Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I can't think of any people that are clueless about science that are YEC.

You and Stipe, for example. Completely clueless.

But whoever they are, they are correct as shown by people that have a clue about science like Dr. Sanford.

Sanford's claims are overwhelmingly rejected by his fellow scientists. He's just let his new religious ideas overrule the evidence.

You say "evolution" here when I think you mean "common descent".

Barbarian chuckles:
I meant the former, although the latter also happens to be true.

Then since the former is a useless term, let's stick with the latter.

That's like saying "since gravity is a useless term, let's stick with hailstorms."

Either you have a quote-mine here or Kurt Wise is wrong.

Wise is merely an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist. Yes, that is possible, even if it's difficult.

I've simply not studied the man enough to know.

Or anything else, related to evolution, for that matter.

And there is evidence against mutations+NS being able to produce the diversity of life we have today on earth which we've discussed before.

Sounds like a testable claim. Name one feature in living things that could not have evolved by mutation and natural selection.

And each example you've cited ignores the problems with mutation+NS. Or are you going to stick with your "number of mutations required to make a new trait" at 1?

Demonstrably that is true. Why argue against reality?

 

[6days]

The theory of evolution states that only one out of every few thousands of genetic mutations is beneficial.

The ToE says no such thing.

Those fortunate few individuals that receive these beneficial mutations, AND have no major defective mutations, survive longer and produce more offspring than their competitors. Over the course of time these beneficial mutations passed down from fitter organisms that produce more offspring build up in a population and effect species change

You sure believe in evolution but don't understand it. You seem to believe that magically the thousands of mildly deleterious mutations don't matter... Natural selection rarely eliminates... Our genome is crumbling... You inherit your parents thousands of mutations, plus new ones...and you pass them onto to future generations.
Geneticists are concerned about the accumulating burden. Genetic disorders increase.

 

[6days]

Name one feature in living things that could not have evolved by mutation and natural selection.

ATP molecular motors, the code in DNA... My toes...your nose...My pretty blue eyes.....Conciousness..... sex..... ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.

 

[Kdall]

The ToE says no such thing.


You sure believe in evolution but don't understand it. You seem to believe that magically the thousands of mildly deleterious mutations don't matter... Natural selection rarely eliminates... Our genome is crumbling... You inherit your parents thousands of mutations, plus new ones...and you pass them onto to future generations.
Geneticists are concerned about the accumulating burden. Genetic disorders increase.

This isn't that hard to understand. As I mentioned, unless the recipient of a positive mutation ALSO has no major negative ones, then the positive mutation will not be passed on as the creature will not be more fit than its competitors. The vast majority of mutations are negative, but these aren't passed on normally because, in nature, being less competent will be the result of negative mutations. This is why evolution takes hundreds of generations to produce major change in wild species.

Humans and domesticated species are different in that natural selection is almost always replaced by artificial selection, in which mutations that produce desirable traits are chosen over those that enhance survivability. Humans have for thousands of years been so secure due to the safety of civilization that what looks good is chosen over what is evolutionarily beneficial. An example would be blue eyes (much greater chance of vision loss than brown) and as a result, many mutations have built up in our species' genome over time. In domestic animals, humans breed animals with traits they like together, such as a certain fur color pattern. Frequently animals were bred together that were closely related to effect this, as they have similar gnetic make ups and are far more likely to both exhibit the same trait than individuals that aren't closely related. But, as you should know, breeding close relatives also greatly enhances the likelihood of bad genetic defects, which is why, for example, dalmations have beautiful spotted coats yet also are prone to horrible genetic illnesses.

So to recap:
natural selection = positive mutations promoted, negative mutations selected against, ultimately resulting in a more fit species
Artificial selection = mutations that produce desirable traits promoted (often through breeding close relatives) ultimately resulting in a less fit species

Read something from a scientific journal and get off of AiG/ICR

 

[Kdall]

ATP molecular motors, the code in DNA... My toes...your nose...My pretty blue eyes.....Conciousness..... sex..... ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.

Explained in my last post.

Blue eyes are the result of a negative mutation, but were artificially selected because they're pretty. But they suck at maintaining strength of vision. Most people with blue eyes would be less fit than their brown-eyed counterparts in the wild

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,
… that's not what I meant.

Whew, that’s a relief. That’s almost as goofy as saying some dude went into hiding for 3 days in the belly of some big fish.

… By any chance, do you have Yorzhik's posts in your stash? He would like it if you'd post them here, I believe. Thanks!

No posts in this thread from Yorzhik were lost due to the TOL Database problem a few days ago.

 

[Stripe]

You and Stipe, for example. Completely clueless.Sanford's claims are overwhelmingly rejected by his fellow scientists. He's just let his new religious ideas overrule the evidence.Barbarian chuckles:I meant the former, although the latter also happens to be true.That's like saying "since gravity is a useless term, let's stick with hailstorms." Wise is merely an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist. Yes, that is possible, even if it's difficult.Or anything else, related to evolution, for that matter.Sounds like a testable claim. Name one feature in living things that could not have evolved by mutation and natural selection.Demonstrably that is true. Why argue against reality?

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, preferring your "billions of years."

 

[Kdall]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, preferring your "billions of years."

Captain soundboard strikes again

 

[MichaelCadry]

This isn't that hard to understand. As I mentioned, unless the recipient of a positive mutation ALSO has no major negative ones, then the positive mutation will not be passed on as the creature will not be more fit than its competitors. The vast majority of mutations are negative, but these aren't passed on normally because, in nature, being less competent will be the result of negative mutations. This is why evolution takes hundreds of generations to produce major change in wild species.

Humans and domesticated species are different in that natural selection is almost always replaced by artificial selection, in which mutations that produce desirable traits are chosen over those that enhance survivability. Humans have for thousands of years been so secure due to the safety of civilization that what looks good is chosen over what is evolutionarily beneficial. An example would be blue eyes (much greater chance of vision loss than brown) and as a result, many mutations have built up in our species' genome over time. In domestic animals, humans breed animals with traits they like together, such as a certain fur color pattern. Frequently animals were bred together that were closely related to effect this, as they have similar gnetic make ups and are far more likely to both exhibit the same trait than individuals that aren't closely related. But, as you should know, breeding close relatives also greatly enhances the likelihood of bad genetic defects, which is why, for example, dalmations have beautiful spotted coats yet also are prone to horrible genetic illnesses.

So to recap:
natural selection = positive mutations promoted, negative mutations selected against, ultimately resulting in a more fit species
Artificial selection = mutations that produce desirable traits promoted (often through breeding close relatives) ultimately resulting in a less fit species

Read something from a scientific journal and get off of AiG/ICR

Dear Kdall (and 6days),

God caused the positive mutations to be promoted and the negative to not be. These things just don't happen by themselves. We must realize that sometimes these mutations can give other people around us a reason to learn and also to be thankful, or jealous of. Blue eyes are desirable! Blonde hair is nice, but red hair is more rare. Still, I wouldn't mind being blonde with blue eyes. I am brown with hazel/green eyes. I'm just saying that these negative mutations can be a plus also at times. Whatever God wants to do, He does. God has His reasons for every trait change in the fetus/es. If He wants Siamese twins, than we all get to see two persons in one body. It is awesome. They may have a shorter life, but they can make money just by being there for people to look at them. Those with cleft palate are quite able to still function. They just look different and make those who aren't suffering the same thing, more thankful for looking like most other people. Aren't we so thankful that we have little people (midgets). Life has a lot of variety and it is all to teach each man a certain lesson. And look how Rebecca died after her youngest son, Benjamin, was born. It was directed by God and her work on Earth was done. If you think God didn't have a say-so about her passing, you are a dreamer. Man does not understand that God has reasons for EVERYTHING. Even war! God led the Israelis in their war against the Arabs so that she could return the the land that He gave her initially and He said in the latter years, she would once again live in those same borders, and he signified the borders for each tribe of Israel.

You may not understand, but certain people get borne with less than desirable features because of a past error/sin they made in their previous life. Perhaps they used to laugh and hold Siamese twins in derision. In their next life, they will get a chance to be born as a Siamese twin and get the stares and derision they doled out. Yes, all of us have to learn not to do certain things. We go through many lives on Earth before we get to the point God wants us to get to. You can't go to Heaven until you are refined, for it is written, "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh an abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." {See Rev. 21:27KJV}.

There's so much more I could explain here. You don't believe that man comes back onto the Earth to get all of his life's lessons corrected? "But the rest of the dead lived not AGAIN until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. {See Rev. 20:5KJV). Study and learn, and pray to God for real and true answers. Do not adulterate them with your own words. You've got to be careful indeed. OK, long enough. God Redeem You Both, Of Course!!!

Michael


:angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Whew, that’s a relief. That’s almost as goofy as saying some dude went into hiding for 3 days in the belly of some big fish.

No posts in this thread from Yorzhik were lost due to the TOL Database problem a few days ago.

Dear DavisBJ,

Thanks for perusing my request for Yorzhik's posts. He may have moved them somewhere else.

You can bet your life that Jonah spent some time in the belly of a big fish. It's not like he had enough room to start a campfire, but he was probably not very comfortable. Jesus made reference to it also, so there's more than one person affirming that it happened.

Have An Exceptional Weekend!!

Michael

 

[Stripe]

Captain soundboard strikes again

Bro, when you find something I say that is wrong, then you might be justified in jumping in. In the meantime, Barbarian has an utterly irrational standpoint. If you were serious about seeking truth and rationality, you would join me in correcting him. :up:

 

[6days]

Explained in my last post.

Blue eyes are the result of a negative mutation, but were artificially selected because they're pretty. But they suck at maintaining strength of vision. Most people with blue eyes would be less fit than their brown-eyed counterparts in the wild

Eyes themselves... not just the color. Evolutionists like to arrange things in a pattern, such as light sensitive spots to sophisticated complex eyes, then claim the pattern they have arranged is a proof. It is nothing but pseudoscience.

 

[6days]

This isn't that hard to understand. As I mentioned, unless the recipient of a positive mutation ALSO has no major negative ones, then the positive mutation will not be passed on as the creature will not be more fit than its competitors.

It DOES seem too hard to understand for most evolutionists. Each successive generation is less fit because of genetic burden. Secular geneticists recognize the problem and refer to it with such terms as 'the population bomb'.

 

[Stripe]

It DOES seem too hard to understand for most evolutionists. Each successive generation is less fit because of genetic burden. Secular geneticists recognize the problem and refer to it with such terms as 'the population bomb'.

It's simple physics: No matter how good the selection process, no random change will ever improve a genome. The ideas evolutionists present always hide an intelligent agent acting behind what they call random.

 

[noguru]

Bro, when you find something I say that is wrong, then you might be justified in jumping in. In the meantime, Barbarian has an utterly irrational standpoint. If you were serious about seeking truth and rationality, you would join me in correcting him. :up:

Your inability to admit you are wrong does not mean you are accurate.

 

[noguru]

It's simple physics: No matter how good the selection process, no random change will ever improve a genome.

Show us that "simple physics". Just stating this does not make it so.

 

[noguru]

The ideas evolutionists present always hide an intelligent agent acting behind what they call random.

The ideas that scientists present are based on empirical evidence. You know what that is, right? It is the evidence we use to support our explanation of the natural world. The natural world might "hide an intelligent agent acting behind what they call random". But that is not the fault of science. I think a more accurate way of saying it is "Science cannot comment, based on current empirical evidence, on any intelligent agent behind the scenes pulling the strings." Science can only report what can be observed or extrapolate further from an observation. And of course people in science can find ways, in most cases, of verifying such extrapolations through further observation.

This is why people like you are dishonest. Instead of having the courage to admit the reality, that science cannot currently comment for or against the existence of God. You try to force science to verify your theological beliefs. You have no faith. So you want science to promote your religion.

 

[noguru]

It DOES seem too hard to understand for most evolutionists. Each successive generation is less fit because of genetic burden. Secular geneticists recognize the problem and refer to it with such terms as 'the population bomb'.

This is not an accurate way of describing this. Hence your confusion. A breeding population's success is stringently dependent on the environment/biome in which it exists. So any determination of "reproductive advantage" is relative to that environment/biome and the other breeding populations competing for resources. I know you guys have problems grasping relative ideas, and this is why you need to see everything in terms of black and white and without dynamics and nuances. But the reality is not dependent on your ability/inability to understand it.

 

[noguru]

The Bible says "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy"

And what Stripe said was..."Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible. Genesis teaches six days of creation, while you insist that there are billions of years before man was created. Not only do you invent ideas to protect your religion, you undermine the gospel as you vaccilate on numerous issues."

The Bible is a whole book and not just selected text. When these words are placed into their proper context, with the rest of the Bible and the natural world to which they apply, it becomes obvious that this is not a scientific dissertation on origins. It is a theological treatment of man's relationship to God and the creative power that has been given to us from God. It also serves the purpose of setting a model of our day to day walk in life. It allows us to acknowledge God's creative power weekly (or more frequently if you wish - I know I do) so that we can dip into the well of our humility as a way to keep us more aware of the reality around us.

This is why egotistical people like you are blinded by your own ego. And why you remain unaware of the dynamic and nuanced reality around you.

 

[Kdall]

Bro, when you find something I say that is wrong, then you might be justified in jumping in. In the meantime, Barbarian has an utterly irrational standpoint. If you were serious about seeking truth and rationality, you would join me in correcting him. :up:

Plate tectonics thread and squid RNA thread. You were pretty wrong in those

(drops the mic)