Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

I showed you how the understanding of evolutionary relationships between organisms (humans and apes included) is the basis for figuring out genetic function, thereby demonstrating how you "coming from an ape" does indeed matter.

Me thinks you have eaten too many rotten bananas.

Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.

 

[Jose Fly]

Me thinks you have eaten too many rotten bananas.

Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.

Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?

 

[Lon]

First you said there was no need to be persuaded that you "come from an ape" until it mattered. I showed you how the understanding of evolutionary relationships between organisms (humans and apes included) is the basis for figuring out genetic function, thereby demonstrating how you "coming from an ape" does indeed matter.

Now it looks like you're trying to walk that back a bit. Is human-primate shared ancestry a conclusion that just isn't acceptable to you under any circumstances?

Scientists will proceed as they feel they need to but yet in America, the # of people that question evolution is significantly high, even outside of Christian circles. "Mattering" has never been conveyed well by the science community when that is the case. Did your link convince me? :nono: More than science is the truth of Imago deo. We are made unique from all of creation. Nothing else even comes close. I don't mind sharing anything in common with animals, except this concept of being made in the image of God.

I really don't care one way or the other. That's what makes me an apatheist.

Do you have a caricature of atheist literature when you frequent atheist websites as well? Or do you avoid those?

The fact remains, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for well over a century now. What we conclude from that fact is up to each of us.

Was it ever relevant in your thinking framework?

I didn't find that at all compelling. It's little more than an assertion of belief, followed by a demand that everyone else share it.

It was about 'relevance' perspective from every Christian. It doesn't have to be compelling to you, but explain why we'd disagree with you whenever you post that it isn't relevant. Compelling? It doesn't matter who rejects it but who accepts it. Our positions are irrelevant to each other.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientists will proceed as they feel they need to

In general we proceed with what works, and as the data shows, evolutionary theory works extremely well.

but yet in America, the # of people that question evolution is significantly high

As we covered before, the data shows that to be a result of our rather high number of fundamentalist Christians.

even outside of Christian circles.

Where's the data that supports that?

"Mattering" has never been conveyed well by the science community when that is the case. Did your link convince me? :nono: More than science is the truth of Imago deo. We are made unique from all of creation. Nothing else even comes close. I don't mind sharing anything in common with animals, except this concept of being made in the image of God.

So you aren't open to the idea of human-primate shared ancestry from the get-go. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of giving the impression that if only the idea was shown to "matter" in a scientific context you might be persuaded?

Do you have a caricature of atheist literature when you frequent atheist websites as well? Or do you avoid those?

I don't know what you're talking about here, and no I don't go to atheist websites.

Was it ever relevant in your thinking framework?

Only in that it sometimes served as a good illustration of how to spot pseudoscience.

It was about 'relevance' perspective from every Christian. It doesn't have to be compelling to you, but explain why we'd disagree with you whenever you post that it isn't relevant. Compelling? It doesn't matter who rejects it but who accepts it. Our positions are irrelevant to each other.

Except that we're talking about science, which directly and tangibly impacts us all. And in that arena, creationism remains as it has been for well over a century....absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Stripe]

Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?

Nope.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Lon]

Where's the data that supports that?

Number crunching 60 to 80

So you aren't open to the idea of human-primate shared ancestry from the get-go. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of giving the impression that if only the idea was shown to "matter" in a scientific context you might be persuaded?

We are arguing over the idea of what 'matters' at this point. Don't lose the goalpost on me.

I don't know what you're talking about here

Your avatar is a Chic Tract. Even I don't read those things.

Only in that it sometimes served as a good illustration of how to spot pseudoscience.

You are aware then, that there is political agenda behind your science interests as well then.

Except that we're talking about science, which directly and tangibly impacts us all. And in that arena, creationism remains as it has been for well over a century....absolutely irrelevant.

:nono: Not when those doubter #'s are so high.

 

[6days]

Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.

Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?

No..but you just seemed to have defeated your own argument. You argued that genetic similarity is evidence of common ancestry...so by your logic, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against common ancestry, correct?

Evolutionism accomodates everything. It is a non falsifiable belief system. It doesnt matter if its good design / bad design.....functional / useless.....homologous / analogous. Evoltionism is like a fog that covers any lansdscape; it isn't science

 

[Tyrathca]

A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science.

So in other words yes your quote from an article you've probably never even read was not meaningful or important.

Again..... bones can sing any song you want them too.

There is a long history of bold transitional claims by evolutionists trying to make apes more human like..... or, humans more ape like. I'm sure you are aware of examples but can gladly discuss some if you wish.

Did or did not evolution predict that there would be fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics that no other ape has? Are there or are there not fossils of extinct apes which have human like characteristics such as Australpithecus afarensis and Homo Habilis? Note I'm not asking whether you think these apes are human or not just whether you at least agree that there exist fossils for these presumed species that have some characteristics shared with humans which are not shared with other modern apes.

To me that is science, prediction made predictions confirmed. Is every prediction going to be right? Of course not, that is the very nature of science that we do not know everything. There will be many incorrect predictions and because of that the basis behind those predcitions must be adjusted in light of it and the predictions that were right. This is the case for every science. As for "bold" claims this happens to a degree in every field and is often exacerbated of the media (sometimes to the point of intentional media hyperbole), physics and medicine are the fields that I observe this the most in (my personal observation).

And that explains why evolutionists so often have egg on their face. They start with their preconceived world view, and end up making poor predictions (Junk DNA, pseudogenes, Neandertals, poor design arguments, Darwinius masillae. ETC ETC ETC)

6days you've already been shown in previous threads that junk DNA was shown to be not "junk" due to inquiries based on evolution and the label of junk was only given to it in the first place because geneticists couldn't (at the time) find its purpose not because of any evolutionary prediction. Psudogenes exist and those incorrect labelling of genes being pseudogenes are simply that of geneticists not noticing a new function of a gene. Do you expect geneticists to be right about everything they see in the genome? That's a bit unfair especially given how new the science is. I'm not sure what your objections are with Neanderthals other than perhaps evolutionists weren't (and still aren't) completely sure of their place in human evolution. Darwinius masillae? Are you referign to how the discoverers were a bit naughty and tried to advance their careers by taking shortcuts and abusing media hype? Because ultimately the scientific community did what it always does and peer reviewed the data and redid the analysis to see if they got the same result (they didn't come tot he same conclusion and the consensus seems to have settled on Darwinius masillae being a different and totally suborder than the authors claimed, OMG some scientist got something wrong!!!!!!)

You must get your incorrect info from atheist web sites? You might want to study a little history, or archaeology seeing how evidence keeps proving the naysayers wrong. Perhaps study a little evidence from genetics....or look at coal seams, polystrate fossils, warped and bent strata, sudden appearance, fossil grave yards etc etc etc to see how it matchs what we expect in the Biblical creation and flood models.

It's been a long time since I looked at any such websites. As for history, archaeology, genetics etc... could you be a any more vague?

You are uniformed. And, you use illogical and circular arguments found on atheist websites like 'talkorigins'.

I'll take your word for it that what I say is mirrored on talkorigins.

Modern science is largely the result of a belief in the Bible as literally true history. "Real science" was, and still is possible based on the belief that our universe has been formed in a rational way making science possible. Even evolutionists admit this like Loren Eiseley "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

So? You are talking about the origins of scientific philosophy not actual scientific method and understanding. Regardless this should be evidence that there was a bias towards biblical creationism in science rather than the common creationist narrative of secularists biased against the bible. And if there was such an obvious bias among the original people starting to do science why then did it so quickly diverge from the biblical literalist narrative?

The timeline seems to show this: Biblical literalists start doing science -> Results of science cause them to stop being biblical literalists -> Ex-biblical literalists doing science propose non-biblical explanations -> Results repeatedly concur with non-biblical explanations so they continue to present day.

What about that helps your argument? Kudos to you for being a stalwart proponent of a belief system that was at a time used by ancient scientists but is now woefully obsolete?

BTW... If you are interested in predictions from Biblical creationists... don't just trust atheist web sites. If you google, you can easily find predictions from Biblical scientists.

Tried google, seems to be easy to find claims of biblical scientific foreknowledge (ie. no better than history being said to fit with prophecy, even though no one predicted the history based on the prophecy) or of claims that yes they can predict but then giving no examples of biblical knowledge leading to scientific predictions. Best I could find was AiG patting themselves on the back for saying Neanderthals and humans have a recent common ancestor but despite claiming they did so with biblical creation assumptions the rationale they give (very brief and don't provide their original prediction just an citation which is not available for public reading) is that they based it off evolutionist data about mtDNA and made an extrapolation from what was observed without at any point saying where/how biblical creation lead them.

So where is the biblical creation model predicitons then?

 

[6days]

A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science.

So in other words yes your quote from an article you've probably never even read was not meaningful or important.

I pretty much said the opposite of that. Likely every paleontologist will admit similar things. ('Bones will sing the song you want'). Evidence bears out the truth of that quote. There always is a bias and differing opinions every single time a fossil is claimed to be "important". Even the evolutionists hear the same bones whistling opposing tunes.

Did or did not evolution predict that there would be fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics that no other ape has? Are there or are there not fossils of extinct apes which have human like characteristics such as Australpithecus afarensis and Homo Habilis? Note I'm not asking whether you think these apes are human or not just whether you at least agree that there exist fossils for these presumed species that have some characteristics shared with humans which are not shared with other modern apes.

The problem is .... we still come back to bones being made to sing a certain song... which many / most hearing different songs. An evolutionary paleontologist always emphasizes human like characteristics of apes (ex. 'Lucy'). And, they try dehumamize fossils that appear to be human. (Ex. Neandertals)

To me that is science, prediction made predictions confirmed. Is every prediction going to be right? Of course not, that is the very nature of science that we do not know everything. There will be many incorrect predictions and because of that the basis behind those predcitions must be adjusted in light of it and the predictions that were right. This is the case for every science. As for "bold" claims this happens to a degree in every field and is often exacerbated of the media (sometimes to the point of intentional media hyperbole), physics and medicine are the fields that I observe this the most in (my personal observation).

We agree on much of that.

6days you've already been shown in previous threads that junk DNA was shown to be not "junk" due to inquiries based on evolution

False. Non coding DNA was shown to be functional by scientists who didn't dismiss it as biological remnants / vestigial leftovers etc. When they looked for functionality, they found it. If non functionality was evidence of common ancestry; then, does functionality provide evidence of a common designer?

and the label of junk was only given to it in the first place because geneticists couldn't (at the time) find its purpose not because of any evolutionary prediction.

It seems you are trying to whitewash history, and remove egg off the face of evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins and many others used non coding DNA as a selling point for their belief system. For example, he said, "Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.". Fortunately, science has proved him wrong. (Again)

Psudogenes exist and those incorrect labelling of genes being pseudogenes are simply that of geneticists not noticing a new function of a gene.

No, that isn't really the story. 'Psuedogenes' is a misnomer based on a false belief system. For decades research was essentially abandoned on these genes because universities taught that they were functionless relics from non human ancestors.

If "Broken DNA" is evidence against the Biblical Creator, then non broken, sophisticated, functional DNA is evidence for our Creator. Prominent evolutionists such as Francis Collins and Karl Giberson said that it is "not remotely plausible" that "God inserted a piece of broken DNA into our genomes."

However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes. In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"

The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":
RNA, Vol. 17:792-798 (2011).

Neanderthals other than perhaps evolutionists weren't (and still aren't) completely sure of their place in human evolution.

They simply are one more example of science correcting false evolutionary beliefs... and affirming the truth of God's Word.

God created humans as humans. Evolutionism needs and wants transitional fossils to show that humans evolved. In order to try fill this void, evolutionists often try to emphasize human characteristics of ape fossils, and the opposite with human fossils.
Neandertals are a good example of how evolutionists use their assumptions arriving at faulty conclusions. Neandertals are fully human but with a few distinct variations. In today's world we have many isolated people groups who have developed distinct variations, and this is no different than the Neandertals.
Neandertals were once in kids text books, showing them to be beastly looking. Articles discussed them as being inferior to us and claimed they likely didnt have language. They were depicted as stooped over and hairy... dimwitted. Over the past several years, science has come closer and closer to acknowledging that the creationist position is correct. Neandertals were not 1/2 human. There have been many good science articles in recent years upgrading the status of Neandertals. Here is the most recent article discussing Neandertal ingenuity and tool making. ( too bad the article stilll uses a 'picture' showing that dimwitted look... there are much better pictures... and there are articles discussing how there looks would blend in with todays humans)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434

Darwinius masillae? Are you referign to how the discoverers were a bit naughty and tried to advance their careers by taking shortcuts and abusing media hype? Because ultimately the scientific community did what it always does and peer reviewed the data and redid the analysis to see if they got the same result (they didn't come tot he same conclusion and the consensus seems to have settled on Darwinius masillae being a different and totally suborder than the authors claimed, OMG some scientist got something wrong!!!!!!)

Haha..... yes, a "bit naughty". They had a nice fossil of an animal about the size of a racoon. They gave it a nice human name 'Ida' and many evolutionists and media around the world were willfully ignorant believing the missing link had been found. Amazing that people were so gullible when it was plain for all to see that Ida was simply a small lemur / monkey type creature.

 

[Cross Reference]

Man left to himself will always destroy himself. Evolution supports that more than anything. I wonder why, [I realy don't] they wont admit that?

 

[Jose Fly]

Number crunching 60 to 80

You're going to have to be more specific than that.

We are arguing over the idea of what 'matters' at this point.

Do you think figuring out the various functions of our genetic sequences matters?

Your avatar is a Chic Tract. Even I don't read those things.

Why does my avatar bug you so much that you bring it up almost every time we interact?

You are aware then, that there is political agenda behind your science interests as well then.

There is? What is that agenda and what evidence do you have that it exists?

Not when those doubter #'s are so high.

As we covered before, the data shows that to be a result of our rather high number of fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Then what would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

Then what would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?

You argued that genetic similarity is evidence of common ancestry

Specific types of similarities (e.g., shared redundancies, errors), yes.

so by your logic, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against common ancestry, correct?

It would be evidence that the taxa are more distantly related.

 

[Stripe]

What would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?

You could insist that non-material reality is illusory.

We're not discussing evidence for God, a non-physical, relational being, unless you want to talk about Jesus Christ — God incarnated on Earth.

We're talking science. You have an idea about the physical universe and you defend it.

 

[Jose Fly]

'Psuedogenes' is a misnomer based on a false belief system. For decades research was essentially abandoned on these genes because universities taught that they were functionless relics from non human ancestors...

...Once again demonstrating how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes.

Just as I predicted, you continue to repeat false information even though you've been corrected on it before. All you did was wait a while, hope everyone would forget, and post the same lies all over again.

In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"

Yeah, we went over that, remember?

Why do you continue to repeat this false information? Is that just what creationism forces you to do? Can't they give you any valid arguments?

 

[Jose Fly]

You could insist that non-material reality is illusory.

We're not discussing evidence for God, a non-physical, relational being, unless you want to talk about Jesus Christ — God incarnated on Earth.

We're talking science. You have an idea about the physical universe and you defend it.

You claimed that creationism is indeed science, so I'm asking....what potential evidence would go against the "creator God of the Bible"?

 

[Stripe]

You claimed that creationism is indeed science, so I'm asking....what potential evidence would go against the "creator God of the Bible"?

And you got an answer. Did you think my answer would change if you asked again?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for your time.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for your time.

Ah, the wail of the defeated Darwinist.

 

[Lon]

Do you think figuring out the various functions of our genetic sequences matters?

Yes. Does it matter that you think it means derivative of an ape? No.

Why does my avatar bug you so much that you bring it up almost every time we interact?

Bug me? No, just to remind you that your chosen icons and sig aren't as disinterested as you sometimes try to portray. They are both, I assume, carefully chosen to convey your exact sentiments.

There is? What is that agenda and what evidence do you have that it exists?

Read your own sig lately? If you've softened, bravo, change 'em. If not, I'll continue to intelligently assume...