just a more in depth study of what we already know.


it doesnt discount all genetic changes and speciation

What is being researched does indeed discount Darwinism and "Vindicates" Lamarck at least to a major degree, and it proves that Hyper-evolution can possibly result in different "Species within a species", but it proves that they have boundaries that cannot be changed as well as having "Activatable" genes which are trigged as if a software program to develop into something.

 

[Gunfingers]

Okay, first off, Painted Wolf is a chick. I'm sure she has those lactation glands we've been going on about and everything. She went through all the pains of succeeding in a male-dominated line of work, we could at least do her the courtesy of getting her gender right.

Next, we don't need fossil evidence of every single trait to demonstrate the veracity of evolution. Evolution is still the only way to explain biology as we know it, and lacking fossil evidence of the transition from sweat glands to lactation glands does not contradict that.

 

[Shermana]

You do realize that even if I'm wrong about the evolutionary history of lactation evolution is still correct, right?

If by Evolution you mean "Microevolution", then of course, "evolution" is still correct, no argument there. If you mean "Theory of Macrospeciation is still correct", NOPE.

As I've stated, there is no evidence of the actual speciation events. It is pure theory and much uphill battle for that theory at that.

If you cannot show how one thing evolved, it is like one pin in the balloon among many others that completely deflate it, bigger pins like the fact that humans have hundreds of thousands more base pairs, I've mentioned that 3 times.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, first off, Painted Wolf is a chick. I'm sure she has those lactation glands we've been going on about and everything. She went through all the pains of succeeding in a male-dominated line of work, we could at least do her the courtesy of getting her gender right.

Next, we don't need fossil evidence of every single trait to demonstrate the veracity of evolution. Evolution is still the only way to explain biology as we know it, and lacking fossil evidence of the transition from sweat glands to lactation glands does not contradict that.

As I stated in my post, we have a conflict on the word "Evolution", however, MACROspeciation and thus "Macro" evolution, is in no way whatsoever proven. If you cannot prove how milk came to be, then why don't you show some prime examples that prove when the speciatoin from reptile to mammal occured exactly. Maybe you have proof of the common ancestor of the Platypus and the Echidna for example.

But I completely agree that "Microevolution" is completely proven, as I've stated several times. So if multiple elements of the pure speculation are proven incorrect, where does that leave your theory? I've used more than just the lactation unless you've been skipping over as examples.

 

[painted wolf]

Are you sure about that? Darwinian ideas specifically exclude the idea of "Hyper-evolution" within a few generations, saying it takes thousands and thousands of generations.

Where does Darwin say that?
What do you consider "Hyper"?
New species have been documented as arising in only a handful of decades and in plants a single generation.

I repeat an ignored point, how and what caused humans to develop hundreds of thousands of base pairs? Random mutation? Or "I don't know but I'll say it happened"?

There are several mutations that increase genetic material, duplications for existence.
No need to guess, we can measure it.

wa:do

 

[Shermana]

Where does Darwin say that?
What do you consider "Hyper"?
New species have been documented as arising in only a handful of decades and in plants a single generation.
There are several mutations that increase genetic material, duplications for existence.
No need to guess, we can measure it.

wa:do

Have any of these mutations been evidenced to produce a beneficial mutation that becomes the dominant subpopulation in such a level as the supposed jump from "monkey" to man? When do you suppose the chromosomal fusion occured and why did it result in becoming the majority population?

As for "Hyper" I mean very quick changes within a few generations, but within a "chassis". "Deer-things" can become Buffalo as well as Giraffes, but not dogs. Coyotes and Wolves are the same species and the "Red Wolf" is likely a fertile "hybrid" of an original species, but it will never become a raccoon. All the animals are in their class and set in their class. There's also the basic issue of lungs in fish, the lungfish's swim bladder is designed to require air but did they acquire this by living near the surface and hopping around? Where are the fossils of other land-dwelling fish? (I'm sure you're aware Tiktaalik's fins couldn't bear weight). Are you aware that the Rhodocetus fossils had artificial "flippers" "reconstructed" and there is no actual evidence of transition from leg to fin?

Each piece of the evidence has many holes and gaps, and then the whole of it is presented as if one should swallow despite the proven inaccuracies, as well as in the face of the barriers studied within Epigenetics.

 

[Skwim]

Otherwise, it's clear as day that Macro-evolution is one big theory squarely aimed against the Bible that wouldn't hold water if it wasn't so implicit in an anti-Bible agenda.

Please take note of my signature below. Yes, in spite of its wisdom (I didn't come up with it BTW) some here do like to take on such people and try to educate them, while others of us simply watch with mild interest from the sidelines. So claim whatever you wish, but if it's too outlandish (your above remark for example) don't expect much in the way of serious replies.

 

[Shermana]

Please take note of my signature below. Yes, in spite of its wisdom (I didn't come up with it BTW) some here do like to take on such people and try to educate them, while others of us simply watch with mild interest from the sidelines. So claim whatever you wish, but if it's too outlandish (your above remark for example) don't expect much in the way of serious replies.

Well, judging by your lack of discussing the specifics of anything I said, I'd say your signature is well suited for you.

 

[outhouse]

What is being researched does indeed discount Darwinism and "Vindicates" Lamarck at least to a major degree, and it proves that Hyper-evolution can possibly result in different "Species within a species", but it proves that they have boundaries that cannot be changed as well as having "Activatable" genes which are trigged as if a software program to develop into something.

it does nothing about proving boundaries that cannot be changed

IT has nothing to do with creation what so ever! and you cannot refute that.

 

[outhouse]

if it wasn't so implicit in an anti-Bible agenda

do you think ToE is anti-bible???


dont you think that statement is as ignorant as it gets????


do you believe the earth is 6000 years old and that there was a global flood to???

 

[Shermana]

it does nothing about proving boundaries that cannot be changed

IT has nothing to do with creation what so ever! and you cannot refute that.

Unless I'm mistaken about this abstract, there are "Orchestrated" loops that precisely determine what can and cannot change such as in cancer cells even which are very adaptive.

http://jcb.rupress.org/content/193/3/475.abstract

Monoallelic expression of IGF2 is regulated by CCCTC binding factor (CTCF) binding to the imprinting control region (ICR) on the maternal allele, with subsequent formation of an intrachromosomal loop to the promoter region. The N-terminal domain of CTCF interacts with SUZ12, part of the polycomb repressive complex-2 (PRC2), to silence the maternal allele. We synthesized decoy CTCF proteins, fusing the CTCF deoxyribonucleic acid–binding zinc finger domain to CpG methyltransferase Sss1 or to enhanced green fluorescent protein. In normal human fibroblasts and breast cancer MCF7 cell lines, the CTCF decoy proteins bound to the unmethylated ICR and to the IGF2 promoter region but did not interact with SUZ12. EZH2, another part of PRC2, was unable to methylate histone H3-K27 in the IGF2 promoter region, resulting in reactivation of the imprinted allele. The intrachromosomal loop between the maternal ICR and the IGF2 promoters was not observed when IGF2 imprinting was lost. CTCF epigenetically governs allelic gene expression of IGF2 by orchestrating chromatin loop structures involving PRC2.

And I don't think my statement about Macro-evolution theory being mainly pointed against Genesis, is out of line at all, it is based purely on speculation and wouldn't hold as much water as it does if it wasn't supported by the anti-theist movement.

My beliefs on the age of the earth and the flood can be discussed on relevant threads.

 

[David M]

If by Evolution you mean "Microevolution", then of course, "evolution" is still correct, no argument there. If you mean "Theory of Macrospeciation is still correct", NOPE.

As I've stated, there is no evidence of the actual speciation events. It is pure theory and much uphill battle for that theory at that.

If you cannot show how one thing evolved, it is like one pin in the balloon among many others that completely deflate it, bigger pins like the fact that humans have hundreds of thousands more base pairs, I've mentioned that 3 times.

You are just receating your undending display of ignorance, there is no Macro-speciation proposed within evolutionary theory. There is just speciation, something that has been observed.

Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution over time, which is fully supported by genetics and the fossil record. If you want to dismiss macroevolution you have to provide evidence that there is some barrier that stops microevolution from accumulating long enough to be called macroevolution.

 

[Shermana]

You are just receating your undending display of ignorance, there is no Macro-speciation proposed within evolutionary theory. There is just speciation, something that has been observed.

Macroevolution is just a whole lot of microevolution over time, which is fully supported by genetics and the fossil record. If you want to dismiss macroevolution you have to provide evidence that there is some barrier that stops microevolution from accumulating long enough to be called macroevolution.

And "Macro-evolution" has not been observed, why don't you go over my list of issues that can't really be explained. I'm assuming you believe that sweat turns into milk and the ability to absorb this Calcium-laced sweat occurs through random mutation.

I love these posts that don't even bother discussing the specifics of anything I've said and continue to prove my thesis that Macroevolutionists distort the issue between the observed, the theoretical, and the plausible. I'm assuming you believe if you can't get past one of the hundreds of huge gaps, you can just carpet all over it.

What happens once you are left with nothing but gaps that can't be crossed? Will you hope that no one notices that you are banking on magic milk sweat? There is no argument that Microspeciation is fully plausible, there IS argument that fish will start walking and monkeys will grow hundreds of thousands of helpful base pairs. (As opposed to genetic defects which is 100% of the observed mutation rate.)

 

[outhouse]

And "Macro-evolution" has not been observed

do you think this is severe ignorance???

 

[Shermana]

do you think this is severe ignorance???

Please show an example of observed evidenced macrospeciation, with a link to the study. As I've said several times, Fruit Fly experiments count as "Micro".

 

[outhouse]

Unless I'm mistaken about this abstract, there are "Orchestrated" loops that precisely determine what can and cannot change such as in cancer cells even which are very adaptive.

http://jcb.rupress.org/content/193/3/475.abstract

the abstract does not discount ToE in any way shape or form

the abstract does not support creation in any way

And I don't think my statement about Macro-evolution theory being mainly pointed against Genesis

genesis does not stand literally, scientifically or historically or geologically.

you havnt made a valid statement yet about macro evolution

My beliefs on the age of the earth and the flood can be discussed on relevant threads

ignoring questions related to lines of religion crossing known valid science you are poorly discounting are relevant to the topic at hand