Creation vs. Evolution

[Yorzhik]

Agreed, any method would suffice I'm not picky. What I'm really after is when is DNA encoded and transmitted?

When and how doesn't matter doesn't matter if DNA is actually a code and protein can be a result of decoding it. If both of those are true, then we know that any errors that occur happen between the time a DNA portion is selected and a protein is made.

OK so you're saying the DNA isn't the protein which it produces. Big whoop.

You're fighting the obvious. I'm not trying to prove much, but what little I'm showing is devastating to common descent.

You're applying a mathematical theorem, of course it requires math otherwise you're not applying Shannon information

It's not just math. There are implications beyond the math, the problems the math is dealing with before the math is applied. That's as far as we need to go.

I know that's where you're going, you said that early on but we've been stuck on you showing that DNA is ever encoded or transmitted in cells (though you keep claiming it is).

Is DNA the protein? If it isn't, then it could be a code. If the DNA get's damaged after it is selected, what are the chances the protein will be changed? Answer that and you should see the obvious.

So far the best you've been able to do is show that DNA can be used as a medium to encode to and transmit though unfortunately it has little to do with cells and that point was never actually contested.

See. That wasn't so hard to admit.

When does the cell's DNA get encoded

As long as you know it is a code, it doesn't matter.

when is it transmitted

Between the time it is selected and a protein is made. These are 2 solid endpoints.

Sure - as long as you can show that encoding and transmission has taken place. We know so much about the cell why is this question so hard for you?

We know encoding happened because DNA is not a protein, and it's not a book, either. And we know that if the DNA is damaged, the protein will be damaged in a predictable way (assuming no more errors).

What is so good about conversations like this is the extreme passion used to keep from answering simple questions, or even admitting reality.

 

[6days]

You and I both know how Darwin described vestigial. Shortly after that long lists (well over 100) were assembled of body parts that were thought to be biological remnants. The appendix showed up on these lists as a useless organ, and was used to help promote evolutionary beliefs.

Fortunately neither doctors or other scientists were wedded to the idea of the appendix being useless and a cornerstonec66yyyyyyyfccy of evolution proof as you claim. That's why they did further research which finally found some benefit, but why would they have researched it if they thought as you claimed they did?

Does that have anything at all to do with the fact that the "useless"*appendix *was used to help promote evolutionary beliefs.*

 

[6days]

Yet somehow, you're actually trying to take that and use it as an example of evolutionary common descent not contributing to science. IOW, scientists are saying "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution", you take that and say "See everyone? That shows evolution doesn't contribute to science!"

They don't say "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution".

Beliefs in common ancestry hinder the progress of science and hurt people.

Now you're accepting statements from scientists?

Of course..... Do you?

Tweak??? More like chop down.
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"

And do you remember what that issue was about?

They essentially tell us that JoseFly is a snakeoil salesman trying to tell us that Darwins tree has been tweaked.

The imaginary is a tangled mess. There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

Psuedogenes joins the long list of vanishing proofs and disappointments for evolutionists.

..you're trying to take a discovery made using the framework of evolutionary common ancestry, and use it to make the argument that evolutionary common ancestry doesn't contribute to science.

It was the framework of evolutionary common ancestry that lead to the belief in psuedogenes, and them being ignored. Beliefs in common ancestry has never resulted in a single new technology, nor a single medical advancement.

I mean, let's look at the paper you cited from the journal RNA.....

Sure... Lets look at it.

Lets start with the conclusion where they admit common ancestry beliefs have hindered science. Reminder.. 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"

Re your quote from the article.....try spot the false assumptions they make. They are assuming similarity means common ancestry. But that isn't the science. The science is that similar genes or 'psuedogenes' perform similar functions. We can also make the assumption from that science, that the Creator used same or similar genes to perform the same or similar functions.

Do you understand how utterly bizarre it is to see you try and cite this as an example of evolution not contributing to science?

Strawman..... and fallacy of equivocation.

If by evolution you mean mutation rates, genetic drift, selection etc...then both creationists and atheists and even vegetarians all use the same science. But your beliefs about the past...your beliefs in common ancestry have only hindered science. (Example from the RNA journal you quoted)

Here's what I predict. Eventually you will drop out of this exchange .

Another failed prediction by an evolutionist.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hi Jose,
Just looking at that paragraph, I don't see how most of the discoveries mentioned in that paragraph were made "through the understanding of evolutionary common ancestry" (abbreviated below as TUECA and ECA for the last part).

Ok, let's take a look.

Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations This is an observation that doesn't require TUECA, unless it really hasn't been observed, but just postulated from a TUECA perspective

Correct. That pseudogenes accumulate mutations by itself is not something that's directly derived from common ancestry. Rather, evolutionary theory (the part that covers the mechanisms by which evolution occurs) provides the understanding that non-functional sequences will accumulate mutations and not have any selective pressure to reverse or remove them.

However, larger-picture-wise and relevant to this paper, evolutionary common ancestry gives us the understanding that once an ancestral species acquires a disabling mutation that turns a gene into a non-functional pseudogene, all subsequent descendant species will inherit not only that pseudogene, but the original pattern of mutations that disabled it. Further, as descendant taxa evolve and diverge, each lineage will accumulate its own unique mutations in that pseudogene. That means the further apart (evolutionarily) the taxa are, the more divergent these mutations will become, and conversely the more closely related the taxa are, the more similar their patterns of mutations will be.

That's the framework under which this entire study was conducted. The above understanding--entirely based on relative evolutionary relatedness--is what told the the geneticists which species to look at, what parts of their genome to look at, what to compare them to, and what the patterns they discovered indicates.

Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes This is also an observation not requiring TUECA.

It absolutely is. Remember what I explained above, and then ask yourself, why choose the macaque's region to compare with humans? And when you do compare them, what are you looking for, and how do you make sense out of what you find?

Evolutionary common ancestry gives the answers to all that, and the authors state just that in the sentences directly before and after the one you commented on...

Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations, and the number of mutations can give us an estimate of their age. Fascinatingly, the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ~40 million years ago (Ohshima et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2003). Conservation of pseudogenes across different species has also been observed. Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes, which was suggestive of evolutionary conservation (Sudbrak et al. 2003).​

So not only does evolutionary common ancestry inform the study of pseudogenes and their relative status compared across species, their relative status compared across species informs us about the evolutionary history of those taxa.

the Makorin1-p1 pseudogene is conserved across Mus musculus and Mus pahari strains. "is conserved" makes this both an observation and an interpretation. The interpretation, as far as I can tell, assumes TUECA, but the observation doesn't require it, and if ECA is wrong, it makes the "discovery" of less worth than it might have been if unencumbered by the conclusion

It's what I described above. And they even describe how what I explained above played into the research and analyses...

This prompted a genome-wide survey for pseudogenes conserved between humans and mice in which human pseudogenes, along with their parent genes, were compared with the corresponding mouse orthologues and their pseudogenes (Svensson et al. 2006). Interestingly, many of the pseudogenes examined were found to have very few mutations within the regulatory regions they shared with their parent genes, which might suggest that these regulatory regions are of importance to the pseudogene and that the pseudogene may be functional.​

many of the pseudogenes examined were found to have very few mutations within the regulatory regions they shared with their parent genes This also is an observation, not requiring TUECA.

Is there a reason you keep copying only the parts that basically say "this is what we found", but omit the parts that say "This is why we looked in the first place" and "This is what it means"?

the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ~40 million years ago

Other people may have a different take on which are "discoveries" mentioned in the paragraph, but I don't see how TUECA is necessary.

Then I suggest you not only re-read this paper, but follow up and read the linked papers it cites.

Regarding that last one, I'll admit I don't understand how this "discovery", which appears to be more an interpretation of data rather than a discovery, was made.

Again, the understanding of primate evolutionary history (humans included) led the researchers to figure out what species to look at, where in their genomes to look, what to look for, and how to interpret what they found.

Without any of that, how would this work be done? Why look at macaque DNA and compare it to humans? Why not pine trees? Or a virus? And why would you bother quantifying the differences between the two, unless you understood that they diverged from a common ancestor, and therefore inherited the original disabling mutations from that ancestor?

See what I mean? Evolutionary common ancestry is the entire basis for this work.

I don't think anyone has analyzed the actual genes from 40 million-year-old creatures in order to determine 1. that Alu elements actually appeared then, or 2. processed pseudo-genes actually appeared then. I agree that this requires ECA

And that understanding is the basis for the comparative analyses between primate genomes.

but only to prove ECA, which is circular logic.

No, this paper is not at all about proving evolutionary common ancestry between primates. That was established a very long time ago. Rather this type of work takes that understanding and uses it to generate useful, productive results, as this paper demonstrates.

That's how science works. You build on the understanding established by those who came before you.

If I'm correct in my reading of the paragraph you cited, then it does support 6days' contention--that evolution didn't contribute to science in this particular example, and in fact, if the conclusions are wrong (hard to say yet), they might have actually had a deleterious effect on science.

Well, you're not correct. As explained above, evolutionary common ancestry is the entire basis for this work.

Basically, this type of research is referred to as "comparative genomics". And the field of comparative genomics is based on evolutionary common ancestry. CLICK HERE for a good overview of how that works.

 

[Jose Fly]

They don't say "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution".

Again, just bizarre. What exactly did you think the section entitled "Evolution and Conservation of Pseudogenes" was about, if not evolution and pseudogenes?

Beliefs in common ancestry hinder the progress of science and hurt people.

I suppose you can keep repeating that black is white and up is down as much as you like, and I have to admit this has become a fascinating exchange from a behavioral standpoint.

Of course..... Do you?

So if scientists' statements are authoritative, what do you make of statements saying that pretty much all of young-earth creationism is wrong?

They essentially tell us that JoseFly is a snakeoil salesman trying to tell us that Darwins tree has been tweaked.

The imaginary is a tangled mess. There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

Another question dodged. Again, what was that issue of New Scientist about? Be specific.

It was the framework of evolutionary common ancestry that lead to the belief in psuedogenes, and them being ignored. Beliefs in common ancestry has never resulted in a single new technology, nor a single medical advancement.

Again...fascinatingly bizarre. So right after citing a paper that describes how an understanding of evolutionary common ancestry directly led to the discovery of a handful of functional pseudogenes, you're claiming this?

Wow.....just.....wow.

Lets start with the conclusion where they admit common ancestry beliefs have hindered science.

Where exactly do they say that?

Reminder.. 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"

Do you even understand what they're saying? They're saying that psudeogenes that become functional can cause diseases. Is that the sort of "function" you really want to point to as supportive of a "designer"? Are you sure?

Re your quote from the article.....try spot the false assumptions they make. They are assuming similarity means common ancestry. But that isn't the science. The science is that similar genes or 'psuedogenes' perform similar functions. We can also make the assumption from that science, that the Creator used same or similar genes to perform the same or similar functions.

And this is what creationists usually do....come in after evolutionary biologists have made important discoveries and say "Oh....um....well, we could have done that too!" Yet they never manage to be ahead of the game and generate the results themselves. Instead they just try and claim credit for the work of others after it's already finished. Pathetic.

Not only that, but are you sure you want to point to the functional pseudogenes that cause disease as something "the Creator used"?

Strawman..... and fallacy of equivocation.

If by evolution you mean mutation rates, genetic drift, selection etc...then both creationists and atheists and even vegetarians all use the same science. But your beliefs about the past...your beliefs in common ancestry have only hindered science. (Example from the RNA journal you quoted)

Absolutely fascinating to see someone...."See this paper that's all about evolutionary common ancestry producing new insights and useful results? That shows how evolutionary common ancestry has hindered science!"

Unbelievable.

Another failed prediction by an evolutionist.

Oh please, stick around and prove me wrong. This is waaaaaaaaay too entertaining to stop now.

 

[Tyrathca]

When and how doesn't matter doesn't matter if DNA is actually a code and protein can be a result of decoding it. If both of those are true, then we know that any errors that occur happen between the time a DNA portion is selected and a protein is made.

Which would mean that the transmission phase and "noise" happens with the mRNA not DNA, so any analysis using Shannon information would be meaningless to your argument. This is why the question of "when" matters, that you don't seem to understand what processes you are describing makes me think you don't understand even basic cellular biochemistry.

You're fighting the obvious. I'm not trying to prove much, but what little I'm showing is devastating to common descent.

If it is obvious you should be able to answer my simple question

You can't though because you don't know, do you? You just keep stating your premise is true and claiming it is obvious because you don't know enough about Shannon information, cells or DNA to actually answer anything further about it.

It's not just math. There are implications beyond the math, the problems the math is dealing with before the math is applied. That's as far as we need to go.

But it's basis is math, it's conclusions are math and it's implications are derived from the math.

The problems the math are dealing with is where we are stuck - you have yet to define what we are applying Shannon information to (DNA alone is an insufficient answer). If you can't define the problem is such a way that we can actually apply the math of Shannon information then what is the obvious conclusion?

Is DNA the protein? If it isn't, then it could be a code. If the DNA get's damaged after it is selected, what are the chances the protein will be changed? Answer that and you should see the obvious.As long as you know it is a code, it doesn't matter.

Between the time it is selected and a protein is made. These are 2 solid endpoints.

It could be a "code" but unfortunately until you can show it is every encoded, transmitted and then decoded it does not fit into Shannon information (you're the one saying we have to limit ourselves to that, no using colloquial or other definitions of code interchangeably with Shannon's!)

To be clear what do you mean by "selected"? Is this a vague arbitrary point in time set by you? Is DNA encoded before or after it is selected? Are you saying that DNA is being "transmitted" after it is selected? What is mRNA's part in this? (given it would always exist between "selection" [start point] and protein being made [end point] and to me would fit far better into the encoded-transmitted-decoded paradigm)

We know encoding happened because DNA is not a protein, and it's not a book, either. And we know that if the DNA is damaged, the protein will be damaged in a predictable way (assuming no more errors).

So you don't know?

That does not mean it is ever encoded by the way. Or that the "damage" occurs during transmission. If I damage/change an assembly that too can cause a predictable damage/change to it's end product, would that mean the assembly line has been encoded and is being transmitted?

What is so good about conversations like this is the extreme passion used to keep from answering simple questions, or even admitting reality.

You're right it is fascinating to watch your extreme passion to never answer simple questions such as when DNA is encoded or even admitting the reality you don't even understand cells and DNA enough to recognise mRNA.

 

[MichaelCadry]

is this a chicken or egg question?

You and I both know how Darwin described vestigial. Shortly after that long lists (well over 100) were assembled of body parts that were thought to be biological remnants. The appendix showed up on these lists as a useless organ, and was used to help promote evolutionary beliefs.*

Dear 6days,

I couldn't resist on this one! The chicken came first. Then the egg. God created the chicken. The chicken laid an egg after having sex with the rooster. Just in case anyone ever asks you which came first!!

Tons Of Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

:rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh my.... yet another failed prediction. :devil:

Dear 6days,

Five people ganged up on you!! Isn't it B/S?? They don't play fair. It is ridiculous. You handle yourself well and I am very proud of you. I don't claim to know much about the stuff you are talking about, but I can follow it, with some effort on my part. I don't want to waste tons of brain cells trying to record it all in my memory. I have plenty of brain cells remembering my life and the miracles that have happened to me and all of the things I have learned and been made privy to. Maybe these guys need to go look up my book and read it. Then they might advance forward. Probably not. They are a dense crowd. Oh well, the world isn't going to stop and say to them, "Get Off." God will give you your reward, 6days. I'm sure He is very proud of you too!!

Tons Of Love And Blessings Upon You From Our Lord Above,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear gcthomas,

Really nice to have you posting here lately!! My radiation therapy ended today. They gave me a certificate, but no going away party! Heeheee!! I went there for 5 days a week for 7 weeks. Ay!! Now I can go to bed when I want to and not have to use an alarm clock to get up. It's almost 4a.m. here.

Well, you enjoy yourself while you are here. I am full of joy! Hope you are too!!

Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Mate,

Michael

:guitar: :guitar: :singer:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

Perhaps the appendix produces the good bacteria that your digestive system needs to keep the unwanted bacteria outnumbered. I have been taking a med to help promote good bacteria in my colon. I can't go into specific details, but there are sugar-craving bacteria in your colon and they make you want sugar or high fructose corn syrup, etc. Right now, I am taking sugar-free candies to help me curb the urge to smoke a cigarette. I was taking sugar candies, but it was destroying my colon health. I was having oatmeal with four tbsp. heaping sugar on it. Old Fashioned Oats. Just delicious. Like eating candy. Yumm!! But all of that sugar is not good for me. I also put sugar on my berries {strawberries, blackberries, and blueberries}. I try to eat well. Boy do I. Delectable. I just need to curb my sugar intake. I'm doing quite well now. Oh well, this is all off-topic, so whatever. I sure am glad it is my thread, so it's allowed to me or anyone else who would like to share.

As One Friend To Another!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

I'm not trying to prove much, but what little I'm showing is devastating to common descent.

Let's just accept your proposals about Shannon and DNA for the sake of progressing to the meat of your argument if it exists. What have you proved? What would be so "devastating" about applying Shannon's theories to DNA expression into protein or duplication?

 

[6days]

They don't say "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution".

What exactly did you think the section entitled "Evolution and Conservation of Pseudogenes" was about, if not evolution and pseudogenes?

Your quote...in quote marks was fabricated. They say no such thing.

Beliefs in common ancestry hinder the progress of science and hurt people.

I suppose you can keep repeating that ...

I will... and I can continue to give examples. For example millions of people were exterminated by the nazis. This is directly connected to Darwinism. Nazis tried to create s more fit race by eliminated those they deemed unfit.

This propaganda video was made by the Nazis. It's entitled 'Opfer der Vergangenheit'.*https://m.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next=/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw&client=mv-google

So if scientists' statements are authoritative, what do you make of statements saying that pretty much all of young-earth creationism is wrong?

So if scientists' statements are authoritative, what do you make of statements saying that pretty much all of common ancestry evolutionism is wrong?

Another question dodged. Again, what was that issue of New Scientist about?

Yes... you are trying to dodge by moving the goalposts... and creating strawmen.*

Review: Remember, this started with me saying ""Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"
Watch Dawkins answer...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA**

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time"

You jumped into the conversation with this strawman "They've had to tweak their phylogenies over the years, therefore evolutionary biology is false!"
Well.... that wasn't the argument.
And as far as your tweaking 'argument'.....Darwins tree has been chopped down... hundreds of times. *Darwin didn't know genetics so he tried to fo it with homology. Genetics showed Darwins tree was wrong.*

The imaginary is a tangled mess. There is no evolutionary *tree of life. Hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.

Then...we discussed psuedogenes

Reminder.. 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"

Do you even understand what they're saying? They're saying that psudeogenes that become functional can cause diseases. Is that the sort of "function" you really want to point to as supportive of a "designer"? Are you sure?

Ha.....laughing , but a sad laugh. You are so blinded by your religion. Psuedogenes are not non functional relics that become functional. The article suggests you accept what creationists have been saying for years. Instead of dismissing, ignoring and overlooking these genes as relics... look for purpose and design.*

Science is just beginning to discover the purpose of these genes evolutionists have ignored. For example some so-called psuedogenes may play a role in cancer supression.*

From the journal Nature "Defining ‘junk DNA’ is getting trickier.* Pseudogenes, for instance, have been viewed as non-essential genomic elements and have mostly been ignored.* Well, they shouldn’t be anymore, according to Poliseno and colleagues, who show a clear functional relationship between the tumour-suppressor gene PTEN and its pseudogene PTENP1 (Fig. 1).* This study could have major implications for understanding mechanisms of disease, and of cancer in particular."(Nature #465, June 2010)

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

I couldn't resist on this one! The chicken came first. Then the egg. God created the chicken.

Yes.... of course!
In the beginning, God created.

 

[gcthomas]

Your quote...in quote marks was fabricated. They say no such thing.

Here is the relevant part that he quoted, but in full and with context, which you seem to think he made up:

Pseudogenes are present in a wide range of species, including plants (Loguercio and Wilkins 1998; Benovoy and Drouin 2006), bacteria (Ochman and Davalos 2006) [though they are not as numerous in unicellular organisms (Lawrence et al. 2001)], insects (Ramos-Onsins and Aguadé 1998; Harrison et al. 2003), and nematode worms (Harrison et al. 2001), but they are particularly numerous in mammals (Zhang and Gerstein 2004). EVOLUTION AND CONSERVATION OF PSEUDOGENES Pseudogenes are sometimes considered to represent “neutral sequence,” in which mutations that accumulate are neither selected for or against (Li et al. 1981). However, this premise relies on the assumption that pseudogenes are functionally inert. There is recent evidence that some pseudogenes are functionally active, and therefore, studying their evolution and conservation could support a functional role and give insight into their potential mechanism of action.

 

[6days]

They don't say "We made this discovery under the framework of evolution".

Here is the relevant part that he quoted, but in full and with context, which you seem to think he made up: ".....*therefore, studying their evolution and conservation could support a functional role and give insight into their potential mechanism of action."

Thanks GC.
The quote he gave was made up. It isn't there.*

Function of genes and so called psuedogenes can be found irregardless of our beliefs about the past. And in the case of common ancestry beliefs, it seems to have hindered the progress of science. Psuedogenes were thought to be mostly functionless genes inherited from some common ancestor, and now mutated. The article seems to acknowlege that those beliefs lead to 'psuedogenes' being ignored.*

Research is now finding that these ' evolutionary leftovers' seem to have important regulatory functions for genes. Seems to me that the study of psuedogenes would be much more advanced today had the scientific community started with the assumption that there may be design...purpose....function.*

 

[6days]

And how does 6days characterize Dawkins – “He’s a coward who won’t debate.”

I showed how fellow evolutionists had characterized him as a coward. Here is a non creationist, Christian in an open letter to Richard Dawkins...
Dinesh D'Souza wrote:
"To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away.....

" If you are so confident that your position is right, and that belief in God is an obvious delusion, surely you should be willing to vindicate that position , not only against Bible toting pastors but against a fellow scholar and informed critic like me!

"If not, you are nothing but a show man who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him. "

 

[TheDuke]

according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

You see, this is exactly what happens when you grab all your info on some lame creationist webshite.

How about reading the very next line

(or the entire journal)


Just in case the link fails, here it is:
Yet, the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing. More and more issues in biology, from diverse questions about human nature to the vulnerability of ecosystems, are increasingly seen as reflecting evolutionary events. A spate of popular books on evolution testifies to this development. If we are to fully understand these matters, however, we need to understand the processes of evolution that, ultimately, underlie them. This thematic issue of BioEssays is a survey of these processes and the ways they shape the properties of living things, from bacteria to humans.

 

[TheDuke]

Now let's have some fun

Now let's have some fun

Hello everyone,

Here are some questions I found. Allegedly these were compiled by some creationist organization as a list of things that evolution cannot answer.

I've taken the liberty to remove a few of them from the original list that had nothing to do with the science itself and wouldn't contribute to the point.


So, test yourselves, my dear creationists and rationalists:


1. Which evolved first, male or female?

2. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?

3. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?

4. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

5. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

6. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator.

7. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

8. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

9. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?






Could YOU answer all of them.........

 

[TheDuke]

And even more fun

And even more fun

Supposedly genuine, it's always nice to know that everyone is in fact fully aware of it

:devil:

 

[6days]

You see, this is exactly what happens when you grab all your info on some lame creationist webshite.

How about reading the very next line
ns.[/B]

Ha..... yes, that line is actually the next paragraph. The article goes on discussing empirical, observational science, and things Biblical creationists agree with (genetic variation, mutation rates etc).

Common ancestry beliefs only hinder scientific progress. As the article says... its a superfluous idea.