Genetics and evolution

[blackumbrella]

They can’t really explain how, because extensive amounts of time and chance mutation can’t be reproduced in a lab.

of course 'time' per se is not the issue, but the vast number of generations that would be necessary. so evolution of organisms with short life spans can be studied in the lab, and has been--fruit flies and e coli that i know of. computational models have also been employed, as with the caltech project i linked to in one of the other threads.

In fact creationists are doing plenty of investigating. We have to in order to debunk the notion that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the way life could have developed on this planet.

that's great. i'm all for more investigating. but if you're investigating for the sheer purpose of debunking evolution, you have to expect your findings to come under strict scrutiny. plus, you might want to have a clear understanding of the ideas you're trying to debunk, and so you might want to brush up bamabake on natural selection. that said, if you succeed, i'll happily discard it as a failed theory. shoe on the other foot, can you say the same?

But doesn’t genetic information give messages about how the characteristics of the person, for example, are determined? This person will have blue eyes and blond hair, is that not a message conveyed through the physical appearance of a person? The message would begin with DNA, be transmitted through many complex series of physical processes, and be received as the physical appearance of the person.

Wouldn’t that be information? A message from a source, transmitted and received?

the problem is that you're setting up a pathetic fallacy when you use verbs like 'transmit,''receive,''give'--transitive verbs that require an object--bc they're implying agency in a process where there is none. do flames 'give messages' to a steak to cook? let's look again at your sentence: 'doesn’t genetic information give messages about how the characteristics of the person, for example, are determined?' wouldn't it be more accurate to just say 'genes determine characteristics'?

Isaiah 29:14 says “Human wisdom is foolish, even the most brilliant people lack understanding”

Romans 1:21-22 says “And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.”

very wise quotes indeed

evolutionists must also have faith when it comes to evolution, faith in time and chance mutation.
[/Qnd blond hair, is that not a message conveyed through the physical appearance of a person? The message would begin with DNA, be transmitted through many complex series of physical processes, and be received as the physical appearance of the person.

Wouldn’t that be information? A message from a source, transmitted and received?

the problem is that you're setting up a pathetic fallacy when you use verbs like 'transmit,''receive,''give'--transitive verbs that require an object--bc they're implying agency in a process where there is none. do flames 'give messages' to a steak to cook? let's look again at your sentence: 'doesn’t genetic information give messages about how the characteristics of the person, for example, are determined?' wouldn't it be more accurate to just say 'genes determine characteristics'?

Isaiah 29:14 says “Human wisdom is foolish, even the most brilliant people lack understanding”

Romans 1:21-22 says “And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.”

very wise quotes indeed

evolutionists must also have faith when it comes to evolution, faith in time and chance mutation.

your persistence in mischaracterizing through gross oversimplification the evoluitonist perspective is, most fortunately, outmatched by my persistence in correcting you. and so, again, evolutionists have faith:

in a system of investigation and that the agility of that system to self-correct actually constitutes improvement.

 

[bamabake]

you realize, don't you, that the wording of this sentence is saying creationists, those who 'fight' evolution, have closed minds? i agree.

why was it again that the heliocentric model took so long to be accepted? oh yeah, it met with fierce dogmatic opposition. sounds familiar.


well, most creationists worship a savior who thought the earth was flat.

The bible says "All things were created for the son and by the son and in him all things consist".

NowI understand that that wont mean much to someone as smart as you but Christians do not worship a savior that thought the world was flat.


cheers

 

[KillVols]

Your a hard person to understand sometimes... You might try a little less LSD or whatever you are on and a little more soberness.

I will pray for you and hope that the good lord works miracles in your life.

God Bless

BTW- We can prove without any doubt that there is a God and we were created. We will all find out when we die. I would not recommend trying it anytime soon.

 

[COBamaFan]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was away for the weekend (skiing).

CrimsonNan:

I take great offense at your comment. My mentor is female. In fact, almost every person who has had a significant influence on my life to date as been female. I see nothing in BeccaBama’s posts that have proved she is female (at least, not anything that I paid attention too). Furthermore, I see nothing in BeccaBama’s posts that prove she is smarter than me. I’ve answered every single one of her questions. She cannot say the same.

Finally, what makes you assume I’m male? The truth is, you don’t know.

You’re obviously grasping at straws here with a ridiculous attempt to attack my character. I’ll ignore any further posts from you on this particular subject (or anybody else for that matter), so say what you will.

BeccaBama:

It seems blackumbrella has answered most of the questions you had about evolution being the ‘BEST’ interpretation. If you want me to respond I will, otherwise I’ll just say I agree with blackumbrella and leave it at that.

Surely you don’t think the cell couldn’t have increased step-by-step in complex? Not with all the evidence out there that it did, in fact, do that just that. The link I provided early explains exactly how this process works. Just because you don’t understand how this is possible, doesn’t mean that it can’t be possible. Read a little. Blackumbrella also did a nice job of explaining this early, so I wouldn’t go into too much detail (unless you want me too).

You don’t hear much from me about ‘complexity’? One of my previous posts addressed exactly this issue and provided numerous references. I’ve gone above and beyond to prove this point. I wouldn’t be repeating myself until you provide some proof that I need to.

I refuted the information with an early post (perhaps someone else did too) and this is a point you clearly missed. Go re-read one of my responses to KillVols.

Mutations are generally harmful? You’re using the popular definition of the word instead of the scientific definition. You say the mathematical odds are astronomical. That’s funny!

KillVols:

No contradiction to anything I said in your post (as usual).

BeccaBama has not answered many of my questions (and continues to not do so). Do you read my posts?

And, trust me, your comments about my understanding of science are mutual.

There is much more I would like to respond too but I don’t have the time right this minute.

 

[CrimsonNan]

Of course, you?re wrong on several points. First, the major one: evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began. Not understanding this simple, easily verified point is one of the major fallacies of creationists.

Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested. A simple check of any introductory biology book would have enlightened you.

(The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.)

Your comment from page 3, #39

This discussion had progressed for three pages, with a number of Tide Fans posters, without any insults, until YOU came aboard, and your very first post was an insult. Read above...The bottom line, etc., etc.,...

How do you expect to be received after that?

This is my last comment in this thread anyway, so I don't care whether you respond or not. Go ahead and be offended. You've certainly offended posters in this thread.

 

[Bamalaw92]

Of course, you’re wrong on several points. First, the major one: evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began. Not understanding this simple, easily verified point is one of the major fallacies of creationists.

Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested. A simple check of any introductory biology book would have enlightened you.

The bottom line is that the only people in evolution denial are those with a religious or political agenda who are willing to use dishonesty to advance their views.

Nan makes a great point, but I would also like to point out an initial fallacy:

First, the major one: evolution only explains how speciation occurs. Nothing more, nothing less. It makes no attempt to explain how life began.

I agree, but I would not that it attempts to explain these things. There are still many problems with the theory.

Second, evolution has been observed and repeatedly tested. A simple check of any introductory biology book would have enlightened you.

Not precisely, MICROevolution has been observed. That is, we can show how a sparrow has become a smarter sparrow, a virus a smarter virus, an iguana a smarter iguana, etc. - how one animal has adapted to become a better animal of the same kind. We have extrapolated, but never observed, MACROevolution or the process of inanimate ooze through a series of random events becoming a highly complex and organized being that is able to think and rationalize and develop theories of its own origins and existence.

 

[COBamaFan]

This will be my last post: several people are obviously angry. Perhaps my style is too confrontational, I’m not sure. I will make a few remarks and be done. I’d also like to point out that I’ve ignored several statements by posters that were, shall we say, less than cordial, so don’t everyone go patting themselves on the back just quite yet.

This has been a wide-ranging discussion, but creationists still haven’t answered many questions:

KillVols wondered about increasing complexity. I provided an answer for him (which he has yet to respond too). BeccaBama questioned the ability of scientists to make an objective assessment of data. I answered that it has been my experience that most scientists do their best to remove any personal bias from their work, which is something BeccaBama admitted to being incapable of doing. I admitted that, of course, personal bias may affect some people’s opinions (no one has ever questioned that), but it was paramount that you attempt to evaluate new information objectively as possible. I even said that if new information was discovered that seriously contradicted evolution that I would readily (and happily) change my opinion. Creationists, BeccaBama in particular, have admitted that they will never do this. So how, I wondered, can we believe anything that these people say? For sure, anyone who admits (no matter what there beliefs) that they are incapable of changing their views when new evidence comes to light must be ignored.

I questioned BeccaBama about her need for direct evidence of evolution and why she didn’t require such direct evidence to prove other scientific theories (no response). In a response to a question I had about proving creationism, she asked me to disprove creationism. I explained that saying ‘God did it’ was a valid, if extremely vague, explanation for almost a wondered about increasing complexity. I provided an answer for him (which he has yet to respond too). BeccaBama questioned the ability of scientists to make an objective assessment of data. I answered that it has been my experience that most scientists do their best to remove any personal bias from their work, which is something BeccaBama admitted to being incapable of doing. I admitted that, of course, personal bias may affect some people’s opinions (no one has ever questioned that), but it was paramount that you attempt to evaluate new information objectively as possible. I even said that if new information was discovered that seriously contradicted evolution that I would readily (and happily) change my opinion. Creationists, BeccaBama in particular, have admitted that they will never do this. So how, I wondered, can we believe anything that these people say? For sure, anyone who admits (no matter what there beliefs) that they are incapable of changing their views when new evidence comes to light must be ignored.

I questioned BeccaBama about her need for direct evidence of evolution and why she didn’t require such direct evidence to prove other scientific theories (no response). In a response to a question I had about proving creationism, she asked me to disprove creationism. I explained that saying ‘God did it’ was a valid, if extremely vague, explanation for almost any scientific observation, but that didn’t mean it was the best one (clearly, science has shown time and time again that saying ‘God did it’ is probably the worst possible answer, if the easiest to understand). As an example, I asked her to show that God was not responsible for the motion of the sun everyday, for if she could not, then it must be just as valid an explanation for the motion of the sun as creationism is for speciation. I mean, there is not direct evidence, at least not of the kind BeccaBama requires, that the earth is going around the sun, so why is that theory not in the same boat as evolution (no response)?

Finally, I asked for one single piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that supported creationism and contradicted evolution (BeccaBama offered the ‘complex eye’ argument but this was easily debunked by blackumbrella. KillVols offered the vague ‘new information’ argument, but, once again, this was easily shown to be either 1) not true or 2) have no impact on the argument whatsoever, depending, of course, on KillVols definition of ‘information’. My point is that the required evidence from the creationists has yet to be provided and I have given them ample opportunity to do so).

As I said, I will not respond to CrimsonNan (although I don’t see I how I insulted anyone with my first post. Maybe I insulted an idea with tny scientific observation, but that didn’t mean it was the best one (clearly, science has shown time and time again that saying ‘God did it’ is probably the worst possible answer, if the easiest to understand). As an example, I asked her to show that God was not responsible for the motion of the sun everyday, for if she could not, then it must be just as valid an explanation for the motion of the sun as creationism is for speciation. I mean, there is not direct evidence, at least not of the kind BeccaBama requires, that the earth is going around the sun, so why is that theory not in the same boat as evolution (no response)?

Finally, I asked for one single piece of scientifically verifiable evidence that supported creationism and contradicted evolution (BeccaBama offered the ‘complex eye’ argument but this was easily debunked by blackumbrella. KillVols offered the vague ‘new information’ argument, but, once again, this was easily shown to be either 1) not true or 2) have no impact on the argument whatsoever, depending, of course, on KillVols definition of ‘information’. My point is that the required evidence from the creationists has yet to be provided and I have given them ample opportunity to do so).

As I said, I will not respond to CrimsonNan (although I don’t see I how I insulted anyone with my first post. Maybe I insulted an idea with that post, but not anyone personally. I do see that several posters insulted me personally, and not just what I was saying, with their first posts). But, more importantly, why should I have to defend my self against claims of sexism? If I had said to BeccaBama that her opinion was somehow less than because she was a girl then maybe you might have a case (just so everyone is clear: I don’t believe that the opinion of the ladies is somehow less than!). But I didn’t. In fact, I didn’t know BeccaBama was female until you said something about it. You brought gender into this, not me. I was just responding to what BeccaBama was saying and would not have responded any differently had she been male (or purple). Honestly, I didn’t care, but believe whatever you’d like.

Bamalaw92:

I have no response, really. If you admit that microevolution is occurring then you’ve admitted that evolution is occurring. I don’t think you’re you believe in creationism (I could be wrong of course … I’m just basing that on some of your posts I’ve read) but this is one of those lines in the sand that creationists like to makeup and move at their leisure. Once science proves one thing, they move the line and make something else up.

And I’m done … (I know, I know, good riddance!)

 

[blackumbrella]

The bible says "All things were created for the son and by the son and in him all things consist".

NowI understand that that wont mean much to someone as smart as you but Christians do not worship a savior that thought the world was flat.


cheers

well, is the ability to perform miracles the same thing as omniscience? and is there a perceivable difference in regular jesus and miracle jesus. from the renderings i've seen, jesus doesn't look like he coulf bench 300 lbs or run a 4.3 forty (but then agian most of those render him white too) so does jesus have a human limit that he can surpass if he flips the miracle switch, like when kit went into super pursuit mode in knight rider, or when stallone turned the cap around in over the top, or when hulk hogan called upon the hulkamania when near defeat, or is the miracle ability more analog? so as to knowing the earth is round, something i'm guessing wasn't well known in his culture, how exactly is jesus privy to this information? bc he's omniscient? if so, doesn't that kind of diminish his sacrifice? if i knew for sure that there's a god and a heaven, and that i'd be in heaven at the end of the day, and that a day's worth of being tortured would save the whole of humanity...i mean, sign me up.

 

[bamabake]

well, is the ability to perform miracles the same thing as omniscience? and is there a perceivable difference in regular jesus and miracle jesus. from the renderings i've seen, jesus doesn't look like he coulf bench 300 lbs or run a 4.3 forty (but then agian most of those render him white too) so does jesus have a human limit that he can surpass if he flips the miracle switch, like when kit went into super pursuit mode in knight rider, or when stallone turned the cap around in over the top, or when hulk hogan called upon the hulkamania when near defeat, or is the miracle ability more analog? so as to knowing the earth is round, something i'm guessing wasn't well known in his culture, how exactly is jesus privy to this information? bc he's omniscient? if so, doesn't that kind of diminish his sacrifice? if i knew for sure that there's a god and a heaven, and that i'd be in heaven at the end of the day, and that a day's worth of being tortured would save the whole of humanity...i mean, sign me up.

This is sad. I am sorry dude. Be well.

 

[Bamalaw92]

Bamalaw92:

I have no response, really. If you admit that microevolution is occurring then you’ve admitted that evolution is occurring.

No you don't, because that is the flaw found within evolution and why it is a theory and not a law. I also disagree with your logic regarding admissions. If you admit microevolution, you simply admit that adaptaion and intra speciation can occur - i.e. a dog can become a better more adaptive dog, not that a dog can eventually become a flying reptile or that a bit of ooze eventually became a dog.

 

[Bamalaw92]

well, is the ability to perform miracles the same thing as omniscience? and is there a perceivable difference in regular jesus and miracle jesus. from the renderings i've seen, jesus doesn't look like he coulf bench 300 lbs or run a 4.3 forty (but then agian most of those render him white too) so does jesus have a human limit that he can surpass if he flips the miracle switch, like when kit went into super pursuit mode in knight rider, or when stallone turned the cap around in over the top, or when hulk hogan called upon the hulkamania when near defeat, or is the miracle ability more analog? so as to knowing the earth is round, something i'm guessing wasn't well known in his culture, how exactly is jesus privy to this information? bc he's omniscient? if so, doesn't that kind of diminish his sacrifice? if i knew for sure that there's a god and a heaven, and that i'd be in heaven at the end of the day, and that a day's worth of being tortured would save the whole of humanity...i mean, sign me up.

BU, while I appreciate your spirited debates, I am personally highly offended by your increasing slurs against Christianity and Christ. It is just as offenseive and just as prohibbitted here as racial slurs:

Immediate Banishment
Racial or religious slurs will not be tolerated and will be subject to immediate, permanent banishment.

Despite your ridicule of Christ's physique as depicted by medieval European artists and your analogizing him to a car found in a bad David Hassellhoff TV series, many here firmly believe him to be the one true God as part of the Holy Trinity.

I will be glad to answer your questions about Christ's divinity and knowledge, but will not tolerate your ridicule and slurs against my personal saviour.

 

[CrimsonNan]

Amen Bamalaw92!!! I promised not to post in this thread anymore, but I couldn't resist "looking", and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think umbrella thinks he's being cute and funny but instead he is being blasphemous.

 

[CrimsonNan]

One more thing...no one really knows what Christ looked like. We only have artist's depictions.

 

[It's On A Slab]

The bible says "All things were created for the son and by the son and in him all things consist".

NowI understand that that wont mean much to someone as smart as you but Christians do not worship a savior that thought the world was flat.


cheers

Isn't that verse in Collossians?

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him (Colossians 1:16)."

If so, aren't you interjecting Jesu Christo in the place of God(whom I think Paul is speaking of as The Creator). I guess it's o.k. if you are Trinitarian, being that they believe that God exists in three forms.

I'd be willing to side with those who say it's probable that the earthly Jesus wasn't privy to the scientific fact that the world isn't flat. I would say he was as ignorant of those things as the rest of the people of his time.

Not that it makes a hill of beans to the whole evolution/creation argument.

But that's just me, the resident heretic on this board.

 

[Bamalaw92]

If so, aren't you interjecting Jesu Christo in the place of God(whom I think Paul is speaking of as The Creator). I guess it's o.k. if you are Trinitarian, being that they believe that God exists in three forms.

To be a Christian, one must accept the divine trinitarian nature of Christ. Otherwise, one is simply a Jew (or Muslim).

I'd be willing to side with those who say it's probable that the earthly Jesus wasn't privy to the scientific fact that the world isn't flat. I would say he was as ignorant of those things as the rest of the people of his time.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Jesus Christ had knowledge beyond that of any man living then or since.

Not that it makes a hill of beans to the whole evolution/creation argument.

agreed

But that's just me, the resident heretic on this board.

I appreciate your ability to doubt but be respectful at the same time.

 

[NYBamaFan]

bc he's omniscient? if so, doesn't that kind of diminish his sacrifice? if i knew for sure that there's a god and a heaven, and that i'd be in heaven at the end of the day, and that a day's worth of being tortured would save the whole of humanity...i mean, sign me up.

Jesus was more than a man, but He was a man while He walked among us. Yes, he was also the Son of God and a part of God, but he was born into this world a man. As such, he felt the same things that we feel.

Imagine knowing that you are about to be tortured and beaten. Knowing the pain that you were about to suffer. Knowing every blow that would fall, and the pain that would accompany it. Knowing that you had the power to stop it all - and deciding to endure the unendurable for the sake of others. Not for friends or family, but for strangers. Not because they could not get into Heaven without your sacrifice, but to make it easier for them after your sacrifice.

Sign you up? You are not even willing to sacrifice your pride...

 

[bamabake]

Isn't that verse in Collossians?

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him (Colossians 1:16)."

If so, aren't you interjecting Jesu Christo in the place of God(whom I think Paul is speaking of as The Creator). I guess it's o.k. if you are Trinitarian, being that they believe that God exists in three forms.

I'd be willing to side with those who say it's probable that the earthly Jesus wasn't privy to the scientific fact that the world isn't flat. I would say he was as ignorant of those things as the rest of the people of his time.

Not that it makes a hill of beans to the whole evolution/creation argument.

But that's just me, the resident heretic on this board.

First John 1- 2. ..Him that existed from the beginning... Who already existed with the Father..

There are many references even more specific. The Son existed before God created time. In Genesis " Let US go down and confuse their language".

 

[GulfCoastTider]

If so, aren't you interjecting Jesu Christo in the place of God(whom I think Paul is speaking of as The Creator). I guess it's o.k. if you are Trinitarian, being that they believe that God exists in three forms.

Most folks call us 'Catholics,' not Trinitarians.

And if we'd had our way, Darwin, King James and all those Protestant heretics would have been burned at the stake.

As history has it though, the Church did not have its way. The scientific method prevailed in finding the truth, not the teachings of closed-minded, would be despots. And nowadays, Biology 101 at Jesuit Colleges is a science class, not a religious one.

Which brings up an interesting point--my bet is that most of you are quoting from the King James version of the Bible. Correct? There are more than a few very controversial differences between the King James version of the Bible, and the much older, arguably more accurate Catholic version. I say arguably, because there are also more than a few, equally controversial differences between the King James version and demonstrably accurate translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Catholic version of the Bible also has a few differences, but there are much fewer and most are related to semantics.

King James had his reasons for commissioning a new translation of the Bible, and not all of them were to make the book more accessible to the laity.

Becca posted an interesting comment regarding how natural selection reduced the gene pool and contradicted the premise of diverse species evolving from less diverse.

That there are two, genetically distinct species of sturgeon in the southeastern United States disproves her theory. The fossil record clearly shows that the two species appeared after the extinction of an ancestor, whose genetic makeup is different from its descendants.

There are now literally hundreds of genetically distinct species of stapholococcus pneumoniae bacteria. Many (but not all) of these have evolved since the introduction of penicillin and later antibiotic drugs used to combat infection.

I made a flippant, but still relevant comment regarding cockroaches and Maine Lobsters. If you believe that the gene pool is being reduced through natural selection, then lobsters and cockroaches should taste almost just alike.

Dinner is served.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Most folks call us 'Catholics,' not Trinitarians.

And if we'd had our way, Darwin, King James and all those Protestant heretics would have been burned at the stake.

.

Not to mention Michael Servetus, the heretic whom John Calvin had burned at the stake.

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

I asked a Presbyterian minister about this one, and he never really answered.

Maybe this is one of those things they'd rather not talk about.

 

[Bamalaw92]

Not to mention Michael Servetus, the heretic whom John Calvin had burned at the stake.

Let's be fair. Calvin pleaded for him not to be burned, but more mercifully beheaded instead.